23rd Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 21
– My question is addressed to you, Mr. President. Will you be good enough to consider procuring a suitable painting by the late Albert Namatjira for display in a prominent position to remind the present generation and succeeding generations of the great service rendered by Namatjira to his own people in particular, and to Australia generally?
– The purchase of a picture of that type would not come within the scope of the activities of the National Library, but I shall invite the Prime Minister’s attention to the honorable senator’s request that such a purchase be made.
page 21
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Will he advise the Senate whether bona fide organizations, such as sub-branches of the Good Neighbour Council, may regularly obtain lists of the names, addresses and nationalities of European migrants arriving in each State? If such lists are obtainable already, will the Minister indicate how they may be procured by non-metropolitan organizations actively interested in the successful assimilation of migrants? Should the answer to the first question be in the negative, will the Minister give favorable consideration to the establishment of procedures to make such lists readily available?
– I can see no reason why lists of this kind should not be made available to bona fide organizations such as sub-branches of the Good Neighbour Council, which has done much good work in regard to immigration. However, I shall refer the question to the Minister for Immigration, who may have other ideas on the subject, since he is in much closer touch with immigration matters than I am.
page 21
– Can the Minister for Customs and Excise say whether it is the intention of the Commonwealth Government to implement the recommendation to demolish the present Customs House in Melbourne and to build a new Customs House on the present site?
– It is not the intention of the Government to proceed in accordance with that recommendation. I understand that a new site has been purchased on the corner of Flinders-street and William-street, which is at present occupied by the old Yarra Family Hotel and two shops. It is proposed to erect a new building on this site, which is directly opposite the present Customs House.I understand that the matter is to be referred to the Public Works Committee very shortly and that it is proposed that provision be made to house other business departments, such as the Department of Shipping and Transport, in the building. This would provide a very comprehensive service right in the heart of the business section of Melbourne. It would be easy of access for the customs and shipping agents who have established premises in the vicinity.
page 21
Australian National Line
– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether it is a fact that the Commonwealth Government, through the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, which operates as the Australian National Line, disposed of four Commonwealth ships to a Sydney firm and refused at the time to reveal the sale price of the vessels. Can the Minister say whether the practice of refusing to reveal the sale price of public assets has been adopted in the past by the Government, and is it to be adopted in the future for transactions that do not involve security information?
– It is a fact, as announced in the press, that the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, operating as the Australian National Line, recently disposed of four vessels at a price which was not disclosed at the time of the sale. It was explained at the time that the reason for non-disclosure of the price was that the purchaser had asked - indeed, he had made it a condition of the sale - that the price be not disclosed. His reason for not wanting the price disclosed was that he did not want his future plans as to the disposal or use of the ships to be prejudiced by such an announcement. Such a practice, to say the least, is not uncommon in negotiations relating to the disposal of vessels; indeed, it is unusual to disclose the price at which vessels are sold. However, when the purchaser had completed the negotiations about which he was concerned, I caused further inquiries to be made of him by the commission to ascertain whether his objection still held. It was pointed out to him that, as he had completed his negotiations, no good purpose could be served by his not disclosing the price. His negotiations having been completed, he consented to the disclosure, and the price was then announced immediately by me.
page 22
– I ask the Minister for National Development whether it is a fact that the world production of uranium has now surpassed the demand. Are uranium producers in Australia covered by contracts under which they receive a satisfactory price? When do those contracts expire, and what is the demand expected to be after that date?
– Senator Scott states the situation fairly accurately. The defence demand for uranium has fallen, and the civil demand for it has not increased at the rate that was expected a few years ago. More mines have come into production since then, and there are now ample supplies of uranium available. It is expected that this position will continue for a few years. It is also expected that the civil demand for uranium will increase and that within five or six years’ time uranium will again be sought after and will again be valuable property. The mining companies concerned with the discoveries of uranium that have been made in Australia are in a fortunate position in that the output of all the mines now in operation is very substantially sold for some four or five years ahead. In four or five years’ time, there will be produced in Australia some uranium requiring a market, and it is hoped that by that time the demand will be high enough to absorb it.
page 22
– My question isdirected to the Minister for National Development. Many weeks ago, the Minister announced the appointment of a committee to inquire into certain problems in the coal industry. What does the committee hope to achieve, and when is its first interim report likely to become available?
– The committee was established in fulfilment of an undertaking in the Prime Minister’s policy speech that we would do our best to establish new uses for - and increased use of - coal. The committee is, I think, a very strong one. We have been very fortunate in being able to persuade those who have agreed to serve upon it to do so. It has not yet commenced its work because two of the gentlemen concerned went overseas just about the time that they agreed to serve. They are expected back in a week or so, and I hope that in the very near future the committee will commence operations.
It is charged with the responsibility of reviewing existing expenditure by the Commonwealth Government upon research into coal. That expenditure is very appreciable indeed, and the extent of the coal research programme is not generally recognized. The number of persons engaged upon it in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is, I believe, about 140. The proprietors’ own research organization has a staff of about 40 and there are also the various staffs similarly engaged in steel works, gas works and other allied industries. So I am hoping that the committee’s first task will be to look at what is being done already - to correlate the information obtained, and to satisfy itself about that information. From that stage forward, it might apply its mind and the scientific facilities available to it, to further promoting developments that will help the coal industry.
I do not pretend that there is a short answer to this problem, but after a great deal of thought about it I am happy in the conclusion that we have reached. Having in mind the calibre of its members, T believe that the appointment of this committee is the best way of going about the matter, and I look forward with very great interest to the results of its inquiries.
page 23
– I desire to ask the Minister for the Navy the following question: As the frigate H.M.A.S. “ Diamantina “ is to be based in Western Australian waters, will he have all the maintenance and repair work needed for this ship done at Fremantle?
– It is the intention of the Government to slip H.MA.S. “ Diamantina “ at Fremantle, and to do refits to her there. The Government intends to have done at Fremantle all the work that can be economically and properly done there.
page 23
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is it a prerequisite for the payment of unemployment benefit that an applicant should produce, each Monday, the signatures of at least six employers to whom, in the previous week, he has unsuccessfully applied for employment? Since what date has such procedure been required? Has there been any adverse reaction to the procedure from employers?
– I have no knowledge of such a requirement, though it is possible that it may exist. It would have been helpful if the honorable senator had given an indication of her reasons for asking whether there is such a requirement. I will inquire into the matter, and will inform the honorable senator in due course of the result of my inquiries.
page 23
– I address the following questions to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service: Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to circulars put out by interested parties which claim that the hearing of claims lodged with the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by the Association of Professional Engineers and sixteen other allied white collar workers’ associations has been held up for a considerable time because the president has had insufficient judges available to constitute the full bench required? Is it a fact that the main delay has been caused because the applicants were not ready to proceed with their case? Is it a fact that the Government has considered the appointment of an additional judge? Will the Minister inform the Senate what is the present position in regard to these applications, and whether the Government regards the appointment of an additional judge as necessary?
– I have noticed the circular referred to by the honorable senator. I understand that at one stage in these proceedings delay did occur because one of the applicants or respondents was not ready to proceed. I should like the honorable senator to place the other questions on the notice-paper. I should think that one of them in particular involves a matter of policy in relation to which an answer cannot be given.
page 23
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration the following questions: Is it a fact that in 1957-58 the Government’s migration target was 115,000 persons, but that the net intake was fewer than 70,000? Does the Government’s decision to increase the target by 10,000 to 125,000 this year mean that we can expect that this year there will be a net migration intake of approximately 80,000 persons?
– The honorable senator’s reasoning is not necessarily logical. It is a fact that the Government’s target in 1957-58 was 115,000 persons. But the honorable senator overlooks the fact that recently the Minister for Immigration was overseas conducting a very vigorous campaign to obtain more migrants for Australia. The Government, in fixing the target for this year at 125,000 persons, believes that that target can be reached.
page 23
Display of Paintings in King’s Hall.
– I preface my question, which is addressed to you, Mr. President, by recalling the fact that on 23rd August, 1770, Captain James Cook took possession of Australia on behalf of King George III. at Possession Island. The 189th anniversary of this outstanding event will occur in two weeks’ time, on Sunday, 23rd August. I now ask you, Sir, whether you will arrange, in consultation with Mr. Speaker, to display in King’s Hall three oil paintings which, at present hang in the basement Those paintings, are the portrait of. Captain: James. Cook, the painting depicting the death of Cook in the Sand,wich Islands, and the painting: of the “ Earl of Pembroke “,. the ship which was subsequently re-named “ Endeavour “, with a portrait of Cook in the foreground. If you are able to make this arrangement, will you arrange for them to be displayed from Monday next until the end of August,, so that Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, and the many visitors who will be in Canberra for her visit, can inspect the pictures and thus honour the memory of the great discoverer of Australia?
– I shall be pleased to confer with Mr. Speaker on this matter. I trust it will be possible to meet the honorable senator’s wishes about the exhibition.
page 24
– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer by pointing out: that at the present time, a more or less wide-spread policy is being, implemented, known in the southern States as the “Sell Australia” policy. It has emanated mainly from Victoria. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that General Motors-Holden’s Limited made a profit of £15,330,000 in the last financial year and paid over £15,000,000 of that sum to overseas shareholders but less than £50.000 to Australian shareholders? Is the Minister aware that an Australian taxpayer making the same profit as General Motors-Holden’s Limited would pay 13s. 4d. in the £1 income tax, whereas only 3s. in the £1 is paid by General Motors-Holden’s Limited? Is the Minister aware that the profit made last year by the company represented 850 per cent, on ordinary capital?
Is the Government likely to set any limit to the exorbitant and blatant profits that are being made - and will continue to be made - by overseas capital or overseas shareholders from Australia’s natural resources? Is not Australia likely to become an economic colony for overseas monopoly capital at a. time when most other countries are struggling to throw off the economic yoke of colonialism?
– I hope that the honorable senator’s reference to the possibility of Australia becoming an. economic colony of another country does not reflect the economic thinking to-day of the once great Australian. Labour Party. The facts are, of course,, that this country needs capital for development and’ that this Government has made every endeavour to attract capital, for that development. I suppose it is the cause of some chagrin to Senator O’Byrne to see the remarkable success that has accompanied the efforts of this Government in that field and to compare the present flow of investment to Australia with the puny flow when his party was in office. He seemed to direct his main attack at General Motors-Holden’s Limited.
– - I shall do the others over in turn.
– You may, and you. will probably achieve, the same result. I was about to refer to the outstanding fact that the efforts of General Motors within Australia have: given rise to an economic activity which has been quite remarkable. There has been development of a nature which could not have occurred had it not been for the economic activities of General Motors and its investment in this country. If Senator O’Byrne wants, an opinion other than a political opinion as to the value of General Motors-Holden’s Limited to this country, I invite him to go to Dandenong or to any other place in Australia where there is a branch of the company and try to persuade the workers there that General Motors-Holden’s Limited does not benefit this country.
page 24
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry set up by the Commonwealth Government is publishing information as to its meeting places for those desiring to give evidence- at public inquiries in each State? Does the Minister know that the committee proposes to hold the Tasmanian sittings in Hobart? As Tasmania’s dairying areas, rich in quality of production, are situated in the northwestern, northern and north-eastern portions of the State, will he ask the
Minister for Primary Industry to consider having the venue of the Tasmanian sittings changed to Launceston? This would be advantageous to witnesses and also would enable members of the committee to see more readily the dairying industry in practice in Tasmania.
– The Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry is an entirely independent body, which decides for itself where it will sit, and it is permitted to sit in any part of the Commonwealth in which it wishes to sit. However, as this suggestion appears to have considerable merit, I shall ask the Minister for Primary Industry to refer it to the chairman of the committee for his consideration.
page 25
– I .preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise, by saying that recently, when I visited Portland to attend a “ Develop the West “ conference, prominent citizens discussed with me the need to obtain an area of land owned by the Department of Customs and Excise, in order to permit the development of the new town plan for Portland. As the Minister is a descendant of the original Portland Hentys and still retains a lively interest in the western district of Victoria, I am encouraged to ask whether he will give sympathetic consideration to the representations of the Portland Council on this matter.
– This matter was raised with me by the honorable member for Wannon as well as by Senator Wade. It has reference to a request by the municipality of Portland for certain land to enable it to implement its town plan. The council has undertaken very great development in harbour works and, wisely looking forward to the development of the town consequent upon those works, it has set out to plan for the future. The new plan envisages a boulevard past the new town hall and the present Customs House, and the Council made a request for portion of the Customs House land. I was able to look at the proposition last week with Melbourne officials of the Department of Customs and Excise, and I have advised the Minister for the Interior that my department is quite prepared to make avail able without cost the land in question to enable the Portland town plan to be carried out.
page 25
– I direct a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I refer to the recent trials of the “ Princess of Tasmania “, and the rousing welcome and good publicity this vessel received upon a surprise entry into, and voyage around, Sydney Harbour. Will the Minister consider bringing this vessel on her maiden voyage offshore of Wynyard and Burnie, and have her steam along the northwest coast of Tasmania to Devonport to enable as many Tasmanians as possible to see this magnificent addition to the fleet of ships trading to Tasmania, which has been provided by the present Commonwealth Government?
– I am delighted that the new senator for Tasmania is no less aware of the existence of Bass Strait than is every other Tasmanian senator. I am very interested in the proposal he makes, sharing as I do his desire that this vessel should be seen and appreciated by as many Australians as possible, because it is, in my belief, a shining example of what Australian thinking, enterprise, resources and labour can do. I shall examine the matter sympathetically, and ascertain whether the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission can agree to his request.
page 25
– I desire to ask the Minister for the Navy a question without notice. As the Minister, by his action in choosing H.M.A.S. “ Leeuwin “ as a training centre for naval personnel, and by his public statements, has shown his awareness of the importance of Fremantle and Western Australia generally as a base in the defence of Australia, will he confer with the appropriate Ministers on the subject of the establishment of a naval base in Western Australia as the natural guardian of freedom in the Indian Ocean?
– As the question of the establishment of a naval base at Fremantle or, more accurately I think from my long memory of this question, Cockburn Sound, is one obviously not only of
Government policy but of high Government policy and one involving very great expense, I do not propose to answer it.
page 26
– Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware that certain criticisms were expressed in the Western Australian “ Daily News “ by overseas air travellers passing through Perth International Airport on Monday, 10th August, about the length of time taken up in completing customs formalities? I hasten to add that the criticism was not directed at the officers concerned, but at the system that they are asked to administer. If this criticism is valid, will the Minister look into ways and means of streamlining the procedures?
– A newspaper cutting containing a report of the criticism by air passengers who arrived at the International Airport at Fremantle about the entry procedure has been forwarded to me. I think, perhaps, that the fact that the plane was three days late and arrived at 5.15 o’clock in the morning had something to do with the criticisms that have been levelled at the Customs authorities. A departmental report that has been submitted to me shows that the luggage arrived in the airport at 6.13 a.m. and the first passenger was cleared at 6.15 a.m. - only two minutes later. All of the 51 passengers were cleared in 55 minutes, which was an average of a little over a minute per passenger. This strengthens my original impression that the criticism had something to do with the fact that the plane was three days late in arriving and landed at 5.15 a.m.
One passenger referred to the fact that certain trinkets, as he called them, were taken from him by the Customs officers, to be held for the duration of his visit to Australia. The department adopted this procedure to save the visitor from paying duty. The passenger declared this jewellery, which was of some value, and in order to obviate the necessity for him to pay duty on it, the jewellery was parcelled by the Customs authorities and sent by safe-hand method to the Collector in Melbourne, from whom the visitor will be able to obtain it when he is about to leave Australia, and thus save paying duty on it.
This procedure was adopted to enable the visitor to Australia to escape having to pay duty on the jewellery. Of course, if duty had been charged it would have been refunded to him when he was about to leave Australia at the end of his visit.
– That is not the normal procedure.
– Yes it is. It has been often done.
– It is not normal to me.
– I realize that nothing is normal to Senator Armstrong. We are very conscious of the fact that the reputation of Australia is of,en made or marred by the way passengers are treated at Australia’s international airports on the first occasion they visit this country. I assure the honorable senator that my officers are very conscious of this fact and that they try to do everything possible to assist visitors so that they will start off after arrival here with a good impression of Australia.
page 26
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am one of a number of senators who have on the notice-paper questions which, in most cases, were asked more than three months ago. Will the Leader of the Government request his colleagues who are concerned to forward to us answers to our questions?
– I shall do my best to ensure that the honorable senator’s request is met. I have, I think, three answers to questions on notice for this afternoon, and perhaps my colleagues have others.
page 26
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice -
– The Minister for Trade has now informed me as follows: -
page 27
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Has the new Academy of Science building shortly to be opened in Canberra been built entirely by contributions from firms, bodies and individuals, or has the Commonwealth Government made any contribution by way of grant, subsidy or other form of assistance?
– The Prime Minister has supplied the following information: -
The Academy of Science made its own arrangements for securing the finance necessary for the erection of its recently completed building and did not receive any grant or subsidy from the Commonwealth Government for this purpose. I am not aware of the details of these arrangements. Since the Academy was founded in 1954 it has received a general purpose grant from the Commonwealth of £10,000 a year.
page 27
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice -
– The Minister tot Trade has now informed me as follows: -
The view expressed in the statement referred to is entirely a matter of judgment. It is doubtful whether any one can say with any assurance what would have happened to wheat prices if the United States had disposed of all wheat production, but there is little doubt that it would have been very damaging to the commercial interests of both Australia and the United States. As it is, the disposal of only a part of the United States accumulated surpluses has damaged the Australian commercial markets and any substantial increase in their disposals would be even more damaging to our commercial interests.
However, these stocks of wheat held by the United States are in existence largely because of their policy of paying a high support price to farmers. The result has been that increasingly large stocks have been overhanging the market for some years. The mere existence of these huge stocks of wheat in the United States and uncertainty regarding disposal policies of that country have caused concern to foreign producers and created doubts in the minds of importers. These factors could have had a depressing influence on world wheat prices.
page 27
Felling of Trees
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -
– The
Minister for the Interior has furnished the following replies: -
page 28
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -
– The Minister for the Interior has supplied me with the following answers: -
page 28
– I lay on the table the following paper: -
Coal Industry Act - Eleventh Annual Report of the Joint Coal Board, together with Auditor-General’s report on accounts for year 1957-58.
The report is accompanied by the AuditorGeneral’s certificate on the accounts of the board as required by section 20 of the Coal Industry Act.
I move -
That the paper be printed.
I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 28
– I lay on the table the following paper: -
Audit Act - Finance - Treasurer’s statement of receipts and expenditure for year 1958-59, accompanied by the report of the AuditorGeneral.
page 28
– I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: -
page 28
Motions (by Senator Spooner) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave of absence for two months be granted to Senator Vincent on account of absence overseas while attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference at Warsaw.
That leave of absence for one month be granted to Senator Sir Neil O’Sullivan on account of illness.
Motion (by Senator McKeuna) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave of absence for two months be granted to Senator Sandford on account of absence overseas while attending the InterParliamentary Union Conference at Warsaw.
page 28
Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1312, vol. S.14), on motion by Senator Sir Walter Cooper -
That the following paper: -
Extension of Television Services - Statement by the Postmaster-General - be printed.
[3.50]. - Honorable senators will recall that, prior to the rising of Parliament for the winter recess, a number of questions were directed to me in the Senate concerning the provision of television services for areas outside the State capital cities, where television stations are either already in operation, or are to commence service later this year or early in 1960. In addition, many personal representations have been made to me on the matter. In reply I have indicated that the question of the extension of television services was being considered by the Government and that when decisions had been made I would make a statement in the Senate on the matter. I am now in a position to inform honorable senators of the steps the Government proposes to take in respect of major provincial and country areas of the Commonwealth.
It has been government policy, right from the outset, to proceed with the establishment of television services in the Commonwealth on a gradual basis, and I am satisfied that this policy has been amply justified by experience. We are now reaching the completion of what I have described as the first and second stages of development - the provision of services in all the State capital cities - and we are faced with the problem of initiating the third stage, which is the extension of the service to major country and provincial areas. Broadly, the areas to be considered in this third phase of television development will be: - Australian Capital Territory - Canberra; New South Wales - Newcastle-Hunter River, Illawarra area, Richmond-Tweed Heads area, and Central Tablelands area; Victoria - Ballarat, Bendigo, Latrobe Valley, and Goulburn Valley; Queensland - Darling Downs, Rockhampton area, and Townsville area; and Tasmania - ^North-Eastern Tasmania.
The centres which I have named are those broadly described in the provisional frequency allocation plan of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which is based on population density in accepted regional divisions. It will be understood that they cover wide areas including large rural areas as well as the towns named. The location of the transmitters in these areas, as well as areas to be covered, has not yet been determined. No doubt, suggestions in this connexion will be made during the inquiry into applications for licences to which I refer later. This further extension of television now planned will mean that 75 per cent, of the Australian people will be able to receive a television service. Consideration of the remaining provincial and rural areas not included in this phase, will be given when this phase is well under way.
For some time, this matter of extensions has been under consideration by the Government. We have been particularly concerned with the commercial television service, the extension of which involves many important and difficult questions both economic and technical, which are not capable of being resolved easily, and as to which there are acute divisions of opinion among those who wish to be permitted to provide services in the areas. On many of these issues it has become clear that more information is required to enable sound decisions to be made, and that that information is likely to be forthcoming on examination, of applications for licences when those seeking them have the opportunity of presenting their cases in public.
The Government has, however, decided that the number of commercial licences in any area should not necessarily be limited to one and that, subject to technical considerations and to the quality of the applicants, more than one commercial service in each area might be licensed
It has decided that, as far as practicable, priority in the grant of such licences would be given to applicants which are local independent companies not associated with metropolitan stations, provided such applicants demonstrate their capacity to provide, in the circumstances prevailing in the area, a service comparable to that available to city viewers, and to conform to the technical and programme standards laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
It has further decided that the actual number of commercial television stations to be established in any of those areas should not be determined until a report on applications for licences has been received from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, as required by the Broadcasting and Television Act.
The Government has, therefore, authorized me to invite applications for licences for commercial stations to service the areas specified, on the understanding that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board should be required, when inquiring into the grant of such licences, to inquire into and specifically report upon the ability and financial capacity of each applicant to provide an adequate and comprehensive programme in the event of other licences being granted which would permit the transmission of programmes in or into the area.
The procedure to be followed with respect to the public inquiries which are to be made, and to the grant of licences, is prescribed in the Broadcasting and Television Act. Before inviting applications for licences for the various areas, it will be necessary for me to discuss with the board the arrangements it is able to make concerning the holding of the public inquiries. I propose to do this as early as possible, and will endeavour to ensure that the matter is proceeded with as quickly as circumstances permit. I should say, however, that a heavy burden will be imposed on the board and that the whole matter will take some time, mainly because prospective applicants will have to be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare their applications.
The Government has decided to maintain its policy of providing dual national and commercial services to viewers. Because of the frequency problems involved, however, no final decision regarding the actual details of the extension of the national service will be made until the control board has completed its inquiries into applications for commercial licences, and submitted its recommendations to the Government. In the meantime, such preliminary work as is possible in the planning of the stations can proceed.
It is expected that the board will take some time to examine the position. Therefore, a final decision on licences is not likely to be made until early in 1960.
– I should not have entered the debate but for what the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) announced in another place, and his representative has now announced in this chamber. I refer to the statement that television will be extended to country centres. It is extraordinary that a statement of that character should have been made without a thorough investigation having first taken place. People in country centres are entitled to see the same, picture on television as is seen by their fellows in the cities, but will that happen? Does the Government intend, yet again, to disregard the advice of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board - offered after evidence has been taken? Will it refuse to give licences to country people who have the wherewithal to buy shares in a tele vision station, even though such a course might be economically sound? The pattern in Australia has been that the licences for the major capital cities have been handed over to the newspaper proprietors, and not to the public generally. Is it not possible that, when the report of the board has been submitted, the Country Press Association will become the controllers of the new television stations?
Let us look at what that would mean. It is proposed that in certain country towns a television studio, with its attendant staff, should be set up. We hear talk of that happening in Canberra and Newcastle. Possibly in both those places there is the potential ability to undertake such a task, but what is the position in country towns where the absence of local industry has caused boys and girls to migrate to the cities, and the population has not increased? The potential for producing television in some country centres does not exist. If such centres want television programmes they will be dependent upon the press of this country to provide it. There is a very strong movement on the part of four stations - Channel 7 and Channel 9 in both Sydney and Melbourne - seeking to obtain the sole rights to television films brought to this country from the United States. If the attempt is successful television viewers in the country will suffer just as country picture theatres have done. They will receive very poor programmes from the film distributors. It would doubtless be regarded as economically unsound to provide good programmes. I suggest that the Government should set up a committee of the Senate on the lines of the joint committee on broadcasting, which sieved similar matters very thoroughly indeed. Such a committee as I suggest could go into country centres and get the full story. It could ascertain the ability of particular country towns to conduct television.
In the great metropolitan areas the programmes are largely devoted to murder, garroting, poisoning and all the villainy that one could imagine. The only variant seems to be the late show - put on when the children have gone to bed. There is not a decent programme among them all. The firm of Warner Brothers has made a fortune. I suggest that if the Government wants to help country people it has the power to do something that would serve a useful economic purpose. Some time ago, I asked what was being done to extend the coaxial cable. The Postmaster-General has told me on several occasions that the work is proceeding. If the Government wants country people to have access to worthwhile programmes while they are waiting for their towns to develop let it extend the coaxial cable. That cable would also provide the telecommunication service.
The Minister has indicated to-day that there could be two commercial licences for each town and that it is also proposed to extend the Australian Broadcasting Commission service. That means there may be three television stations in each of these country towns, which in turn would mean the provision of three studios and three antennas.
– We do not want a monopoly.
– And I do not want a monopoly. If the coaxial cable was extended beyond Tamworth and out to the west, it could be used for telecommunications purposes. One commercial line could be provided, together with a line for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The commercial station could be charged for the use of the line just as a charge is made for the use of land lines for amplitude modulation broadcasting purposes. If coaxial cable were used, anything that happened at a centre between the metropolitan area and the point to which the cable went could be telecast. In that way, a programee could be built up and people in country centres provided with what they wanted and not with a telecast of old films.
This Government has handed over our televisions services to the press. Those services are controlled by the “Sydney Morning Herald “ and the “ Telegraph “ in Sydney, and by the “ Herald “, Electronic Industries Limited and the “ Age “ in Melbourne. In Adelaide they will be controlled by the “ Advertiser “ and the “ Sunday Mail “, and in Brisbane by the “ CourierMail “ and the “ Telegraph “. The result will be that one television station will demand that people buy the “ Telegraph “ and another will demand that they buy the “ Herald “. The Australian Newspaper Proprietors Association meets from time to time, and as the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ has strings in Brisbane and the Melbourne “ Herald “ has strings in Adelaide we will find that the propaganda machine of this nation will be placed in the hands of a few people. Such an arrangement is dangerous for any government.
I have played a big part in the introduction of television into Australia. As a member of the Gibson committee, the Calwell committee and the committee of which I was chairman for seven years, I say that members of those committees never envisaged for one moment that the control of this great entertainment medium would drift into the hands of a great monopoly. We believed that television was for the good of all the people. We did not say that there should not be commercial television; in fact, we never went into the question. What we did suggest was that a parliamentary committee should further investigate the matter with a view to ensuring that, when television was introduced, it would be placed in the hands of the right people because of its effect on the mind of the individual.
What has been done by this Government in the introduction of television has not been in the best interests of the nation. When the Postmaster-General says that the introduction of television to country centres will be submitted to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for investigation, no one can take any notice of him. We need only recall what happened to the recommendations of the board in relation to the introduction of television to Brisbane and Adelaide. The Government determined not to listen to the recommendations of the Board but to proceed with its own proposals. It will do exactly the same on this occasion. If the Government wants to do something for the country people of Australia, let it be honest and give to them what they are entitled to. Let it extend the coaxial cable. Fancy there being three television stations in Tamworth, three in Glen Innes and three at Ballarat or Bendigo! Let the Government be realistic about the matter and give to the people in country centres the programmes that are enjoyed by the city people.
Some authority should be set up to investigate the kind of programme that is given to the people. No group of men would be better equipped to carry out such an investigation than would members of the Senate constituting a select committee. If under the Broadcasting and Television Act unsuitable amplitude modulation broadcast programmes could be stopped, surely unsuitable television programmes could be stopped. There is room for improvement in television programmes, which are having a great impact on the minds of our children. If the Government wants to do something about television services, let it do something realistic in both the directions I have indicated.
– I am grateful to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Sir Walter Cooper) for having introduced this subject this afternoon. However, his statement needs very careful examination. I do not share with Senator Amour the fears that he has with regard to country television services. I believe that the favoured spots mentioned by the Minister will get a good service, because 1 feel that the various stations will ensure that the best programmes that are shown in the city will be shown in country centres’ within a short while of showing in the city. Of course, when the coaxial cable is installed, the benefit will be instantaneous.
Nevertheless, I wish to refer to the favoured spots mentioned by the Minister. It is well to know that the tenth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which was made available to honorable senators yesterday, states, in paragraph 86 -
The next stage in the development of the television services will be their extension to country areas, from many of which representations have been received urging the early establishment of stations. All aspects of the matter are being examined by the Board which has already made interim reports to the Government.
I presume that the subject of those interim reports has been incorporated in the ministerial statement.
South Australia, which State I represent, has not yet had a television service in full operation. I think the Government has done the wise thing in establishing television first in Victoria and New South Wales, because South Australia, Queensland and the other States have been able to proceed with the introduction of television without the teething troubles that were experienced in the larger States. 1 invite the attention of the Senate to the ninth annual report of the Broadcasting Control Board where, in Appendix C, is set out a provisional plan for the assignment of channels for Australian television services. I direct attention particularly to the sections under the headings “ Victoria “, “Queensland” and “South Australia”. It should be remembered that this planning was done some years ago. I believe it was done in about 1954. A good deal of the data upon which that plan was made, especially as it relates to South Australia, has changed considerably in recent years. I crave the indulgence of the Senate to invite its attention to certain areas in Victoria and South Australia that were mentioned in the provisional plan. Four channels each of 100 kilowatts were to be established in the Melbourne area. The population to be served was 1,600,000, and of course there was no doubt that those stations would be established immediately. The board suggested that Ballarat, with a population of 207,000, should have two stations, and one of the areas which it was claimed that the Ballarat stations would serve was Maryborough. Two stations were recommended for the Latrobe Valley and one for Bendigo. One of the areas which it was said would be served by the Bendigo station was Maryborough, an area which was also to be served by the Ballarat stations.
The board suggested that two stations should be established in the Goulburn Valley and mentioned that one of the areas to be served was Kyabram, but we find that area is to be served also from the station at Bendigo. We find, too, that Echuca is to be served from the Goulburn area and also from the Bendigo area, and that Bacchus Marsh is to be served from both the Melbourne and Ballarat areas.
In his report to the Senate, the Minister referred to those four country areas that are to be served, but the appendix to the Ninth Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shows that there is to be a duplication of services to these areas. Eight stations at least are to be established in Victoria and a number of them will serve the same places. I believe that this is a very serious criticism of the Minister’s statement, particularly when we recall, as my friend Senator Mattner did when he interjected, that no provision whatsoever has been made for the extension of country television services to South Australia. On an examination of the Minister’s statement, we see that a number of places iti; Victoria are to be served by more than one television station- The Minister will no doubt be good enough to reply to this debate, and when he does so I should like him to explain why the Government proposes to have this multiplicity of television stations in central Victoria, all within a 100-mile radius of Melbourne, and some within 40 or 50 miles of each other. I feel that that is an explanation that the Minister should be prepared to make to the Senate. r do not want it to be thought that I wish to deny any of those stations to Victoria. Victoria needs television stations in its country districts, but the stations should be spread out more widely. I think that the northern portion of the State, the area around Mildura, and the western districts, including the areas around Hamilton and Horsham have been overlooked. If television services were extended to those areas, reception would no doubt be possible in parts of South Australia. The Renmark area of South Australia has a community of interest with Mildura in Victoria. Both areas are important irrigation centres with a eather limited rainfall. The wheatgrowers also have a community of interest, brought about, no doubt,, as a result of this lack of rain. In the southern parts of South Australia and the western, districts of Victoria are places renowned, for intense pasture development. Those areas possibly could be well served by one or two television stations situated in the Hamilton or Horsham- areas.
– A television station on Mount Gambier1 would serve all the western parts of Victoria.
– It would be possible to service the whole of the Portland, Hamiltion, Mount Gambier and Naracoorte areas with a television station situated at Narracott in South Australia, or at Hamilton or Horsham in Victoria. When broadcasting was introduced twenty years ago, a very powerful station - 3WV - was set up in the Horsham area, and until four or five years ago that station served the whole of the south-east of South Australia quite satisfactorily.
It appears from the report the Minister has submitted to the Senate that the possibility of serving South Australia from Victoria, or of serving Victoria from South
Australia, .has- been somewhat overlooked. As far as 1 can see, South Australia will not get any television reception beyond the metropolitan area. 1 believe that reception in Adelaide and the Adelaide plains will be extraordinarily good, and it may extend 60 or 70 miles into the middle north of South Australia.
I now come to a tremendously important area of South Australia, which is referred to in Appendix C of the Ninth Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board as the Spencer Gulf (North) area. In 1954 the board said that 67,000 people would be served by a station situated in this area, and the towns set out are Port Pirie, Whyalla, Port Augusta, Jamestown and Peterborough,, as well as the rural areas of Wallaroo, Kadina, Clare and Moonta. That figure is now five years old, and since then there- has been a great increase of population in that area. I invite the attention of the Senate to the proclaimed intention of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited to spend, within the next ten years, £40,000,000 on the development of steelworks, shipbuilding yards and so on in Whyalla. I invite the attention of the Senate also to the tremendous growth of population in Port Augusta. We know that the town of Woomera has been developed.
The Spencer Gulf (north) area was reported on quite favorably in the Ninth Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, but there is not a word about it in the Minister’s report. I have mentioned four separate areas within 100 miles of Melbourne - many of them within 40 or 50 miles of each other - that have been referred to as areas for the establishment of television stations. I feel that possibly the board and the Minister’s advisers have worked on old population figures. By omitting the Spencer Gulf (north) projected television station from their calculations, they will do a great disservice to people in important areas of South Australia. I ask the Minister and his advisers to consider the points I have made. By the use of stations in Victoria near the South Australian border, the Murray areas of South Australia and the south-eastern areas of South Australia would be served. I ask that a high priority be given to the matter at providing television in the Spencer Gulf (north) area, by which South Australia could well be adequately served. 1 wish to make just one further observation. If we use Victorian stations to serve some of the isolated parts of South Australia, the Government might well, in a diplomatic way, discuss with the South Australian Government the possibility of using in South Australia the same time system as is used in the eastern States. At present South Australian time lags 30 minutes behind Eastern Australian Standard Time. According to some ignorant people, of course, South Australia is 30 years behind. I believe that that lag of 30 minutes would be a rather objectionable feature when television programmes were transmitted along coaxial cables between South Australia and the eastern States, and also if some parts of South Australia were served by television programmes emanating from eastern States. We should look at this matter of standard time when we are considering the expansion of television in the country. It may be possible to bring South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory on to the same standard time. I think that that would be a step forward, in conjunction with the extension of television services to the country areas of South Australia and other States. It is commendable that the Minister for Repatriation should introduce these proposals to the Senate, but I put forward a plea on behalf of the country areas of South Australia, and I hope that my suggestions will be favorably considered by the Minister, and by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), whom he represents in the Senate.
.- The statement that has been made in the Senate on behalf of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), on the extension of television to country districts, is of very considerable concern to every one of us here and to people generally throughout Australia. It would appear that the experiment of television in Australia is developing very well technically. I do not think that many honorable senators could fault the standards of technical achievement that have been reached by the very able people associated with television in this country. The equipment selected is equal to, or better than, that used in other parts of the world, and Australia has had the advantage of learning from the mistakes of other countries. On the technical level we must commend our technicians, our advisers, and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on having watched closely the standards of television equipment and transmission.
At that point I have to leave the praise and become a little more critical of television as we see it in Australia to-day. As yet, of course, no television stations have been completed in Tasmania. Only a very few people there are able to receive, rather infrequently, transmissions from Melbourne stations. I understand that there are districts on the north-west coast, in the area in which Senator Lillico lives - Burnie, Wynyard and Smithton - where freak conditions exist, as a result of which Melbourne transmissions hit the ionosphere and are reflected back, and very good reception is enjoyed. Generally, we may say that Tasmania has yet to engage in this very interesting and important phase of human activity, the viewing of television programmes.
As an observer and a layman, I am very disappointed indeed with many aspects of television in Australia. It could and should be made a tremendous power for good. One of the great advantages of television is its power to bring to people the message of community living. On most occasions when I have been in capital cities where video is available, I have seen on television the old-fashioned, depraved type of American gangster film and the oldfashioned “ shoot’em up “ western film, studded with violence. Something better than that should be expected from the people responsible for transmitting television programmes. The alteration caused to family life by television is on such a scale that we do not yet know what its final ramifications will be. One of the effects has been that very many suburban theatres have been closed because their normal, traditional clients, the suburban dwellers, prefer staying in the comfort of their own homes and being entertained by television to visiting picture theatres. I have yet to see on television - particularly commercial television - a film that does not have shooting, other violence or intrigue as its main theme. An old saying is that business is business. If people can be interested in that type of thing and a bigger viewing public attracted, the sales of the products of advertisers will increase, which in turn will bring greater profit to television stations. We are forced to consider where we are going in our philosophy of life and our way of living. What will be the final impact on the youth of this country, who have to grow and be educated to compete in a world which is fast appearing to become smaller as a result of improved communications and speeding up on every level? If we continue to allow the minds of children of the most impressionable ages - when they are at home in the family circle and not going out to pictures and other entertainments - to be influenced by utter tosh and rubbish pushed out by the television stations, we shall have to look to our laurels when the time comes for our young people to compete against those of other countries where such telecasts are prohibited.
– But the Russians want Marshall Matt Dillon of “ Gunsmoke “. Is not that screened regularly in Moscow?
– If the honorable senator appeared on television he would cause some amusement.
– You have not answered my query.
– Senator Hannan seems to be an authority on Russia and to know what the Russians want on thentelevision shows.
– That is so.
– You should work for the secret service.
page 35
(Senator Anderson). - Order! The honorable senator should address the Chair.
– I shall be happy to debate the matter with Senator Hannan at some other time. The Government has cut across the recommendations of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and it has disregarded the board’s well thought out and informative report regarding the number of licences that should be issued in country areas. As the number of television stations increases more people will seek to advertise through them and consequently the type of programme that will be transmitted will be such as to appeal to the mob instinct - the lowest common denominator.
First priority in the country areas should be given to the Australian Broadcasting Commission which is responsible, in the final analysis, to the Parliament and the people of Australia to present high quality programmes, which contrast sharply with those of private enterprise stations which are responsible only to their own shareholders.
It is quite obvious that the tendency has developed for newspapers and radio stations to effect a commercial marriage and go into the field of television, thus forming a trinity which practically monopolizes the whole field of public information. As a result of this Government’s policy, that tendency will undoubtedly spread to the country areas. There is no denying the fact that a one-track information service now operates in this country. The tie-up between the newspapers and the radio and television services is now such that only a man who is blind or purblind could fail to be concerned about it. The Minister spoke at length about the desirability of preventing city interests from dominating the television field, and he referred to the necessity to license independent people in the country districts. We are well aware of tie-ups throughout country areas, such as the Macquarie broadcasting network, and it is inevitable that the same conditions will prevail when eventually television licences are granted for country areas.
The Minister referred to the extension of television services to various parts of Australia, including the Australian Capital Territory. In view of the fact that visitors from other countries are continually coming to this important part of Australia, and that many international diplomats live here, only programmes of the highest quality should be transmitted in the Territory. Furthermore, this Parliament should adopt as its definite policy the principle that the first television licence in the Australian Capital Territory shall be granted to the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
Experiments in colour television, which is the next phase of television development, should be proceeded with. In the United States of America and in parts of continental Europe colour television is already an established fact. In Australia, of course, we must crawl before we can walk, but we should anticipate the eventual advent of colour television. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has maintained a very high standard of radio programmes, which has been praised by visitors from other countries of the world. I am afraid, however, that that cannot be said of the programmes that are broadcast by the commercial stations. I urge the Government to take steps to ensure that when television services are extended a higher standard of advertising in the commercial field will be observed than the present standard.
Another important factor to be kept in mind is the impact of television broadcasting on the cost of living. There is tremendous competition between manufacturers in Victoria to obtain desirable telecasting time on the popular stations. I understand that some manufacturers are prepared to pay fabulous amounts of money for the most popular television viewing times provided - and this is the qualification - that no television time whatever on that station is sold to their competitors. Thus, a wealthy firm can use this form of advertising to the detriment of its competitors. It may be said that the competitors could go elsewhere, but after all there is only a limited viewing public and a limited number of television stations. I feel certain that the firms which are able to curry most favour with the television operating companies will make the greatest sales and will be able also to do immense harm, on the economic level, to their competitors. Those are factors that are arising as a result of the advent of television in Australia.
I believe that the control of television should be in very careful hands. Without honesty in advertising and in the use of gimmicks designed to attract the attention of the public through the press, radio and television, great harm can he done to the people of Australia. There is such a thing as subliminal advertising. Some time ago there was an outcry and it was suggested that such a form of advertising should be banned. I understand that by this means of advertising an appeal is made to the subconscious. A flash crosses the television screen, and although it is not visually recorded it is recorded on the sub-conscious mind of the viewer and has a certain hypnotic effect on him. That is one of the unknown influences that may be exercised for a bad purpose and against which there should be very strong resistance. However., because of the keenness of competition in business to-day and the desire of many organizations to advertise their commodities during the limited viewing times, no doubt there will be a tendency to make increasing use of the gimmicks that are known to advertisers.
Therefore, Mr. Acting Deputy President, I firmly believe that the Government should not leave this very important phase of the development of television in the hands of self-interested and so-called private enterprise organizations. It is the responsibility of governments to-day more or less to ensure that the people for which they are responsible are so governed that their welfare and their well-being are protected and enhanced. I believe that the dominating and motivating influence of private industrial selfseekers in the field of television warrants close scrutiny by the government of the day. I hope that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, in its wisdom, will watch carefully the activities of television licensees in country areas with a view to seeing that they live up to both the spirit and the word of the provisions under which their licences are granted. By that means, I hope that viewers in country areas will enjoy programmes of a standard equal to those that the city people enjoy. Indeed, I hope that a higher standard will be set and that the country people will be able to derive both pleasure and education from television programmes. I trust that they will not be treated to some of the trash that is being broadcast by television stations in the cities at the present time in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator and for the purpose of selling viewing time.
The Postmaster-General, at the conclusion of the statement that he made in the House of Representatives on 30th April last said -
Regarding the national service, the Government has decided to maintain its policy of providing dual national and commercial services to viewers. Because of the frequency problems involved, however, no final decision regarding the actual details of the extension of the national service will be made until the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has completed its inquiries into applications for commercial licences, and submitted its recommendations to the Government. In the meantime, such preliminary work as is possible in the planning of the stations can proceed.
Recently, we saw how Ansett-A.N.A. had been given a long lead on its competitors and had been enabled to enter the best fields of aviation, to the great economic disadvantage of Trans-Australia Airlines. I believe that the same idea is in the mind of the Government and the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in allowing commercial television stations to become established before national stations, which would provide programmes of a higher quality, have been established. I hope that the Government will see fit to reconsider its policy in this respect and allow national television stations to be established in country areas, thus setting a standard for private enterprise or commercial stations - whatever we like to call them - to live up to.
– Some very constructive thinking has been revealed in speeches from both sides of the Senate on this important subject. I welcome the opportunity to make my humble contribution to the debate. We are discussing specifically, or we should be, the extension of television services to country areas. It is abundantly clear that this is an issue of great interest to country people. For that reason, I think that those of us who endeavour to contribute to the debate should do so constructively, and that we should, to the greatest possible extent, confine our remarks to the matter under discussion.
I was impressed, Sir, by the statement of Senator Amour, from the other side of the chamber, that the country viewer should be able to view television programmes of the same quality as those broadcast to city viewers. I go all the way with the honorable senator in that respect, but I cannot go any further with him, because he went on to say that he could not see the wisdom in television stations being established under the management of one, two or three different organizations in country towns. He went on to say that the coaxial cable should be used to transmit programmes emanating from the cities. Then he claimed that the city television programmes left much to be desired and, in effect, were to be condemned to some extent because they were in the hands of monopolists. I wish to say to honorable senators opposite that apprehensions regarding monopolies are not confined to their side of the chamber.
Because there is obviously some muddled thinking on this subject, 1 think it fair to the Government to retrace briefly its efforts to introduce television in Australia so that it would have nothing but the best possible effect on the economy and the community generally. I think it is also fair to say that the impact of television on the Australian community has been less noticeable than in any other country of the world. At this point of time I suggest we should consider briefly some of the aspects of the introduction, of television by this Government.
The Government laid down a programme that would be completed in four stages. For the first stage, it took the two major capital cities, Melbourne and Sydney,
– Sydney and Melbourne.
– My friend from Queensland is notorious for the fact that he fondly hopes that some day Queensland will grow up and be able to compete with Sydney and Melbourne. I hope, for the good of Australia,, that the achievement of that ambition is not far distant.
The Government decided to make two television licences available for Melbourne and two for Sydney. The machinery of calling applications for the licences was put into operation, and at the same time the Government went ahead with its policy of establishing national stations in those two cities. Thus, in the very first phase of the introduction of television into Australia we had positive proof that the Government was determined that there should be no monopolies in television. To support that, I mention the fact that there was competition for the two commercial licences in Sydney and in Melbourne, and there was also the establishment of a national station in each of those cities. That should indicate to any one who views the matter impartially that the Government had taken a positive step to prevent the establishment of monopolies.
The Government then went ahead with the second phase of its policy, and that is now almost completed. It embraces the establishment of two commercial stations in Brisbane, two commercial stations in Adelaide, one in Perth-
– Poor little Perth!
– One commercial station in Hobart and a national station in each of those cities. My friend from Western Australia interjects ~” Poor little Perth “! That is a matter of great concern to us who live in Victoria but I point out that we have done our utmost for years and years to make available the finance necessary to enable Western Australia to develop. Those who criticize the Government’s decision to allow only one commercial station for Perth and one for Hobart could well argue that the monopolistic tendency was coming to the fore in those instances; but that is only part of the story. Those who care to study the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will learn that there are two applicants for a commercial licence in Hobart and that the Government very wisely laid it down that the licence would be given only to local applicants. It was determined that monopolies should not dominate television throughout the Commonwealth, and the interesting part of the Hobart story is that both the applicants for the one commercial licence knew that only one licence was to be granted and applied for it on the condition that only one such licence would be granted. The Hobart applicants knew full well that the resources available in that city were not sufficient to permit of the successful establishment of two commercial stations. If the Government had any desire to pander to monopolists, it could well have said, “We shall have two commercial stations, and the necessary finance will be made available for them “. But that was not done, and I mention that fact as a complete answer to the charge that the Government has been pandering to monopolies. As I have said already, the establishment of national stations alongside commercial stations has made for a high standard of programme and keen competition.
I suggest that those who speak of monopolies are thinking in terms of an undertaking or a business transaction without competition. Any one who has even the most elementary knowledge of television undertakings knows that the fiercest competition has taken place between the commercial television stations. He knows that at the very outset trained staff was at a premium, that inducements offered by the various organizations to prospective personnel were most generous and that the competition for staff was fierce. There is no doubt in my mind that each licence holder was determined to build his organization as quickly as he possibly could.
The same thing applied in the battle to obtain sponsors. The operators of any television station know full well that unless they can command a high rating from the viewing public their station has no appeal to the sponsor. For that reason, the objective of these operators is to attract such a vast viewing public that they can attract a wide range of sponsors. That competition for sponsors is as fierce to-day as it can possibly be.
I heard it said to-day that the programmes being offered, especially those offered by commercial stations, are open to criticism. I do not think that can be disputed. I do not think any programme ever presented escapes criticism, but we should remember certain factors when criticizing these stations, lt has to be remembered that the sponsor wants only a programme that will appeal to the public. We must remember aso that at this stage of our history television is still a novelty, and, because it is a novelty, the people are not selective. Their first urge is to have television, as is evidenced by the fact that we hear only too often over the radio such announcements as, “ If you ring number so-and-so we will have a television set installed in your home within one hour “. The commercial interests are still exploiting the people’s eagerness to have this new form of entertainment and their willingness to accept programmes which I have no doubt will be most unacceptable within a few years. I think, too, that it is fair to say that our programmes are in a state of evolution. It is also fair to say that the national stations have a great influence in improving the standard of those programmes. The national stations have a great responsibility in this direction. They have the responsibility of so improving the standard of the programmes that the commercial stations must improve their standards or lose their appeal to the public, and in that direction alone the national stations are rendering most valuable service.
T have been listening for some evidence that honorable senators opposite have given proper attention to the Minister’s statement relating to television for country areas. I do not wish to be unjust to honorable senators opposite, but I feel that they have been more concerned to criticize the Government’s policy relating to television programmes rather than to give proper attention to the Minister’s statement which is of vital importance to country residents. 1 suppose there are some in the country who support honorable senators opposite, and I suggest that the few who do so have a right to expect some worthwhile contribution from the Opposition in this matter. For that reason, I turn to the Minister’s statement in the hope that I shall be able to fill in the gaps which I see in the criticism levelled by honorable senators opposite.
In the fourth paragraph of his statement, the Minister sets out the new areas that it is proposed to cover in the third phase of television development- Because of my knowledge of the terrain there, I shall confine my remarks to the proposed new areas in Victoria, although I think it fair to say that no right-thinking person would deprive Canberra of a share of enjoyment from the Australian television system. Because of its isolation, Canberra can offer only restricted entertainment to those who come to serve in the area, and for that reason alone I feel sure that Australia as a whole will not grudge Canberra its share of enjoyment from television.
– So long as we do not have parliamentarians on the screen.
– Senator Cole makes a worthy contribution with that interjection, and when 1 look at my friends opposite I heartily endorse what he says. The Minister’s statement sets out that the four areas in Victoria which are to have the privilege of lodging applications for licences are Ballarat, with a population of 121,000, Bendigo, which will serve 147,000 people, the Latrobe Valley, which will cater for the needs of 102,000 people, and the Goulburn Valley, which will serve 90,000 people. No doubt one could state an excellent case for additional licences for Victoria - I hope to be able to do that later - but it must be admitted that it should be the desire of any government to do the greatest good for the greatest number, being ever mindful, of course, of the rights of the minority.
After discussing the four areas I have mentioned, the Minister went on to say -
The extension involves many important and difficult questions, both economic and technical . . . more information is required to enable sound decisions to be made and that . . information is likely to be forthcoming on examination of applications for licences when those seeking them have the opportunity of presenting their cases in public.
That is a very sound statement indeed because, television, unlike radio, is governed to a very great extent by the terrain of the country. For instance, 1 could argue that because Ballarat is within 70 miles of Melbourne it should be within range of the television stations already established in Melbourne. I could argue the same way in connexion with Bendigo and even the Latrobe Valley, but to do so would be to indicate that 1 was not conversant with the terrain of the areas in question. As all honorable senators know, such things as hills and mountains have a bearing on the reception of television in low-lying areas. For that reason, 1 suggest that any criticism of the locations mentioned in the Minister’s statement would be unsound. The Minister says quite rightly that the public hearings by the Australian Broadcasting, Control Board will indicate whether licences should be granted for the establishment of stations in any particular spot, and I am only hoping that the board will give consideration to granting licences in areas where the greatest good can be done for the greatest number.
– Are you satisfied that the Government will take notice of what the board says or will it do as it did last time - send the matter back to the board and tell it to grant two licences in places where the board had recommended only one?
– I am quite sure that the Government will take every care to see that the policy outlined in the Minister’s statement is strictly followed. Those who seek to criticise monopolies have’ an obligation to do their utmost to help the Government carry out the policy it has laid down. I hope that we shall have the co-operation of honorable members opposite in that regard. That brings me to the next part of the Minister’s statement, which reads: - . . priority in the grant of such licences would be given to applicants which are local independent companies not associated with metropolitan stations, provided such applicants demonstrate their capacity to provide … a service comparable to that available to city viewers ….
Let us consider the matter in easy stages. The Government has set down quite clearly its determination that licences shall be granted to independent, local companies.
But the- Government cannot grant a licence to such a company unless it applies for a licence. Therein lies a challenge to country people, in whose hands the Government is placing the promotion, financing and running of a station that will render them great service. 1 suppose that some of the critics of the Government will say, “ Yes, but the Government has a way of getting round that by suggesting that applicants must provide a service comparable to. that available to city viewers “. That is not, as might be thought, an escape clause. It merely expresses what any responsible government would require as a condition precedent to the granting of a licence. As a matter of practical politics, honorable members opposite would, if by any mischance they came to government, insert a similar requirement. They would not grant a licence to a company that could not give a satisfactory service. To do so would reflect on their wisdom as a government. The householder in the country must, like his city fellow, pay £200 or more for a television set. He must likewise pay £5 for a licence, and therefore the Government has wisely decreed that no one shall be granted permission to operate a television service unless it is adequate.
I have no quarrel with that, but I remind any one who believes that country people have not the finance, the knowledge and the ability to provide a service comparable’ to that provided in the cities, that country towns have been built by country men; that the many successful country businesses throughout the length and breadth of Australia have been built by country men; that the country municipalities, which have given such magnificent service to this country, have grown through the labours of country men. Who will say to me now that country people cannot support a television station?
I want to conclude with a plea to the Government for early consideration of the claims of one section of Victoria that has been left out of the picture. I refer to the western part of the State between Portland and Mildura, an area that serves at least 120,000 people. The people of this area cannot obtain programmes from any station operating at present, nor will they be able to when the four services named by the Minister have been established. Because of the vastness of the region, and its particular terrain, one station could’ serve a substantia] section of the population, lt is interesting to note that there is a difference of only some 30 feet in the height above sea level of Hamilton and Mildura. If any honorable senator seeks proof of that assertion, I remind him that the great Mallee water channel scheme, which starts in ihe Grampians near Horsham, flows northward almost to Mildura. There are in that locality; between Portland and Mildura, some ready-made bases for a television station. Odd hills and mountains, which have apparently been of no real value to the region hitherto, could now be put to a practical use.
My plea to the Minister on behalf of this area is not with a view to the people having television for the sake of having it but because, if we are to retain people in rural areas, we must provide them with the same facilities as are enjoyed by the city dweller. When I look at the. figures which show the fall in farm income, I am inclined to say that unless something is done to arrest the decline the economy of the nation will soon be in dire straits. I urge the Minister to give very serious and speedy consideration to the claims of the area. Senator Laught referred to the fact that South Australia was not mentioned in this scheme for the extension of television services.
– Our time will come.
– Your time will, come, but I want to do something for you. I suggest that, if you join me in a plea to the Minister for the speedy extension of television services to the Mallee-Wimmera area, because of your close proximity to lt you will be able to share in the. benefits. Being large-hearted Victorians, we, as always, will be very happy to share with you any benefits that we obtain.
The area to which I have referred will be included in the fourth phase of the Government’s plan. What I have said about the need for the extension of television services to that area applies equally to many other parts of the country. When the fourth phase is completed, another 20 per cent, of the people will be covered, making a total coverage of 95 per cent. If, because of lack of finance, the Government cannot provide a national service in such areas, it should give early consideration to allowing commercial stations to be established there. That is all I wish to say about my own local interest in the matter.
I conclude by saying - I am very sincere when I do so - that I believe the Government has shown great wisdom in its handling of the introduction of television into Australia. The impact of television on our economy has been handled in such a way that it has hardly been noticed. I believe that, when television is eventually extended over the whole length and breadth of the land, the Government will be commended for its handling of the matter and that the Postmaster-General in particular will be commended for the part he has played.
– I thank Senator Wade for acknowledging the fact that there are people in Australia who live beyond the borders of Victoria, even though he did so only within the last minute of the time he occupied. I think we should all be grateful for the fact that he was prepared to make that acknowledgment.
– You will not be parochial, will you?
– I intend to be very parochial. Despite what Senator Wade attempted to convey to the Senate, we on this side of the chamber have just as much interest in the provision of amenities for country people as have supporters of the Government. In fact, our record proves that we have a greater interest than they have.
Despite the dissatisfaction of Senator Wade, we find that in the statement presented this afternoon by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Sir Walter Cooper) there is considerable reference to areas in Victoria which will enjoy the privilege of a television service immeasurably sooner than will areas in other States. Apparently Senator Wade requires a 100 per cent, coverage for Victoria and is then graciously prepared to consider the needs of the rest of Australia.
– He is prepared to let you look at the rays that come over the border.
– He was prepared to come a microscopic distance over the border, and I commend him for doing so. Although that action on his part may be regarded as being a sign of weakness, at least he is prepared to be helpful. Because of the kind of electoral gerrymandering in which the Playford Government has indulged over the last twenty years, we in South Australia would require television stations in very few country centres in order to cover 80 or 90 per cent, of the entire population of the State. As Senator Hannaford knows, if a station were placed at Port Pirie, another in the region of Mount Gambier, and another in the River district, very little of South Australia would be without a television service. That is because of the decentralization-in-reverse policy that the Playford Government seems: intent on perpetuating. We in South Australia are just as cognizant of the needs of country people as are honorable senators who represent other States, and we are looking forward to the day when television services will be extended to country areas. We are disappointed to note that, even though South Australia is not to be included in the third stage, there is no indication in the statement presented to-day ‘that we will be included even in the fourth stage.
Despite the skilful evasions of Senator Wade, honorable senators on this side of the chamber are adamant that there is a monopoly in the field of television, the growth of which has been aided and abetted by the Government. Of what use is it for Senator Wade to say that there are two stations in South Australia, one of which is run by the “Advertiser” and the other by the “News”? To suggest that that is competition is to suggest that there is competition as between Caesar and Caesar. Both those newspapers are great monopoly organizations and their community of interest is complete and absolute. To suggest that they are in competition is quite wrong. With the advent of television to Australia, there has been a worsening of the already great monopolistic trend in the field of mass communications. Members of the press banded together to gain complete control of the written word and, despite what might be said by honorable senators opposite, were successful in their efforts. Then the press intruded into the field of radio broadcasting and gained a complete monopoly. In the field of television the same trend is manifesting itself. We see passing into fewer and fewer hands in this country the power to control the dissemination of mass propaganda on a basis we have never known previously.
Let us have a look at the statement which was made about the provision of country television services. Senator Wade said that if people in the country districts were able to provide the necessary finance, they could act independently of existing services in the capital cities. We need to read paragraph 9 of the statement very carefully. It is as follows: -
It has decided that, as far as practicable, priority in the grant of such licences would be given to applicants which are local independent companies not associated with metropolitan stations-
Here is the nigger in the woodpile - provided such applicants demonstrate their capacity to provide, in the circumstances prevailing in the area, a service comparable to that available to city viewers.
It is my contention that in most country towns there are not people who would be able to invest tremendous sums of money in the establishment of television stations. We ought to give consideration to the amount of money that is required to put into operation television services in the capital cities. We would then realize the inability of local residents or local interests in country centres to provide similar services.
– The licence rates and fees would be graded accordingly. Th’; cities would bear the main expense and the country areas would have all the concessions.
– That is another aspect of the problem. I am dealing with the difficulty of finding the capital. We know that the reason why great newspaper interests gained initial control of television in this country was that they were among the few organizations that had the necessary capital to go into that field. We know the tremendous amount of capital required, and as a consequence we know that people in country areas will not be able to find sufficient money to provide the initial services on a local basis. The country services will trickle back to the main channel of monopoly, and we will have one huge octopus before the thing finishes. It is no good for honorable senators on the Government side to suggest that we will have free and independent country television services. I am confident that within five years after the country services have been instigated and put into operation we will find the same old names appearing on the balance sheets as appear on the balance sheets of the organizations now controlling television in the capital cities throughout Australia.
I want to speak now about the quality of programmes. It has been said during the course of this debate that the existing programmes are satisfactory. In the limited opportunity that I have had to view television in Adelaide - admittedly television is new to South Australia - the programmes I have seen have been in the main utter tripe. In fact, they are an insult to the intelligence of the people of South Australia who have been able to purchase television sets.
– You should have seen the programmes that were shown during Labour session in the federal election campaign.
– I am glad that Senator Hannan agrees with me when 1 say that a considerable amount of tripe is being fed to the Australian people on television programmes. On page 34 of the Tenth Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, in a section dealing with programme services, the following statement appears: -
It has also been found by licensees,-
Not as a result of an independent investigation, but by licensees - through audience measurement surveys, that the public generally prefers imported films to local live productions. The consequent rearrangement of programmes has, to some extent at least, led to the removal of live programmes from peak viewing periods, and even caused some live programmes to be abandoned altogether.
The board goes on to say that this unfortunate development is discussed at a later stage in the report. By what means did the licensees - not an independent committee - arrive at that conclusion?
– From the fact that they have to make a living out of it. They are the best people to know.
– That is the whole point. They arrived at this conclusion, not because they were considering the legitimate requirements of the viewers, but because more money was to be made from the syndicated rubbish they were getting from overseas. Senator Henty obligingly helps me with my proposition. I say that the licensees are the last people in the world who should be permitted to pose as authorities on what is required by the Australian television viewing public.
– Who would you ask to judge this question?
– I would not ask Senator Hannaford. I make the point that whoever would be the most suitable persons to determine the nature of programmes, the vested interests that the licensees have in the situation would preclude them from doing so fairly. I do not think anybody will disagree with me on that.
I agree with the suggestion, made by Senator Amour earlier in this debate, that a select committee should be appointed, lt should examine, not only the establishment of television stations in country centres - 1 think it could do very valuable work in that direction - but also means to promote the ever-increasing use of live programmes in the field of television. Having regard to what I have seen in South Australia, where television is in its infancy, 1 shudder to think what the future holds for the viewing public of our cities. The more sophisticated people of the eastern States, such as Victoria and New South Wales, would probably have a better idea than I have of the situation in their own States, but T have not heard any honorable senator on the Government side, who represents either of those two States, say during this debate that the people are satisfied with the type of programmes they are getting. I contend that we have a vast pool of Australian entertainers who could provide television viewing audiences with much better programmes than they are getting now, when programmes are comprised mainly of syndicated rubbish from overseas.
A very significant feature of present programmes is that 22 per cent, are devoted to adventure and crime. This means that 22 per cent, of the programmes at which our children look depict crime, murder, horror and torture, things which should not be imprinted on the minds of young children. It is a matter of eternal disgrace to this country that the Government did not take steps long before this to see that that sort of thing was curtailed. It is idle for Senator Wade to suggest that the whole responsibility for uplifting the standard of programmes rests with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Government cannot by-pass the responsibility which rests with it. It is to the Government’s eternal disgrace that it has permitted a situation to develop in this country where 22 per cent, of the programmes from our television stations are devoted to crime and horror - things that are repugnant to people with Christian principles.
What I say in conclusion may not nave a direct bearing on this debate, but the Government should consider it. Television sets should conform to some prescribed standard. Thousands of people throughout the country are paying a tremendous amount of money to install television sets in their homes. The average set costs about £200, and to the ordinary citizen that is a tremendous sum. There should be some supervision of standards to ensure that people are protected against getting cheap, shoddy and useless articles. I refer not only to the sets themselves, but also to accessories and replacements. This debate has at least resulted in our giving some thought to matters to which we should be applying our minds, and I hope that the Government will consider the points I have raised.
.- I follow my friend, Senator Wade, in saying that many points of substantial interest to the Australian community have been raised in this debate by senators on both sides of the chamber. I cannot go all of the way with my friend, Senator Toohey, but there is undoubtedly room for criticism of some aspects of programmes. If the South Australian city programmes are such utter tripe - 1 think that is the word he used - surely he should support the Government’s idea of independent country telecasters who will be able to get away from this tripe and give a better service. Frankly, I think the very grave criticism which has been made of the programmes is entirely unwarranted. In the two capital cities of which I have had some experience, there is a national channel and there are two commercial channels. If, during any one evening, a person who was spinning the dial between the three channels could not obtain a programme that was either educational or entertaining, he would be very hard indeed to please:
The programmes that we get in Australia have shown a marked improvement over the period of a little more than two years during which our television stations have been operating. It may be of interest to Senator Toohey to know that many of the popular western series dealing with gunplay, which he apparently holds in such abhorrence and which are made in the United States, have synchronized sound dubbed on them in very many foreign languages. Programmes such as “Hopalong Cassidy” are played by the Japanese and, as I mentioned earlier in an interjection to Senator O’Byrne, I think “ Marshall Dillon of Dodge City “ is screened regularly in Moscow, although I understand that the Russians barrack for the Indians.
The first point that stands out in the statement of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Sir Walter Cooper) is the cautious approach the Government has made in the implementation of this new electronic miracle in Australia, and the care with which it is being extended to country centres. It is good, as Senator Wade pointed out, to remember that it is only six and a half years since a committee set up by this Government recommended, after a careful inquiry, the terms and conditions upon which television should be introduced into Australia. Putting the cart before the horse for the moment, and dealing with some of the technical aspects, may I say that so well did that committee do its job that now, in 1959, if we exclude the experimental American and Continental colour film transmissions, the Australian television picture is regarded as better technically than any other picture screened anywhere else in the world, with the exception of Western Germany. The committee, which recommended that Australia should have a picture of 625 lines, has served us very well. The British, pioneers in this field, have had to be content with a picture giving the reduced definition of 450 lines, whilst our American cousins, who have been to the forefront in so many electronic developments, have to be content with 575 lines in a picture. The only country in the world which has a higher line scanning definition than our own is France, with lines in the vicinity of 950. But as the technical people so wisely pointed out, the increased difficulties concerned with synchronization and other technical matters indicate that the standard chosen by the committee in Australia has turned out to be the best in the world, and this is something in which we should take some pride.
I should like at this stage to pay a tribute to the technical officers of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. The department has radio and television engineers who are second to none in the world. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the private engineers who have set up the commercial channels have given us a technical service without which the very best, most educational, and most expensive programmes would be utterly worthless, because nobody would bother to watch them. So to this Government we should say: “Thank you very much. You have given us a television technical service that is without peer in the world “.
It is also good to know - I give the Labour government of the day some credit for this - that the Australian radio manufacturers have responded magnificently to the challenge of television. I make no bones about the fact that it is partly due to the action of Mr. Scullin in the 1930’s that the Australian radio industry has grown and flourished in the way that it has done. At the commencement of the 1930’s, Mr. Scullin banned the importation of foreign radio equipment, which gave the necessary stimulus to local manufacturers. By the time we were engaged in fighting a bitter struggle for existence in World War II., so strong had that radio industry become that our allies, Great Britain and the U.S.A., were both proud and glad to secure and use some of our radio equipment. Just as an example, I can recall the brilliance of some of our engineers in relation to a piece of British Admiralty equipment which was as big’ as a cabin luggage trunk, and which was required for use in various parts of a ship. I shall not go into detail, but the equipment was heavy, expensive, cumbersome, and very difficult to put in. Australian radio engineers, under their own steam, devised and built equivalent equipment which could be carried in one hand and which, before the end of the war, was adopted by the Admiralty.
I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 5.44 to 8 p.m.
page 45
Motion (by Senator Spooner) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to encourage the search for petroleum in Australia by subsidizing stratigraphic drilling and certain other operations.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
– I move -
Tha t the bill be now read a second time.
This bill aims to extend the search for petroleum in Australia by increasing the scope of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act which I introduced in this Senate in November, 1957. At that time, interest in the search for oil was at a low ebb. There had been no discovery of petroleum anywhere in the Commonwealth since the strike at Rough Range in Western Australia late in 1953. During 195.8, the sum of £5,500,000 was spent by private enterprise on the search for oil in Australia, bringing the total expenditure from both private and Government sources to £56,500,000 at the end of 1958. At that time, a total of 443 holes had been drilled; this figure includes both the holes drilled for the purpose of finding oil and those drilled to obtain the stratigraphic information without which many of the problems of the geology of our sedimentary basins cannot be solved.
At the present time, the Commonwealth Government offers assistance in the search for oil by both direct and indirect means. Direct assistance is given through the operations of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics and the National Mapping Division in my department, and through the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act. Indirect assistance is given through tax concessions. These were greatly extended in 1958, when major taxation concessions in respect of investment in oil exploration undertakings were introduced. In May of this year, the Treasurer announced that it is proposed to liberalize further the taxation treatment of oil exploration companies.
When speaking on the Petroleum Search Subsidy Bill in November, 1957, I stated that the Government’s intention was to encourage a particular type of drilling, which I described as stratigraphic drilling, that is drilling aimed at obtaining information concerning the geological sequence at depths at which reliable deductions could not be made from surface investigations. During the 1,8 months or so that the subsidy act has been in operation, £800,000 has been made available to subsidize stratigraphic drilling, and of this sum £727,019 has actually been paid out in respect of drilling operations at sites approved by my department. Ten such operations either have been completed or are in progress, out of a total of 37 applications received from parties holding valid petroleum tenements. The Puri well in Papua, in which flow oil was discovered last November, is one of the ten operations which was subsidized. There is no doubt that the drilling done under the subsidy act has provided new and valuable geological information, but Australia is a very large country and when the results to date are analysed it will be realized that though much has been accomplished in the last eighteen months, a tremendous amount remains to be done.
One of the most encouraging results of the act has been the stimulation of foreign interest, particularly from North America. The work involved in finding oil in Australia requires expert technical knowledge and great amounts of capital. The great financial and defence benefits which would follow the discovery of oil in commercial quantities make the task one of outstanding national importance. We would all like to see oil discovered and the discovery developed by Australian companies with Australian capital. But the task is urgent as well as important, and therefore we welcome overseas capital. We do not attach conditions to overseas investment in our potential oilfields. It is interesting and important to note that in addition to the many entirely Australian ventures, Australian capital is associated with overseas capital in many of the big exploration programmes that are now current. For example, Oil Search Limited, with its overseas associates in Papua, Ampol Exploration in Wapet in Western Australia, Frome Broken Hill in Victoria and the Northern Territory, and Santos with Frome Broken Hill and Delhi-Australian in South Australia. In addition, there seems to be a trend towards more Australian companies developing arrangements whereunder they secure overseas capital and know-how.
Despite the success of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act, the Government felt that insufficient basic work was being done and that steps should be taken to speed up the search for oil. The Government is keen that this search should be pushed on because, first, oil has been found in Australia, and on the highest professional advice available commercial accumulations should exist, and secondly, it is of vital importance to our ^ national development and our strategic security, for us to find these commercial accumulations. The Government’s general approach is to participate in basic survey work in a way which will encourage additional exploration by others, but to leave production drilling to private investment.
In May of this year, my colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), announced that the Government was ready to give effect to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in his policy speech prior to the general election of last October, in which he said -
Wc will, if returned, set aside £1,000,000 a year, additional to what is now being done, to assist in oil search.
The Government has given careful consideration to the advice of its technical officers upon ways in which this money may be spent to the best advantage. The views of the Government Members Mining Committee have been taken into consideration. The opinion of an eminent American consultant has been obtained. The bill now before you has been formulated on the basis of these opinions. The additional £1,000,000 will be spent partly in subsidy under the bill and partly in expanding the direct operations of my department which are relevant to the search for oil. I would like the Senate to consider the bill in the context of the whole contribution that the Government is making to the search for oil.
When this £1,000,000 is added to existing Government commitments, namely, annual expenditure of almost £500,000 on oil search activities by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping, and an annual vote of £500,000 under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1957-58, direct Commonwealth assistance to oil search will be about £2,000,000 per annum. This represents a very substantial contribution indeed. It contrasts with the present annual expenditure by exploration companies of about £6,000,000. Most of this Commonwealth assistance will be applied in ways which will directly assist exploration companies to meet the most costly items in their budget. However, it must be remembered that the £2,000,000 I have just mentioned does not include the Government’s taxation concessions. Including those, the total annual contribution by the Government is likely to be between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000.
Of the additional £1,000,000, the smaller portion - in the first year about £200,000 - will be spent on Government account. The balance will be spent through private companies in various ways - most of it in subsidization of drilling under the act. It is of the greatest importance to ensure that this money is spent to the best advantage. The bill now before the Senate does not pin us down to a specific programme. A degree of flexibility is available so that if necessary some variations can be made in the light of the experience we gain as we go along.
The search for oil in unexplored territory throughout the world now follows a generally accepted pattern, according to a recognized sequence, which is -
Before exploration surveys, whether geological or geophysical, can be made, topographic maps of the area are required. These can be made by the expert himself as he carries out his survey, or they can be prepared in advance by a ground survey party. These procedures are slow, difficult and expensive.
The lack of topographic maps of the less accessible parts of the large sedimentary basins of Australia has been one of the factors which has retarded geological exploration. It is therefore proposed to increase the rate of topographic surveying and the production of maps by the Division of National Mapping. It should be noted that the maps thus produced are essential to the development of every country and will greatly assist in surveys for minerals, public works and general improvements.
Although good progress has been made in regional geological mapping of the sedimentary basins, a very considerable area still remains to be covered and until we have positive information regarding any basin it would be unwise to discard it as a possible source of oil. It is therefore proposed to increase the amount of regional geological mapping carried out by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Likewise, regional information obtained by means of geophysical surveys is also essential and of great value to all companies operating in any particular area. It is proposed that the programme of geophysical exploration of the Bureau of Mineral Resources should be made more effective by additional regional seismic surveys, which are not normally undertaken by exploration companies. We will make greater use of helicopters to speed up geophysical surveys in the more remote and inaccessible areas of the country, and we contemplate spending some £25,000 per annum on hiring them. Publication of the results of the geological and geophysical surveys of the Bureau of Mineral Resources is most important to oil exploration companies. It is proposed to increase the output of maps and reports relevant to the search for oil and to produce them more promptly.
I have given only a brief outline of what the Government has done to assist oil search. I am circulating a paper, for the information of the Senate, providing additional information because I know the subject is one in which we are all interested. We all share the common objective of doing all that we can to see the tempo of the search quicken. I have also mentioned the ways in which the Government proposes to give increased technical assistance.
I turn now to discuss the way in which this bill will give effect to the Government’s subsidy proposals. The provisions of this bill are an extension of those of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1957-1958, whereby additional phases of oil exploration will attract subsidy at different rates. The bill will not repeal the 1957-58 act. All applications for subsidy made before the commencement of the new act will continue to be covered by the 1957-58 act.
Under the new act, as under the 1957-58 act, the terms and conditions under which subsidies will be paid will be set out in an agreement between the Commonwealth and the company whose operation is being subsidized. Subsidy will be payable only in respect of the cost of work in an area in which the department certifies that the stratigraphic information is unknown or incomplete. There is naturally a tendency amongst applicants for subsidy to select a location which, whilst satisfactory as a stratigraphic test, also offers some prospect of finding oil. Whilst this is so, yet the objective of the department is to obtain additional stratigraphic information. This is the criterion on which decisions are based.
The principles under which subsidies will be granted under the new act are as follows: -
Geophysical surveys using magnetic, including aeromagnetic, gravity and seismic techniques are essential to the successful location of sub-surface structures which might contain oil. All these surveys are costly. Because they are expensive, not enough of these surveys are being done and as a result the speed of exploration for oil in Australia has been retarded. In the past, contracting geophysical companies have found it very difficult to maintain their parties in continuous employment. Parttime employment has resulted in high costs and therefore the smaller exploration companies have found the charges prohibitive. By paying half the cost of these surveys, it is hoped to keep contract parties in continuous employment, thereby reducing costs and enabling the smaller companies to make use of these types of surveys. It is also proposed to subsidize geophysical logging in as many bores drilled in the sedimentary basins as possible, including deep bores for water. This logging is of prime assistance in stratigraphic correlation between various parts of the sedimentary basins. At the present time, much information that could be obtained from holes drilled by the smaller companies is lost as these companies are unable to meet the high cost of geophysical logging.
Also, a large number of water bores is drilled each year, and few if any are geophysically logged. The logging of water bores is essentially a search for information of a regional character, it will probably be of no immediate benefit to the permit holder, and because of this the Government proposes to bear up to the whole cost of the geophysical logging of water-bores. This does not mean, of course, that the cost of geophysically logging all water bores will be accepted; only the cost of those in which the information would be useful will be accepted. Subsidy of off-structure drilling has been introduced to encourage the drilling of deep holes at places where the obtaining of stratigraphic information will materially assist the search for oil but where structural conditions are believed to be not favorable to the accumulation of oil in commercial quantities. We are thinking in terms of expending some £250,000 per annum to subsidize holes off structure to a depth of perhaps 10,000 feet, perhaps even as deep as 15,000 feet. To promote interest in this type of drilling, the Commonwealth is prepared to meet two-thirds of the costs incurred in drilling at approved sites. The Government considers that the high cost of drilling deep holes, combined with the absence of evidence favorable to finding oil in commercial quantities, warrants the increased rate of subsidy. The information obtained by the subsidized geophysical surveys, boreholes .surveys and drilling operations will be made available to the Commonwealth and published in due course.
As in the case of the present act, the subsidy will be paid in accordance with agreements which the Minister will enter into on behalf of the Commonwealth with suitably qualified persons who will undertake to carry out approved operations. It is intended that the administration of the act will be carried out as a one-stage operation. The present act is administered in two stages, in which the applicant first applies for ministerial approval of his proposed .operation, and having received this, applies for the grant of subsidy. This method has proved somewhat cumbersome to administer, and it is now proposed that the application for approval of the proposed operation shall be considered also to be an application for the grant of subsidy.
All applicants will be required to furnish information concerning the location of the proposed operation, particulars of the estimated cost, the applicant’s financial capability to carry out the operation, the nature of the work it is proposed to do, and the reason for carrying out the operation. From the information supplied by the applicant, the department will assess the value of the proposal in relation to the search for oil, and recommend to the Minister whether it should be approved or refused. As in the case of the present act, the secretary may defer making a recommendation in respect of an application. If the present operations may be taken as a guide, there will be more applications for subsidy than can be financed out of the available funds. Therefore, it may not be possible for me to give my immediate approval to all acceptable proposals.
It is intended that the costs which may attract subsidy shall be those costs which are normally incurred in carrying out the type of operation for which approval has been requested. In the case of a drilling operation, the costs will cover direct drilling costs, coring, running and cementing casing in the bore hole, testing. and other downhole surveys. They will also include the cost of the preparation of the site and construction -ot .access ‘roads or air strip, camp accommodation, delivery of plant materials and personnel, installations and removal of plant, &c. The cases of geophysical surveys and bore-hole surveys will be dealt with similarly - in broad terms, the costs which may attract subsidy will include the cost of moving into the area, carrying out the programmed work, and moving out of the area. As is the case under the present act, the details of the costs to .be covered in .any particular .operation will be set out in the relevant agreement. it is proposed that payments on account of subsidy will be made progressively. In genera], no subsidy will ‘be payable until, in the opinion of the secretary, at .least onequarter of the operation had been completed. Thereafter, progress payments will be made as each one-fourth of the total operation is completed. It is contemplated that the progress payment made at each stage will not exceed 20 per centum of the amount of subsidy specified in the agreement. Thus’ the- -aggregate progress payment at any stage- will amount to not more than 80 per centum of the estimated amount of subsidy earned at that stage. The balance will not become payable until completion of the -whole operation to the satisfaction of the Minister in terms of the agreement. However, there may be cases, such as in a geophysical survey of short duration, where progress payments could appropriately be made less frequently, and it is intended that the number of progress payments should be left to the discretion of the MinisterCircumstances could arise in which the Minister might find it desirable to withhold payment of subsidy. This could occur if for example the operator is not fulfilling his obligations under the agreement. If there is any reason for variation of the original programme, the rights and obligations of the parties concerned will be specified in the agreement.
As in the 1957-58. act, provision is made to cover the possibility of the operator of a subsidized operation not wishing to complete the whole project as described in the agreement. In order to protect the investment made by the Commonwealth up to that time, it mav be necessary to carry on the operation at Commonwealth expense. Provision is made for this to be done, provided funds are available. It is intended that all information gathered as a result of subsidized operations shall be assembled and published in due course by my department. It is generally accepted that publication of information about twelve months after it is obtained is a reasonable arrangement.
As I have mentioned earlier, the first intimation of the nature of the operations to which the Government would apply the additional funds promised by the Prime Minister in his policy speech was given in a public announcement by my colleague, the Treasurer, on 1st May, 1959. My department immediately received a number of inquiries from interested persons. It is considered that, as long as no commitment had been entered into before 1st May, the fact of an operation having been commenced before the passage of this bill should not of itself disqualify the applicant from subsidy. The bill contemplates that subsidy agreements may be made during the three years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 but it is recognized that some operations, in respect of which agreements will have been entered into prior to 30th June, 1962, may not be completed by that date. The bill accordingly provides for such an operation to be completed, and thus to qualify for payment of subsidy prior to 30th June, 1963. In practice any such payment will be made from the £1,000,000 which is being allocated for each of the three years. No new agreement will be entered into after 30th June, 1962.
The permits, licences and leases which govern the search for oil are, of course, all matters which, other than in Commonwealth Territories, come within the province of State governments. I think it fair to claim that although the Commonwealth necessarily retains the right to decide which particular activities it will support, there is effective liaison and- co-operation with the State authorities. We aim to ensure that this continues.
The Commonwealth professional advisers hold firmly to the view that there should be deposits of oil in commercial quantities not only on the mainland of Australia, but also in some of its Territories. It is interesting and satisfactory to see that that view is being increasingly shared by consultants brought to Australia to investigate particular search programmes. Despite this it would be unrealistic to deny the difficulties of actually discovering a commercial deposit. We should, however, remember that the history of the search for oil throughout the world shows that in most oilbearing countries similar difficulties have been encountered and overcome before oil was actually found. We want to see history repeat itself in Australia and, on the professional advice that we have, this should happen provided we stick determinedly to the task.
I think it appropriate that I should commend the work of those who have determinedly continued the search despite the difficulties and disappointments encountered. In particular I think those who have been successful in augmenting Australian financial resources and know-how by making arrangements with overseas companies are serving Australia well. We want to see them persevere until success crowns their efforts.
It is, I think, appropriate also to mention again that the Commonwealth taxation legislation highlights the importance which the Commonwealth places on the search for oil. This legislation provides that moneys paid by residents on application, allotment and calls on shares in companies searching for oil may be an allowable deduction for income tax purposes. When you add to this the £2,000,000 being spent in the way I have described, you will see that the Commonwealth is making plain its desire that oil exploration programmes which are soundly based on good technical advice should be pushed ahead as fast as is practicable.
The legislation makes an effective contribution to this objective and in the hope that it may attract more and more activity in the search for oil in Australia by Australian citizens as well as by overseas investors, I commend it to the Senate.
– The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has described the contents of the bill so adequately that I am relieved of the necessity of adverting to them in an particular way. Nevertheless, I hope to make one or two brief allusions to them in the course of my remarks. I claim no technical or expert knowledge in this very difficult matter of oil search, in Australia especially. My knowledge might have been improved had I received in time the explanatory memorandum that came to my notice as I entered the chamber. I shall be interested to read it in due course but, in the meantime, I should like to give my own understanding of the problem. I was helped in that matter by an address delivered in Melbourne on 18th May by Mr. J. D. Rogers, Chairman of Vacuum Oil Co. His remarks on the basis of oil development gave me an understanding of the matter that I had not possessed before. I commend the address to honorable senators, and propose to read a brief extract by way of illustration. Mr. Rogers said -
All oil fields discovered so far are in sedimentary basins. But not all sedimentary areas are favourable to oil formation: in some, the cover of sedimentary rocks is either too thin, or of the wrong type; in others, intense folding and fracturing of rock structures has allowed any oil formed to escape.
Sedimentary basins were formed millions of years ago in shallow seas or estuaries where marine, animal and plant life abounded. The decayed remains of these organisms were deposited on the sea beds and, under pressure from covering sediments washed down - from surrounding land, provided the material for the formation of oil, the process taking millions of years.
Sealed off from the atmosphere and subject to heat, to pressure from covering sediments and also to bacteriological action by anaerobes - bacteria which exist without air - the organic matter changed to ofl.
I think that the Senate will agree that that is a most interesting and informed description of the oil-making process. It appears, then, that we must have sedimentary basins. Fortunately, we have many in Australia. They make up about one-half the total area of this continent. I shall leave the matter there for the moment.
As a basis for what I want to say generally, I pass to the particular theme of the importance to this nation of the discovery of oil. On that score I have merely to refer first to the defence aspect. Our Army, our Navy and our Air Force would be completely immobilized without oil. We are dependent, for almost every gallon of oil that we use, upon overseas suppliers. That alone is an indication of how vital oil is to our national well-being. It is a commodity of such strategic importance as to be of the very essence of our safety and continued existence as a nation. All our supplies of oil come by sea. Oil is a vulnerable and inflammable cargo, and the vessels which bring it here are open to attack by air, by ship and by submarine.
The quantity of petrol and petroleum products that we import has a substantial effect on our balance of payments position. As the Minister has indicated, petrol imports cost us more than £135,000,000 per annum. One can imagine the tremendous effect that the discovery of oil would have on our trade balance, especially if it were found in sufficient quantity to enable Australia to become an exporter. lt would have a two-way effect that would revolutionize the finances of this country. The discovery of oil and the development of all the subsidiary industries that would follow would undoubtedly provide enormous avenues of employment for our people. 1 think it is right to say that we could expect a reduction of the cost of all transport based on oil. That in turn would play a vital part in overcoming what I conceive to be one of the fundamental flaws in our economy - that is. our very high cost structure. I understand that transport costs amount to about one-third of the total cost of all commodities. Any relief in that direction must be reflected in the overall cost of practically everything we use in this country.
The discovery of oil in the interior ot Australia would accelerate that highly desirable aspect of development that we all talk about but see very little of - the decentralization of activity and population, and the filling up of our vast empty spaces. In short, if we were to discover oil in this country, the face of Australia would literally be changed in a decade. When I say that I am assuming, of course, that we find it in commercial and exploitable quantities. The by-products of crude oil number hundreds. Sulphuric acid and commodities like synthetic rubber, carbon black, resins and dyes are of vital importance not only to the economy but also to the security of the country. The Minister has briefly, but I think adequately, acknowledged in broad terms the vital importance of oil to Australia.
The theme I want to develop to-night is what in the Opposition’s view is a paltry gesture of help in the search for oil, despite the fact that the Government has acknowledged its importance. Legislation was passed in 1 957 which provided for £500,000 for stratigraphic drilling. That form of assistance was to operate for three years and ten months, or nearly four years, up to 30th June, 1961. lt was tied to stratigraphic drilling - deep drilling to the bottom of sedimentary basins - and the Government proposed, in approved cases, to pay one-half of the cost of the actual work. 1 acknowledge that the drilling is expensive. I understand that in the difficult terrain of Papua, where it takes place, it costs approximately £450 a foot. Difficulties of access and of transporting necessary supplies, the building of accommodation for workers and so forth all add to the cost. When one realizes that those bores go to a depth of approximately 12,000 feet, and sometimes 15,000 feet, one can imagine the vast cost of even a single bore put down for stratigraphic purposes to determine the layers of earth beneath the surface and to obtain vitally important information.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), in his policy speech prior to the last election, indicated that an additional £1,000,000 would be provided to help the search for oil in Australia. We now find that the scope of drilling operations has been widened and that the £1,000,000 is to be provided to cover, in approved cases, stratigraphic drilling, bore hole surveys with which the Minister dealt in detail, geophysical surveys and off-structure drilling operations. I cannot refrain at this stage from commenting upon the Government’s leisurely approach to this vital matter. The Government’s proposal, which I think was the only promise involving the expenditure of money, was announced in October or November last, but nine months have elapsed before the legislation has been brought before the Parliament. The bill before us is a simple measure; there is nothing highly complicated about it. Members of the Opposition are shocked by the fact that such a leisurely approach has been made to a matter of such great national importance and urgency. The Minister himself referred to the question of urgency during his speech to-night.
Let us see what boring operations have taken place. Apparently it is definite that oil will be found by drilling or boring alone. As I understand the situation, there is no other way of finding it. In 1957, the Minister told us that some 2.000 bores were sunk in the Sahara Desert before those interested were finally rewarded with the discovery of oil, and that some 3,000 bores were sunk over 30 years in the province of Alberta before its rich oil-bearing fields were discovered. What is our record in this country? Up to date, we have sunk 443 bores. Perhaps I should correct that and say that up to the end of December, 1958, we had sunk 443 bores.
– Over what period were they sunk?
– That was over the whole period of oil search in this country.
– Commencing when?
– I am not certain of that. That was the information furnished to me by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and adverted to by the Minister.
– I wondered how many were sunk during the regime of the government that was in office prior to 1949.
– If the honorable senator wants to pursue that matter, will he please remember that the government that was in office immediately prior to the year he has mentioned was engaged in waging a total war following the failure of the Menzies Government to prosecute it adequately. Secondly, in the latter part of its regime it was exceedingly busily engaged in post-war re-organization and reconstruction, which it carried out with very great brilliance. The sinking of 443 bores is the insignificant record in this country in the boring of an area of approximately 1,500,000 square miles.
– The honorable senator is boring an area now.
– I seem to have interested at least one honorable senator in the theme I was developing. When one contrasts our drilling programme with what has happened in other countries, it is insignificant. Of the 443 bores in question, at least 123 are shallow bores in the Lakes Entrance area. So, from the viewpoint of examining an area of 1,500,000 square miles in this country,, what an inadequate drilling programme has been put forward by all governments! How can we expect to have adequate information about our sedimentary basins? How very inadequate our effort has been when, on the Minister’s own statement, of the 37 applications which were received under the £957 legislation for a portion of the £500,000 made available only ten were granted. I know nothing about the 27 that were not accepted, but certainly the oil companies which were conducting the search considered they were worth-while projects. I think I am safe in saying that those applications were rejected solely because not enough money was provided. Now the Minister tells us that, even with the additional £1,000,000 that is to be put forward, the same pattern will be seen. In other words, only one-third of the companies seeking to engage in particular boring operations will be able to get any help from the additional £1,000,000. What an acknowledgment of urgency that is. What a vigorous approach to this vital question that is!
– It is a 200 per cent. increase.
– It is, but it merely shows how hopelessly inadequate was the first approach to the question of subsidy by this Government.
Let me go back to the sedimentary basins again. We have twelve or more of them, scattered all over Australia. They were dealt with by Dr. Raggatt, the Secretary of the Department of National Development, in an address which he delivered in 1954. Speaking of the possible oil areas in Australia, he said -
– What date was that?
– The statement was made in 1954. I read from a document published by the Department of National Development, entitled “ Search for Oil in Australia and New Guinea “, by H. G. Raggatt.
As I listened to the Minister’s speech I heard that same story of lack of knowledge about our sedimentary basins - the very starting point in the search for oil. We heard die Minister say that there are not enough topographic maps. One of the very first things that must be done in searching for oil is to find out the contour of the surface. Geological maps are also lacking.
Geophysical surveys need to be stepped up. In that respect the Government proposes to provide the additional amount of £25,000 for the bureau or the division concerned with geophysical surveys.
– That is for helicopter faire.
– As I heard and read the speech, I took that to be the total expenditure. At. all events the total expenditure: will be of a very small order. All through the speech we get a story of the defectiveness of knowledge of our sedimentary basins. That is certainly not the fault of the Department of National Development, the Division of National Mapping or the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Those organizations can operate and function only within the limits of the staff, the money and the equipment made available to them: I take this opportunity to pay the highest tribute to the quality of their work. From inquiries I have made, I have learnt that the officers of both the division and the bureau are held in the highest respect by the technicians who have come to this country. We are blessed with many young geologists who are not only intelligent and competent, but who have the keenest interest in finding oil for the good of this nation. I pay tribute to both organizations for what they have been able to do despite lack of staff, money and equipment.
I turn now to the map showing the areas covered by permits for oil search. It is a very large map, issued by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. We find that there are dozens and dozens of permit areas, one adjacent to the other, scattered all over Australia in the sedimentary basins. Here are these, organizations, in what might be termed one great basin, each with a separate area and each devoting all its energy and thought to, and expending all its money in its. one area. I submit to the Senate that the proper approach is co-operation. There should be a complete scientific study of the whole sedimentary basin before drilling for production begins. Of course there ought to be topographical mapping, geological surveys, geophysical surveys and stratigraphic drilling, but in proper order. That order ought to be laid down and known at the earliest opportunity. It is a disgrace to the people who have been responsible for the work in this country that we know so little about the opportunity to find oil and are so lacking in information regarding our sedimentary basins.
One would expect that a development in one permit area would be of great significance to another area, but each area keeps its knowledge to itself, for its own benefit. We have some companies - I do not say there are many - which make the minimum expenditure for the sake of holding their areas, trusting all the time that one of the bigger companies will absorb them at a wonderful profit. Nobody is making a systematic, scientific approach to the surveying of the whole of one of our sedimentary basins. We have a lot of unco-ordinated efforts, and the Government merely follows those unco-ordinated efforts when a company asks for help with any particular drilling operation. A government seised with the urgency and importance of this vital matter should be leading, not following. We should not have these vast gaps in our knowledge in every aspect of this important field. It behoves the Government, realizing the importance: of this work, to appreciate the urgent need to get moving. At the present rate, apart from sheer luck or chance, I would say that it is unlikely that we will’ find oil in this country in this century unless these surveys are properly done so that scientific minds can draw conclusions from the data obtained with some degree of certainty.
The Minister has indicated - I think the Treasurer did so also on 1st May last - that the total amount spent on oil search in Australia is £56,000,000. A great deal of that money has been spent by private companies, many of them overseas companies, and the great bulk of it has been spent in recent years. What is the record of the Government in expenditure in this field? Up to 1957 the Bureau of Mineral Resources spent approximately £1,500,000 on oil search in Australia. Since then it has spent something like £400,000 per annum. The Division of National Mapping has been spending only £125,000 per annum. After all is said and done, the Government has little to be proud of, because in the whole field of oil search it did very little until it brought in its £500,000 subsidy in 1957.
Let me put the position in perspective. The Government is spending £2,000,000 through the Department of National Development, and it claims that taxation remissions to encourage investment in oil exploration will amount to another £2,000,000. Let me take the Government’s own figures. A sum of £2,000,000, with this £1,000,000 added, amounts to 4s. per head of population in Australia, taking into account every man, woman and child.
– Is that based on £2,000,000 or £4,000,000?
– That is based on £2,000,000. If we take £4,000,000 by including the taxation concessions, it amounts to 8s. per annum per head of population for oil search. What is the revenue of the Government per head of population? The total revenue of the Government per head, taking every man, woman and child in this country, is £136 15s. lOd. a year. The Government devotes a part of the 15s. lOd. to oil search. If we take taxation alone, not total revenue, we see that the taxation per head of population for this year amounts to £122 lis. 8d. That figure is disclosed in the Budget papers that have just been circulated to us. It can be found at page 127 of the documents. How can anybody persuade an Opposition charged with the duty of watching this development that the Government is doing anything adequate when, out of a taxation revenue of £122 lis. 8d. for each person in the country, it spends at the most - if you throw everything into the melting pot - 8s. per year per person on oil exploration.
– That is entirely wrong.
– The honorable senator often makes a statement like that.
– Every person does not pay £122 a year in taxes.
– The honorable senator should understand that I did not say that. I invite him to look at page 127 of the Budget papers. He will find that his own Treasurer has quoted that figure as the average taxation per head of population.
– But everybody does not pay it.
– Of course, a baby in arms would not pay it. I would expect the honorable senator to know that without having it stated to him.
– I did not say that. I said “ average “, and you know it. You know very well that, on your figures, the average taxpayer would pay considerably more than 8s.
– We have 10,000,000 people, so we divide £2,000,000 by 10,000,000. I am sorry to have to go into elementary arithmetic with the honorable senator. The result would be 4s. If you make the amount £4,000,000, the average would be 8s. May I leave it at that? I am sure that I am right.
– Provided you do not say “ every taxpayer “.
– Order!
– I come to what the Opposition thinks ought to be done in this important matter. There ought to be a systematic approach, and not a spasmodic approach such as the one I have outlined. We should fully equip the Division of National Mapping and the Bureau of Mineral Resources, with staff, money and plant to do the basic work. I am talking about the preliminary, basic work, the essential surveys to which I have already made some reference. Next, in the interests of the nation, the information gathered should be published immediately and not withheld for a period of twelve months. It should be put into circulation immediately. I repeat that the Government ought to lead and not follow private enterprise in this matter. Some of the companies have indicated - quite recently Senator Spooner himself commented upon it - their determination to abandon oil search in the Territories, and they have been persuaded to remain. What assurance can the Government have that any of the large and financially powerful corporations from overseas will not at any time abandon the search? Many of them have spent huge sums, and their shareholders and directors are naturally concerned to look for results. What will be the position in this country if those major companies discontinue operations and nobody does any boring or surveying at all? Will the Government still stand by?
It is so obvious to the Opposition that the Government should be getting all the basic data that will enable any company, whether Australian or overseas, to proceed on a basis of knowledge. I say to the Minister that it does not appear now that he will have any difficulty in staffing his department with competent people. He has already indicated in the speech that he made to-night that our own Australian companies are attracting skilled staff. I have no doubt that they have to be prepared to pay, but as I have said in this place on this subject before, if we pay enough we can get the best brains in the field. I take it that it would be an advantage to have people who have in fact found oil, who have been through the process of actually discovering it and of operating oil-fields when they have been brought into production. It seems to me to be merely a question of providing money, treating the matter as of some urgency, and getting on with the job. I say immediately and without hesitation that the Opposition will support any appropriation that is directed to that purpose, and that will enable the basic surveys to be made with the best equipment and the best staff that can be procured, not merely in Australia but anywhere in the world- If the Government were to push on with such surveys it would be displaying real leadership and it is the real thing that is called for in this connexion.
I do not want the people of future generations in this country - I hope they will be Australians - telling stories to their children of the queer Government that had an Army, a Navy and an Air Force, but one day, when war came, those forces could not move because their oil lines had been cut and the Government had done nothing to develop the country’s resources, or had not been energetic in developing the resources, which were lying idle. That could happen. It is vital to the security of this nation that we become independent of any other part of the world for oil. A country that is friendly with us to-day may be opposed to us tomorrow. We have seen that countries with which we were at war a few years ago are now our pood friends. The position changes. We have to concentrate upon achieving selfsufficiency. We find the Government doing that in the matter of aluminium, because of its strategic and economic importance to the country. The Government has developed serum laboratories so that we will be independent in war-time of overseas supplies of vital drugs for the people of Australia. If that principle is right in relation to these matters, important as they are, how much more right would it be for this
Government to show a real sense of urgency and get on with oil search - a matter that could become vital overnight to our very existence as a nation.
One finds this relative apathy and lack of energy - I could almost say lack of interest - in the subject of oil as it affects the future of this nation, apparent throughout the Government’s actions. I recall with brevity the fact that it closed down the Glen Davis enterprise. In a country which had no crude oil, it closed down an experiment in the extraction of oil from shale.
– At how much a gallon?
– At 5s. 3d. That undertaking produced nearly 3,000,000 gallons of petrol per annum. It is no answer to say that there are not any great deposits of shale in Australia, because there are most enormous deposits of brown coal, in some instances twenty miles wide and 500 feet deep. A report of our own Public Works Committee in 1945 indicated that oil could be produced from these unlimited supplies of raw material. Is it not absurd that although America, with all its own oil resources, conserves them, imports oil, and spends scores of millions of pounds per annum on research into the extraction of oil from shale, this Government closed the only research project we had in Australia.
I have already referred to the nine months delay that took place in bringing this bill before the Parliament. I refer to what happened with Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. There was an opportunity to go into partnership with the Anglo-Iranian company in a bigger way. There was a decision, first, to accept an offer and finally to sell out. Then there was a refusal to accept an offer for Government participation in the Kwinana refinery. These matters show that this Government lacks an appreciation of the importance and urgency of being, as far as it possibly can, in the field of oil. Finally, under that head I refer to the drilling plant that was bought by the Chifley Labour Government, ordered in 1948 and delivered just as we went out of office in 1949. It was bought at the instance of Dr. Raggatt and his men of the Bureau of Mineral Resources for the one purpose of drilling at Exmouth Gulf. It was their advice which led to the finding of oil at Exmouth Gulf. The drilling plant was bought at a cost of some £337,000. But what sense of urgency did the Government have in relation to that matter? The plant lay idle in Melbourne for four and a half years. At the end .of that time, the Government sold it - at a profit, of course,. A profit of some £30,000 or £40,000 was made on the sale. The plant was sold to Western Australian Petroleum Limited. Certain conditions were imposed. For instance, it was to be used in Australia. Four and one half valuable years had been lost! The important discovery at Rough Range was delayed for nearly five years, due to the inaction of this Government.
The whole story is one of apathy and indifference. Despite the public announcements of the Government’s appreciation of the national importance of oil to defence, the economy and development, it does not get enough way on. There is not enough action. I would sum up the position by saying that there has been a betrayal of the vital interests of Australia in a matter that could involve our very existence as a nation. It demands a substantially greater degree of Government activity. We of the Opposition shall take the step of voting against this hill as a protest against the Government’s inaction and as an instruction, so far as an Opposition can give an instruction, to make a more competent and vigorous approach to oil discovery in Australia.
– I rise to support this measure. I was absolutely amazed to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) say that his party is going to oppose this measure by voting against it. When we look at the record of the former Labour Government and compare its actions with what this Government has done in connexion with the search for oil in Australia, we find that that government sadly lacked any initiative whatsoever in that matter. The Leader of the Opposition stated that we as a government have done nothing in the matter, and that we have never at any time made any statement in our policy speeches with regard to what we were doing concerning the search for oil. Why, only in our last policy speech our leader, Mr. Menzies, stated that if we were returned to office we would spend an additional amount of £1,000,000 a year on the search for oil.
– He said a lot of other things, also, such as promising to put value back in the £1.
– Doubtless Senator Cooke, who comes from Western Australia, will participate in this debate, and I expect he will refer to what his party promised the people it would do at the general election before last if it were elected to office. However, so far as the search for oil in Australia is concerned, I am not aware of any mention in Labour’s policy speeches over the last eight or nine years of what it proposed to do, if returned to office, to assist the search for oil in Australia and its Territories.
The Leader of the Opposition omitted to mention what the former Labour Government did between 1945 and 1949 to assist the search for oil in this country. However, I have looked at the records and I find that the only thing that government did in this connexion was to buy a drilling rig - I should say, that it ordered the rig - which was delivered in 1950, but it was paid for by the present Government after Labour relinquished office. Apart from that, I believe that the only credit the former Labour Government can claim in this matter is that it established the Bureau of Mineral Resources in 1945. The bureau did, of course, send some of its personnel to America to study mining operations in that country in order to decide what we should do in Australia. So, the record of the Labour Party in this connexion is not a very good one. I should like to say that we, as a Government, have been anxious to find oil in Australia. We have encouraged the search, and towards the latter part of 1953, oil was, in fact, discovered at Rough Range. Doubtless, all honorable senators will recall the great increase that occurred in the price of shares in oil companies in Australia at that time.
Many people in Australia were eager to buy the shares, and the selling price of shares in one particular oil company rose from about 17/- to more than £8 overnight. At that stage, everybody was keen on the search for oil in Australia. Other companies were formed with Australian capital, and it was generally thought at the time that all that was needed in order to make further discoveries of oil deposits was to drill holes in the ground. After three or four years of bad luck, it was a different story. By 1957, the search for oil was rapidly waning. When this Government came to- office it legislated to provide a drilling subsidy of £500,000 a year in order to stimulate the search. This was in addition to the expenditure of about £500,000 a year by the Bureau of Mineral Resources on mapping and. geological surveys, particulars of which it provided to companies interested in the search for oil in Australia. The provision of. the drilling subsidy of £500,000 a year on a 50/50 basis encouraged the oil companies and other private companies in Australia to continue to search for oil. Following that, we considered that a further impetus could, be given to the search for oil by altering the income tax. laws which, at that time, provided that one-third of the amount of application and’ allotment money and calls by mining companies registered in Australia could be claimed as a deduction for. income tax purposes. Accordingly, this Government amended the law to provide that 100 per cent, of the money invested in’ companies engaged in the search’ for’ oil may be claimed as a taxation deduction; This illustrates the different approach’ that the’ Government has made to this matter from that’ made by the Opposition..
By the vital, measure that’ is now before us, the Government is honouring an election promise. It’ has been framed after hearing the views of experts and other people who are interested- in the search for oil’ in Australia, including companies. By providing an additional £1,000,000 a year for this purpose, the’ Government believes that1 the exploration companies will be encouraged to continue the search. I emphasize- that this amount is additional to the annual oil drilling subsidy- of over £500,000 and the expenditure of a further £500,000 by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. This makes a total amount of assistance of about £2,000,000 a year. Taking into consideration the taxation concessions that have been granted, it will be seen that the companies engaged in the search for oil in this country are being directly assisted to the extent of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year. The companies are at present spending some £6,000,000 per annum. We know that the search for oil is a long battle, and that the road to success is a hard one. Oil is not found overnight. It has been stated that some 2,000 holes were drilled in the Sahara Desert before oil was found, and that 3,000 holes were drilled in Alberta before oil was discovered there. At this stage of our history we have drilled some 443 holes in Australia. An honorable senator opposite has said that we also may strike oil when we have drilled 2,000 holes.
I point out that oil has already been discovered in Australia, at Rough Range, and also at Puri, in Papua, while there have been traces at other places. There is no doubt in the minds of our geologists, and in the mind of the Government, that oil exists in Australia in commercial quantities; but of course its discovery involves a great deal of searching. As the Leader of the Opposition stated, the artesian basins in Australia are very large. They cover almost half of the continent, while one basin alone is larger than the State of Queensland. Having regard to that fact, we can appreciate the great effort that is required if we are to discover the location of. the oil that many of. us believe to exist in Australia.
I wish to refer to some of the ways in which the Government proposes, under the bill now before the Senate, to help people who search for oil. First of all, from the amount of £1,000,000 that is to be made available, we propose to subsidize oil drilling companies to the extent of £225,000, in addition to the £500,000 that has already been made available. This additional subsidy will be given largely as the. subsidy has been given in the past with the exception that all the costs associated with, taking the. drill to the site, the construction of roads and the preparation of the site will be taken into account in determining qualification for subsidy on a 50-50 basis. I think that one of the most important proposals concerns the cost of a special kind of drilling operation known as “ off-structure “ drilling. Such drilling will be subsidized to the extent of approximately two-thirds of the cost
Companies now drilling in Australia, such as West Australian Petroleum Proprietary Limited’ in. the north-west of Western Australia, and Santos Limited at Innamincka,, believe that it may be necessary, before they abandon a. site, to get off the structure or the dome and go down one side of it to see whether oil may be found there. That is called off-structure drilling. In some instances, in other parts of the world oil has been found by drilling on the off-structure. In addition, such a form of drilling provides very valuable information for the geologists. They are able to find out the exact structure of the surrounding country, with a view to locating further sites for drilling operations. I believe that the proposal to subsidize such drilling to the extent of two-thirds of the cost will greatly encourage companies searching for oil in Australia and its Territories.
In addition, the Government proposes to pay half of the cost of approved geological surveys. Such surveys are a very important part of oil search in Australia. It must be remembered that this Government, when it came to office in 1949, had to start from scratch in the search for oil. No previous government had done any geological work. It was necessary for this Government to have mapping work done by the mapping branch. The selected areas had first of all to be flown over and photographed from the air. This is a procedure that is adopted by most countries of the world in their search for oil. When the aerial photography has been done the geologists study the photographs, and after the mapping has been carried out they examine the areas which they think will be of particular interest to them. Then a field party goes in, either by air or overland. There may even be a magnetometer survey of the area to reveal the anomalies that the geologists are looking for. The field party may take a seismograph survey of the area and put down bore holes 100 feet deep. Explosives, such as gelignite or gunshot, are then put down, and the reverberations from the subsequent explosions give the geologists the information they require. I have seen work of this kind being done, and I can assure the Senate that it is very interesting.
In the past, it was the practice to put down a hole every four or five miles over a given area in order to get a grid system and to find out the structures under the ground. Nowadays, the practice is to put down fifteen or twenty holes and explode them all at once, thus giving an indication of the structures that exist over a very wide area. The procedure is becoming verysystematic. Of course, the work is highlytechnical. Some of the best brains in the world have been imported into Australia, by the companies concerned in the search for oil in order to provide them with the information they require in drilling particular sites.
If we consider the drilling work that took place in Australia prior to the last war, wefind that a site was discovered by Freney in the Fitzroy area of Western Australia. The Freney-Kimberley organization drilled there for some six or eight months. Theoperators reached a depth of about 3,000- feet, when their drill stuck. That was the end of the venture. They could not getadditional capital, and they could not continue drilling, nor could they get their drill bit out. The companies which are now searching for oil bring to Australia someof the best brains in the world, and they also have excellent equipment. Overseas capital, of course, is coming to Australia, to help us in our search. I am firmly convinced that, had it not been for this Government, we in Australia would be plodding along now as we did in the past, so far as oil search is concerned.
– We started theBureau of Mineral Resources.
– Of course you did, in- 1946, but by 1949 you had done nothing in the way of oil search, except that you had ordered a rig. However, the Labour Government did not pay for it - we did that. I am convinced that this Government . is tackling the problem in the right way.
The Minister for National Development also stated in his second-reading speech that the Government would subsidize borehole surveys; that is to say, geophysical logging of bores drilled in sedimentary basins either for oil or for water. Much information can be obtained in respect of both sedimentary basins and artesian basins by logging the bores that are drilled. Information relating to the various types of rock and so on through which a bore is sunk to locate water at perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 feet can be invaluable to a geologist in setting out the formation of the surrounding country for examination before advising his company as to where to sink the next hole.
The Government proposes to meet the whole of the cost of logging of these holes drilled for water, because ordinarily the station owner who is sinking for water is not interested in the collection of geological information. For that reason, the Government proposes to subsidize the total cost of logging in those cases, and it is probable that the subsidy will be paid through the Bureau of Mineral Resources. We also propose paying 50 per cent, of the total cost of logging shallow holes that may be drilled for oil. We believe that the steps we propose to take will encourage the companies now operating in Australia to continue searching for oil.
The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) says that the big companies may forsake Australia at any moment. I am convinced that if we proceed with the steps outlined in the bill before us those big companies will continue searching for oil in Australia. It is true that about twelve months ago the companies operating in Papua and New Guinea were anxious to cease operations in those areas because they had expended huge amounts of money without finding oil. They went so far as to say that if they did not find oil by Christmas of last year they would be getting out. Fortunately, oil was located at the well at Puri and that fact, together with the assistance proposed under this bill, has encouraged them to continue operating there. The Shell Company of Australia Limited, together with the CaliforniaTexas Company, has taken an interest in Wapet in Western Australia, and I am confident that this organization will carry on the search for oil in Western Australia for at least another two years. This legislation is designed to help them to carry on.
I think it will be readily agreed that the job of finding oil in Australia is beyond the capacity of a government, especially a government of our political colour. I know that a Labour government would say, “ We will find the oil. We will import the rig, we will nut our own officers in the field, we will do the drilling and we will sell the oil “. But I point out that already some £56,500,000 has been spent in the search without discovering oil in commercial quantities. It is not this Government’s job to sell oil; it is our job. indeed it is the job of any sane government, to make the climate right to encourage the people of Australia to subscribe capital and to encourage investment of overseas capital in the search for oil in Australia. just how vital oil is to Australia is evidenced by the fact that we are spending £135,000,000 a year now on imports of the commodity. Further, if the Government had not encouraged the establishment of refineries in various States throughout the Commonwealth, the cost of those imports would have been between £60,000,000 and £65,000,000 a year greater. Without refineries in Australia, we would now be spending more than £200,000,000 a year on the importation of fuel oil. lt will be seen, therefore, that it is essential that a responsible government take whatever action is necessary to encourage the investment of capital in the search for oil in Australia. 1 am confident that this legislation will encourage the oil companies to continue operations in Australia for many years, and so long as they continue operations, this Government is prepared to help them. I am also certain that if we continue with the search for oil we shall find it in Australia in the not too distant future.
– As the Labour Party is opposing the measure I should like to state my party’s attitude. We think it is a good bill and should be supported. At least, by introducing it, the Government is fulfilling one of the promises it made during the election campaign, and that is a change. During that campaign, the Government party promised that an extra £1,000,000 would be spent on the search for oil in Australia. The Government is now carrying out that promise, and it is to be commended for that reason. It has been argued that the total amount that the Government is finding, both directly and indirectly, for this purpose is not sufficient. It might not be, but at least half a loaf is better than no bread at all. Those who oppose the measure do not realize that to search for oil it is essential that scientific personnel be engaged. We have not the scientific personnel in sufficient numbers in Australia to warrant the expenditure of huge sums of money on the search for oil, and I feel that the Government is doing as much as it possibly can under the circumstances.
It has to be remembered also that the companies engaged in searching for oil, especially those controlled by the huge petroleum interests, will continue searching for it even though the probability of finding oil is remote. Money spent on the search for oil is an allowable deduction for income tax purposes, and these companies find this a good way of expending some of the huge profits they are making from the exploitation of oil throughout the world to-day. They will doubtless continue to do so and one can only hope that, in the process, they will find oil. As has already been mentioned, oil is essential to the economy of Australia. We hope that the day will come when we shall be independent of other countries in that regard.
We have been reminded that 3,000 holes were drilled in Alberta before oil was discovered. When one realizes how much more closely settled is Alberta than are the wide open spaces where we hope to find oil one can appreciate that the search in Australia may continue for many years. Let us hope that with more up-to-date equipment that is now being provided it will not be long before oil is discovered in this country also.
The attitude of my party is that to oppose this bill would be foolish, for it fulfils the wishes of the Australian people. One million pounds is being spent in a good cause, but there are many other worthy causes, and I cannot agree with the Labour Party that the taxes paid by the people should be lavishly expended in the search for oil. I repeat, the big oil companies are interested and therefore we may assume that the search will continue. We support the bill, which fulfils a promise given by the Government during the last election campaign.
– I am glad of the assurance given by the Leader of the Democratic Labour Party that he and his colleagues will support this measure. I must confess to some surprise that the Opposition generally should have decided to oppose it. Theirs is a rather destructive attitude - one hardly to be reconciled with common sense. In one breath the Opposition speaks of the importance of oil and, in the next, says that it will not support this measure, which is designed to achieve that end. Senator Scott replied very effectively to arguments advanced in support of the contention that this Government had not done enough in this field. I agree with the honorable senator’s observation that the interest of the Opposition in oil search has hitherto been conspicuous by its absence. While I realize that we in Australia are to some extent culpable I think this Government can take credit for having, during the years for which it has been in office, concentrated its efforts upon the finding of oil.
Honorable senators will recall the flurry on the stock exchanges of Australia that followed the strike by West Australian Petroleum Proprietary Limited in the Exmouth Gulf area of Western Australia. One could honestly say that it was not until then that the importance of oil search really penetrated the minds of Australians. We all know of the spasmodic efforts to find oil that have been made in the past. The north-west of Western Australia has always been regarded as an area where oil might be found. Senator Scott reminded us of the fact that the Freney company undertook drilling in that region many years ago. It was unsuccessful, but it did carry out a certain amount of pioneering work on behalf of oil interests. The failure to find oil at that time seemed to create a general impression that Australia was not an oil bearing country and, as a result, for a long period oil search lagged badly.
I should like to commend Senator Scott upon the very good work that he has done as chairman of the Government members’ mining committee. I am sorry that he is not present to hear what I have to say, because since he has been in this Parliament he has always taken a keen interest in the mineral resources of the Commonwealth. Being a good Western Australian he has taken a particular interest in the north-west of that State. He has been ably assisted on the committee - as, too, has the Government - by the presence of the honorable member for Higinbotham (Mr. Timson), as secretary. The honorable member has taken the greatest interest in oil search and mineral development generally. Another member of the committee is the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), who has a remarkable mind and seems able to comprehend many things that are beyond the comprehension of the average man. All three gentlemen have done splendid work in this field. As one who was a member of the committee for a short time I should like to commend them upon that work, and upon the recommendations that they have made to the Government in this important matter of mineral resources.
A great deal of what I intended to say has been covered by other speakers. While I ‘was a member of the rnining committee to which I have referred, I gained an insight into the methods used by oil drilling companies. I had the valuable experience of accompanying an oil drilling organization to the north-west of Western Australia, and was able to see for myself something of the work that is being done.
I agree with Senator McKenna that it is a pity the memorandum on oil search has been issued so late in the day. I should certainly have liked to read a little more on the subject because what I do not know about it would fill many books. However, it is a subject that interests me intensely. The memorandum includes an interesting map showing the position of all the great sedimentary basins. I suppose that there are in Australia as many of these as one would find in any other continent. And where they exist there is always the possibility that oil will be found. I had an opportunity to visit one of these sedimentary basins and see what was being done there.
– Did the sedimentary basin reciprocate?
– Whether it did or not, one certainly cannot have reciprocating engines without oil. I found my visit to the north-west on that occasion very valuable indeed. What impressed me more than anything else was the fact that in most cases sedimentary basins are to be found in inhospitable and remote areas. The difficulties associated with the setting up of an oil drilling rig in such areas are very great indeed. That is true particularly of the north-west of Australia, and I assume it is true also of the work that is proceeding on the big sedimentary basin at Innamincka in Central Australia.
I think very few of us appreciate the enormous expenditure and organization that are involved in setting up a single drilling rig. My first association with the search for oil was in Papua. When I was on a trip there I had an opportunity to see the oil drilling rig that had been set up in the jungle adjoining the Omati River. To get to that area one flies west from Port Moresby over the Gulf of Papua. Very few people realize what is the size of a drilling rig. It is a towering structure approximately 120 feet high. When one realizes that these rigs operate to a depth of 10,000, 11,000 or 12,000 ‘feet, <one can imagine the tremendous proportions of the ancillary equipment that is needed. Most of the places throughout the world in which oil drilling is conducted are inaccessible and operators are confronted with very great transport problems. In tropical areas- even in the north of Australia,, where in the main dry conditions obtain but where there is a short wet season - it is almost impossible for the operators to carry on at certain periods. To transport a rig from one site to another is a task of great magnitude. It will be seen, therefore, that vast sums of money are needed for oil drilling purposes, and that is why .it is essential to encourage the subscription of capital for this work.
The Minister stated that in Australia approximately £56,500;000 has been expended on the search for oil. Of course, it has been expended over a long period. But I suggest that the greater part of that money has been expended during the term of office of this Government. I know that up to the time I was in Papua more than £20,000,000 had been expended, and I know that in Western Australia a phenomenal sum of money has been expended by the oil drilling company that is operating in that area.
– It has expended £15,000,000.
– That is correct, and it is continuing its activities. The company in Western Australia that I saw operating is still carrying on the tedious work of survey and .the movement of a rig from one site to another. That sort of thing has been going on for years, and capital subscribed by overseas companies as well as Australian capital is still being employed in the search for oil.
I do not think that we in Australia appreciate just how much the finding of oil in this country would mean to us. I do not know exactly what is our total expenditure each year on petroleum products, but it is of staggering proportions. It is probably in the vicinity of £125,000,000 or £130,000,000. The finding of oil in commercial quantities would revolutionize this country. Right from the early history of Australia our mineral resources have stood us in good stead. Gold was discovered very early in our history. Indeed, very few of the minerals that are found in other countries are not found in Australia. Oil is one of the exceptions, so it is incumbent upon us to do what we can to advance the search for it.
I should now like to refer to a few details of the work that is involved in searching for oil and to touch upon one or two matters that came to my notice during my association with the Government members’ mining committee. It is essential, in the first place, to make an aerial survey - a magnetometer survey. When the details of that survey are formulated, it is necessary to undertake certain field work before drilling operations commence. There follows the process of getting the drilling rig to the site that has been selected. In selecting a site seismic tests are taken, as Senator Scott has indicated, to obtain a knowledge of the base rock formation. When a suitable base rock or a suitable dome in that base rock is discovered, drilling proceeds. As Senator McKenna pointed out earlier, the average man has a scanty knowledge of the way in which oil reserves were formed in the first place. We know that the history of oil reserves goes back for millions of years. We know, too, that oil migrates and that over perhaps thousands or millions of years it may have moved from a sedimentary basin in which one could reasonably have expected it to have formed.
Seismic tests are made by explosive means. As Senator Scott said, one drills to a depth of approximately 100 feet and fires a charge. The echo-sounding equipment that is used in the test gives an idea of the depth of the base rock, and one is then able to form some idea as to where domes, are likely to be found. Then, the really expensive part of the operation commences. The setting up of rigs is not all that is involved in drilling for oil, although they are extremely costly things in themselves. A thousand and one accoutrements are necessary in association with the drilling rig. I do not know the cost of a drill, but it would be quite considerable. If tough rock is encountered, the wear and tear on the drills is very great.
All the associated processes have to be considered. For instance, you have to set up your camp. Men will not go to these inaccessible spots to carry out this work unless a proper camp is set up. In the main, the men concerned are highly skilled. During my contacts with the personnel at Exmouth Gulf I came to realize that we had there some highly qualified men from America, working in association with Australians. Without question, they would have been commanding very high salaries. The inhospitable nature of the country necessitated that the camp be provided with first-class amenities. The men would not have stopped there if it were not for that. I was fortunate enough to participate in some of the amenities provided, and I can vouch for their excellence. The experience that I had in that camp is one which I will remember for a very long while.
– They did not mix it with oil?
– No, they did not mix it with oil, but they did find oil at this spot. It was good to go to this spot at Rough Range and see the hole from which oil had flowed. They had to destroy the oil by burning, because it was not found there in commercial quantities. The oil flowed for a considerable time, but I do not know how many barrels were obtained. A considerable reservoir of oil did flow into the river and the dry creek bed, but because of the fear of polluting other watercourses in the area the oil was destroyed by burning. We saw the destruction of some of the oil, and we saw oil oozing out. Unfortunately, it was not found in commercial quantities. The West Australian Petroleum Proprietary Limited drilled several holes adjacent to the hole where the oil was found, but unfortunately oil was not found in commercial quantities.
I repeat that the search for oil is a tremendously costly business. Knowing the experience of other countries, we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are not going to find oil in Australia unless we pour out capital. As a government we have always adopted the attitude that it is the job of private capital to find oil. We are not here as a government to undertake that responsibility. We have to create a favorable economic climate, and to give every encouragement to outside investors and organizations, as well as to our own investors and entrepreneurs, to find oil in Australia. That has always been our policy, and we make no apology for it. We do what we can by way of encouragement. I give the previous Government due credit for setting up the Bureau of Mineral Resources, which has done some extremely valuable work in obtaining the technical data that is necessary for the finding of oil. I give due credit to the head of the Department of National Development, Dr. Raggatt, for the work he has done in connexion with the Bureau of Mineral Resources.
That work has been supplemented in other ways by the present Government, by way of the granting of taxation concessions and the carrying out of geological surveys and mapping work. The bureau has done a remarkable job since it has been in operation, but the work has been done mainly during the term of office of the present Government, not during the term of office of the previous government. This Government has done most of the work in connexion with oil search; there is no question about that. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) spoke about our shortcomings in regard to oil search, but his statement was nothing more than hypocrisy because the Labour Party has done virtually nothing and has never taken any interest in oil search. It is easy for him to talk in such a way at the present time, but we know that the record of the Labour Party is virtually nil in regard to oil search. This Government has done all that is humanly possible in conformity with its policy. It is not going to depart from that policy because people on the other side of the chamber say that it should adopt socialist methods.
– What about Glen Davis?
– Give Glen Davis a rest! I have heard enough about it. It was a complete liability right from the very beginning of its operations. One of the best things this Government ever did was to cease operations there. It is no good talking about Glen Davis to me. I think the Government was perfectly justified in saving the taxpayers’ money by dispensing with the useless, cumbersome and costly project that was carried on at Glen Davis.
I repeat that, as a Government, we are doing all that we can, directly and indirectly, to encourage oil search throughout Australia. This bill is simply an extension of the previous legislation dealing with oil subsidies. It is extremely important that the Government give every possible help in oil search, and that it obtain all the geological knowledge it can and all the data associated with drilling holes, whether they be drilled for oil or for water. Many deep bores have been put down in the past but, unfortunately, no knowledge has been gained from the cores that were extracted from those bores. The Government says that it will extend its help to the oil industry by further subsidizing stratigraphic drilling and giving further assistance in other ways. Complete details of that assistance were given in the Minister’s speech.
As a Government, we have done a great deal of work in connexion with oil search. We realize how vastly important it is to Australia that oil be found. Whether oil will be found is still a moot point. As a South Australian, I am extremely interested in what has been done in the north-east of South Australia and the south-west of Queensland by the organization known as Santos. I know some of the people who are associated with the venture. I got a great deal of satisfaction from the knowledge that another organization, known as Delhi Australia, was to interest itself in the sedimentary basin which we know exists in that area. Operations are at present proceeding at Innamincka. Undoubtedly, if we do not strike oil there, valuable information will nevertheless be provided on what lies beneath the ground. I have heard it said that there are some very promising domes in the area adjacent to the present drill hole. Whether we shall be fortunate enough to strike oil in that area is in the lap of the gods.
I sincerely hope that we shall be successful in striking oil in South Australia, Queensland or Western Australia; I do not care where it is found. I want oil to be found in Australia in commercial quantities, because it would give a fillip to our development that could not be matched by any other factor. I say without hesitation- that to-day oil is the most important factor in Australia’s further development. That >s why due credit must be given to the Govern^ ment for the work it has done in connexion with oil search. It is important, too, that we encourage outside investment. I should like to see further interest taken by the big oil companies- cartels, if one likes to describe- them in that way. I do not care where the money comes from, as long as it is employed in the search for oil. I certainly think it would be a great pity if the Australian ingredient in investment were reduced to a minor percentage.
The tax concession on calls, referred to by the Minister and by Senator Scott, has maintained .the Australian ingredient in drilling organizations. It is important that that be done. I do not want to see Australians lose interest in oil drilling. I want them to come: to light with a certain, amount of capital. We cannot, of course, compete with outside interests, but it is important to maintain a certain Australian financial ingredient. That, is why the Government has encouraged the Australian investor to invest in oil shares.. He has been encouraged by being allowed as a deduction the money paid in’ calls. The Government has nothing of which to. be ashamed in relation to this important question. In fact,, we are proud.
Now that Senator Scott is .here, I want to repeat what I said about him.. He has done a remarkable job as: chairman of the Government members mining committee. I do not suppose there is a better informed man on this; subject. I have said that before,, and I do not mind repeating it. I do not think the Deputy President would regard it as undue repetition. The praise that I. am giving Senator Scott is due. to him. He has done a good job. He has given the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) every possible assistance, and I am glad that the Minister has been wise enough to adopt some of the recommendations of that extremely valuable committee. At present I am not a member of it.# I retired when I thought my period of usefulness to it was over. The good work is still being carried on, and I am sure the Minister is duly grateful for the advice that has been tendered to him from time to time.
I have not touched’ on the technical details of the measure, but have spoken only in general terms. My interest in oil search will always be maintained. I am intensely interested in anything associated with mineral development in Australia, but the interest of the world is now focussed on oil. We know that we live in an oil age. In the past, we heard that supplies of oil would diminish, and that there was a limit to oil resources. We know how wrong we were. As a result of the adoption of new methods, oil wells all over the world that we thought would go out of production have not only maintained their supply but have increased it. There are now reserves far greater than we ever dreamed of. We in this country have a duty to do all we possibly can to find what oil resources we have, and the Government is doing everything to achieve this objective.
.- This evening I did admire the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) and the cool effrontery he displayed while he was delivering so laboriously his thirteenpage second-reading speech upon a bill which he presumes will, solve the oil problems of the Commonwealth. He has told us, in effect, that this, legislation would encourage efforts to- discover oil. He said that. it. would enlarge .the field of search, that we should have many more companies searching, for oil, and that his department would make geophysical, surveys and get busy in the preparation of maps and information for all’ the. companies that wished to seek for oil in Australia. It was a nice little story indeed for a Government that has been in office for ten years to send over the air to the listening public. One would have thought that the Government had been returned for the first time in November last, but the Government, has been in office since 1949, and now in 1959 this legislation is introduced and these claims are made for tit by the Minister. I admire his. cool effrontery, because he has been Minister for National Development for eight years.
– And done an excellent job.
– Now that my Australian Country Party friend has interjected, I shall explain to the people of the Commonwealth the excellent job that the Minister has done. I refer the Senate to the second paragraph of the speech that was so laboriously delivered this evening. At times during the speech I thought the Minister was actually boasting of his achievements, saying in effect to the people of the Commonwealth: “Tune in your radios. I am telling you a little story about what I have done since I became Minister for National Development, in regard to the finding of oil in Australia. When 1 finish, you may come along, pat me on the back and say, ‘ Good work, Mr. Minister ‘.” He has been the Minister for National Development, and upon him has rested the responsibility to do everything possible to have oil discovered in Australia. The Minister referred to legislation that he sponsored in this Senate in 1957. On the first of these thirteen pages of plain baffle-gab - I refer to the Minister’s second-reading speech on the measure before us - he stated that at that time, 1957, interest in the search for oil was at a low ebb. By 1957, the Minister had administered the Department of National Development for six years, and he now says that at that time interest in the search for oil was at a low ebb.
– By companies.
– And by the Government, too! Since Senator Kendall has challenged me, I shall prove that interest in the matter by the Government also was at a low ebb. The Government has never been seriously interested in the discovery of oil in the Commonwealth, for the reason that the Liberal Party is the political party of the combines. The oil industry is the greatest combine in this country. It cartelizes the tenders that it submits to semi-public authorities and to the Government for the supply of oil. The Liberal Party is not greatly concerned even now about the discovery of oil in the Commonwealth.
– Then why has this legislation been introduced?
– I make that statement because I have been challenged about the Minister’s achievements; and it was his responsibility to do all possible to have oil discovered in this country.
– What did the former Labour government do in tint connexion?
– I shall tell honorable senators opposite, in a minute or two, what Labour did, and they will get a shock.
– Tell us whom your party represents.
– We represent more than 50 per cent, of the people of Australia. I have before me a document known as the Administrative Arrangements Order. Of course, I know that many senators on the Government side do not know what this document is. It was authorized by His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, and it was gazetted on 2nd July, 1951. It sets out the functions and the responsibilities of the Department of National Development. The first of those functions is -
Survey of immediate shortages in basic commodities and planning of improvements by increased production or import. ls not oil in Australia at the present time a basic commodity? I do not think that any Government senator will dispute that it is a basic commodity, lt is indispensable in our economy. Senator Spooner has had to exercise this function since he became the Minister for National Development, because it is prescribed in the Administrative Arrangements Order. Of course, I do not blame him wholly; I blame the Government, because it is the attitude of the Government to do nothing about the discovery of oil in the Commonwealth. The first function enumerated required a survey of the immediate shortages in basic commodities. But we have no oil. We are not an oilproducing country, and so it has been the duty of the Minister for National Development to make every effort to discover oil. I charge the Government with gross negligence in regard to that duty. It is an elementary duty, which should have been carried out from the very day that the Government was elected to office. As a matter of fact, Mr. Acting Deputy President, the Government should have carried on. the work the foundations of which were laid by Labour prior to this Government coming to office in 1949. I shall come to the crux of the matter within a few minutes.
– Why not come to it straight away? ….
– 1. shall do so directly. Another function of the Department of
National Development prescribed by the Administrative Arrangements Order is -
Surveys of natural resources and development.
That confirms the authority that the Minister had to go full steam ahead and make every effort possible to discover oil. 1 shall prove that no genuine effort at all was made so to do. I do think that some Government senators conscientiously believe that oil will be discovered as a result of the legislation now before us. But Senator Scott, who is hard-headed about these things, knows that oil cannot be discovered merely by the passage of legislation; other things have to be done. Having mentioned the honorable senator’s name, I shall now refer to a matter with which he dealt during his speech. There has been an act operating in the Commonwealth since 1928 known as the Geophysical Survey Act. I ask the honorable senator: What government was in office between 1928 and 1941? If the honorable senator says that no information whatever was collected over the years in regard to geophysical surveys, then obviously some particular government was at fault. I again ask the honorable senator: What government was in power in the Commonwealth between 1928 and 1941? Certainly Labour was in office between 1941 and 1949 - during the war years.
– The Scullin Government was in office during the depression.
– Senator Wade will have an opportunity to tell the Senate what was done by each successive government during the period I have mentioned. But here is an act that has been administered by the Minister for National Development ever since his appointment to that portfolio. We should be interested to hear his account of what he has done in administering that act. I come now to No. 12 of the list of functions, which reads -
Importation, sale and use of liquid fuels and petroleum products including distribution of petroleum products and substitute and synthetic fuels.
I shall defer my comment in relation to this function until later. Suffice it for me to say at this stage that I have outlined the functions of the Minister for National Development since he has held that high office.
Quite recently - last year - the Administrative Arrangements Order was varied, and the functions of the Department of National Development are now set out in these very few words -
Development of national resources.
Housing, including War Service Homes.
That is the end of it. The other functions, which cast an obligation not only upon the Minister but also upon the Government to make every effort to discover oil, have been jettisoned. This new Administrative Arrangements Order was gazetted on Thursday, 24th April, 1958. It reveals the policy of the Menzies Government. It reveals clearly that the Government has no conscientious desire either at the present time or in the future to have oil discovered in Australia.
I have said that petroleum is a basic commodity. There is no question of that. If we were to dispense to-morrow with all the internal combustion engines now operating in the Commonwealth, what would be the condition of the economy a week later? Consider, for instance, the position of the wheat-grower. He has mechanized his industry. He wants a tractor to plough his fields and machines to reap his harvest. He uses an internal combustion engine to haul his wheat to the nearest receiving depot. The position is the same in the sugar industry. Throughout almost the whole of our primary industry engines that use oil for fuel are to be found. Later,I shall show how serious it is for us that Australia is not an oilproducing nation.
We all know of the many uses to which internal combustion engines are put in Australia to-day. Throughout Queensland, for instance, bulldozers are clearing millions of acres of scrub. Engines of one kind or another are being employed for general developmental work, for irrigation purposes, and to provide stock watering facilities; they are used on public works, and by the railway authorities to haul heavy loads. We could not dispense with the diesel electric engine. Let us suppose that there was a serious threat of war. In fact, it would not be necessary for war actually to break out before Australia’s oil supplies were cut off. Honorable senators will remember what happened when the Suez Canal trouble arose. There was then a threatened shortage of petroleum in Australia. Such a position could arise again to-morrow. If a Wi£12’ were to break out, Australia would contribute to its own defeat should its essential industries) not be able to carry on for more than a week or two because they lacked assured supplies of oil. We were told to-night by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that without f fuel oils our Navy, Air Force and Army, and ais”© our civilian production, would be immobilized. Obviously, the threat of a shortage of oil is a very serious matter.
Everybody who has listened to me tonight will appreciate that oil cannot be stored satisfactorily for an indefinite period. It must be used after a certain time; otherwise it deteriorates and its quality diminishes.
– How did we get on for oil in the last war?
– Is that interjection indicative of the attitude of the Liberal Party at the present time? Is it the attitude of the Government that we shall survive somehow if we are engaged in another war? Let me tell the honorable senator that during the last war we were able to obtain much of our oil requirements from Indonesia. But that may not be the case in a future war.
South Africa, I understand, is not an oil producing country. It is rather interesting, therefore, to see what the Government of South Africa did in 1955, and prior to that, to overcome that disability. Realizing that it was more or less cut off from supplies of petrol and oil elsewhere in the world, and knowing, at the same time, that South Africa had unlimited supplies of coal, the government of the country constructed a plant for the purpose of converting coal into synthetic petroleum. The undertaking has been so successful that at the present lime South Africa is able to manufacture one-seventh of the liquid fuels that it requires. That is an achievement on the part of the South African Government.
Here in the Commonwealth, we also have unlimited supplies of coal, not only in New South Wales, but in Queensland as well. A government with imagination would establish a plant similar to that which is operating in South Africa and manufacture synthetic petroleum for the reason that it would be an alternative source of supply. From that point we could” perhaps proceed in such a way that we could meet the whole of our oil requirements. Perhaps I am a little ambitious in making that statement, but at least we could produce some of the fuel that we require. When we think that we must find £135,000,000 a year to buy the oils that are brought to this country, we must say to ourselves, “Why does not the Government establish a plant such as that established in the Orange Free State of South Africa?” To my mind, the Government has a duty to do so. After all, £135.000,000 is a gigantic sum. If we were to be relieved to-morrow of the obligation to find that sum for the importation of fuel oils to be distributed by the private oil companies that are flourishing in the Commonwealth at the present time, we would have a vastly different economy from that which we now have. I am satisfied that the supporters of the Government are not fully conscious of the dangerous position that the Commonwealth is in.
Let us consider for a moment the oilproducing regions of the world. In the Middle East, in Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, 65 per cent, of the world’s oil resources are to be found. The Soviet bloc has 10 per cent. Canada has a mere 1.5 per cent., and although we have been led for years to believe that the United States of America has unlimited resources of oil, we find that they do not amount to more than 12 per cent, of the world total. Venezuela, one of the northern States of South America, enjoys 6 per cent., while Africa has 1.5 per cent, and Indonesia 3 per cent. In no country that is constantly sympathetic to Australia is there an oil supply that could reach us readily in our hour of need. Canada would perhaps be the closest. When we examine a map of the world in relation to oil resources we find that Australia is right outside oil-producing regions. That is something that perhaps has been weighed by the experts when they have been assessing Australia’s potential as an oil-producing country. May I say that I have the greatest confidence in the experts whom the Government employs on the technical side. I do not intend to labour the point. I merely say that 1 have the greatest confidence in them.
There is another matter that I want to deal with, and it will dispense, I think, with the suggestion that some honorable senators opposite have made, that when Labour was in office it made no attempt to discover oil in Australia. Nothing is more stupid than to make such a statement, because we know that it was a Labour government which ordered deep well boring plant from overseas. The most modern plant was obtained from the United States. The tower - I think it. has been referred to as a rig - was approximately 170 feet high and was capable of drilling to a depth of 10,000 feet. Why do honorable senators on the Government side think the Labour Government imported that machine? Do they think we imported it to take it to the various agricultural shows for use as a slippery dip? Do they think we imported it merely for the purpose of allowing children to ride from the top of the tower to the ground? The Labour Government arranged to have it brought here so that it could be used by the Government, so that a government department might employ hands to utilize it in boring for oil on sites selected by its own scientists. The only complaint I have is that the Government did not import more machinery of that kind from the United States of America. At least twenty or 30 such plants should have been brought in and put into operation immediately they arrived here. If that had been done, perhaps Australia would have been an oil-producing country to-day.
I notice the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) is smiling. He is quite happy so long as he is collecting excise on petrol, oil and other things. But we must look at this matter from a national point of view, and in doing that we must be serious. This matter cannot be passed over lightly. Members of the Government have expressed wonderment at our opposing this measure. We oppose it because it does not go far enough. In effect, this Government is telling the people of Australia that if oil is discovered in Australia, that discovery must not be made by the Commonwealth Government. It is also saying that if any public or private company discovers oil, that company must be one whose capital has been subscribed from foreign sources. Those statements have been repeated parrot fashion by the
Government, and I seriously suggest that the Government should change its attitude. I suggest that there be a meeting of the Government parties to-morrow to consider what I have said to-night and that the Government should then change its attitude towards this question. It is essential that a more earnest effort be made to discover oil. The one thing that we need is oil. What would happen to all our diesel power if we had another war? Some time ago, I read a statement by one railway authority that no more steam locomotives were to be constructed. Ever since then I have wondered what would happen to road transport in Australia if we had another war. That is another point that warrants serious consideration.
Australia is not an oil-producing country, and we all look forward to the day when we shall be producing in our own country sufficient oil to meet our own requirements. We do not wish to become an oil-exporting country.
– Why not?
– I hope that if ever oil is discovered here our supplies will be retained and husbanded for use by our own people in the centuries to come.
– If everybody felt like that, we should have no oil at all.
– I point out that the United States of America is importing oil and sealing off many of her own wells in order to conserve supplies, because oil, like coal, is an exhaustible commodity.
– Then, should we export coal?
– We would like to, because we have unlimited supplies, sufficient to meet our needs for centuries ahead.
– You have just said that the supplies of coal and oil in Australia are limited.
– The honorable senator has not a modern mind. I point out to him that we are more or less leaving the steam era behind us and are now entering the oil era. Later, perhaps when the honorable senator has long, grey whiskers, we shall move into the nuclear power era. But at present we are entering the oil era, and oil is urgently required. I find this bill inadequate and, because of its inadequacy, I intend to vote against it.
– There is no doubt that life is full of surprises. I had prepared some notes on this bill, and honorable senators can imagine my surprise to-night when I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) use in opposition to the bill the very arguments I intended to use in support of it. But 1 think he twisted his argument to suit his case. I agree with him entirely that oil is of terrific importance to Australia. This is borne out by the fact that oil is costing Australia £135,000,000 a year now, and, coupled with that, we have the horrifying thought of what our plight could be if we had another war. But it must not be forgotten that this Government is very conscious of these facts; and I was amazed that the Leader of the Opposition should leave himself open by arguing as he did. [ find on examining the figures that the total amount spent on oil exploration in Australia during the 53 years from 1892 to 1945 was only £5,143,000. And it is interesting to note that of that sum £2,778,000 was spent in Papua and New Guinea, £1,256,000 in Queensland, £229,000 in New South Wales, £292,000 in Victoria, £100,000 in Tasmania, £200,000 in South Australia and £287,000 in Western Australia. It is significant that this Government proposes to spend in one year almost as much as was spent during the 53 years from 1892 to 1945. In further refutation of the case put by the Leader of the Opposition, I point out that the total amount spent by this Government from 1950 to date was £46,762,000. If we add to that sum the £5,143,000 spent before 1945, and subtract the total of these amounts from the total sum spent up to the present time, we find that the Opposition can claim to have been responsible for expending only £4,000,000 on oil research. The £2,000,000 which this Government proposes to give by way of direct grant, plus taxation relief amounting to approximately £2,000,000, gives us a total of £4,000,000 or almost as much as was spent in the 53 years prior to 1945.
As a Western Australian, I should be failing in my duty if I did not quote some figures relating to the Wapet company which has been operating in that State. The cost of the search in Western Australia to date has been £15,240,000. That sum has been spent by Wapet, though there have, of course, been other explorations in that State. The total number of wells drilled is 63. Exploratory wells number 29 and structure wells 34. The total footage of wells drilled is 221,600. The figure for exploratory wells is 175,338, and for structure wells 46,262. The total cost of wells drilled is £4,235,000. That represents only 25 per cent, of the money spent by Wapet. lt brings me to the point made by the Minister - that if we relate the subsidy to drilling costs only it will not have the desired effect. The Minister said that geophysical surveys and bore hole surveys would be dealt with similarly. In broad terms, costs which may attract subsidy will include the cost of moving into an area, carrying out a programme of work, and moving out of an area. I attach a deal of importance to that portion of the Minister’s remarks.
When members of the Opposition say that they oppose the bill because it does not do enough, it sounds rather strange. It is a case of those who oppose private enterprise saying that we are not doing enough for private enterprise. Certainly, £4,000,000 is perhaps not all that the Government would like to spend, but it is a great deal more than any other government since federation has spent in assisting oil search, which is, of course, a very expensive business. I have some figures that I have not yet multiplied, so I do not know whether” they agree with those of the Leader of the Opposition, but I am advised that in Papua a 10,000-ft. drill hole can cost as much as £1,000,000.
It is rather interesting to look at the history of oil exploration in Australia and see just how far we have gone in the last nine years. Credit for the first recorded discovery of traces of oil lies with the crew of H.M.S. “ Beagle “. In 1839 they found bituminous material near the tidal reaches of the Victoria River, in northern Australia. Drilling for oil in Australia was first carried out in 1892 in the Coorong area of South Australia where the presence of bituminous material had been known since 1852. The first major demonstration of the possibility of oil existing in quantity in
Australia occurred at Roma, in Queensland, in 1900, when a bore put down for town water struck a flow of natural gas which continued to blow off freely for some years.
– It was petroliferous too!
– That is so. In 1906, the gas was used to light the streets of the town, but after only ten days the flow suddenly diminished. The project was a little late. Gas was again struck at Roma in 1908 and from then until 1934, and again after the second World War, more than 40 holes were drilled in and around the town without the presence of an economic gas field being established.
The number of holes bored has been given as 434. I took the trouble to find out the number of drillings since this Government came into office. I invite honorable senators to remember that, with modern techniques, bores are put down for 10,000 and 12,000 feet. They are not holes - as one learned gentleman observed - such as might be put down under some one’s hen coop with an auger. Years ago antiquated equipment was used and bores could not be sunk to great depths, as they are to-day. Between 1950 and 1957 - the latest year for which I have the figures - this Government was responsible for the sinking of some 184 holes, all of a much greater depth than those sunk before 1945.
To return to the history of oil exploration - oil seepages were observed on the Vailala River in Papua in 1911, and an active search was sponsored by the Commonwealth Government between 1912 and 1929. In Victoria, drilling for oil began in 1914, but the principal activity dates from 1924. In 1919 Walter Oakes found bituminous material near the junction of the Negri and Ord Rivers in the north of Western Australia. Traces of natural gas were reported from a well sunk after geological examination. In the same year Harry Price reported traces of oil in a water bore on Gogo Station in the West Kimberley division. Four further holes were drilled in the vicinity and three gave traces of oil. Although natural gas was encountered in a water bore at Grafton between 1897 and 1902, it was not until 1933 that the first hole drilled specifically for oil in New South Wales was put down near Grafton.
As honorable senators will see, it is now some 120 years since the first traces of oil were found in this country. The Opposition has the temerity to castigate this Government for having spent only £46,000,000 on this work in the nine years since it came to office. Naturally, one would like to see far more money being spent, especially in the northern part of Western Australia where oil has actually been found, though not in commercial quantities. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has said, there is only one way to find oil, and that is by drilling. I do not think that it is the prerogative of governments to go into the oil-drilling business. It is rather the prerogative of private enterprise. With a population of 10,000,000, can we afford the colossal expenditure involved in the search for oil which can be obtained through investment from overseas? I would far sooner oil were found by overseas investors than have to rely on overseas suppliers in the event of a national emergency.
When companies search for oil the State in which they operate derives benefits, whether the venture is successful or not. In the north-west there are quite a number of very good roads that would never have been built but for the search for this very precious commodity. Some very good buildings have also been provided. Indeed, some of us slept in one at Derby the other night. Even if we do not find oil in the immediate future it cannot be said that the Government is doing other than offer every incentive to private enterprise to go out and search for it. I should be remiss in my duty as a Western Australian senator if I did not wholeheartedly support the passage of this important legislation.
Debate interrupted.
page 70
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIIin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 August 1959, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1959/19590812_senate_23_s15/>.