Senate
24 May 1965

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1965

The Senate met at 2.30 p.m.

page 1095

ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT

The Clerk:

– I have to announce that the President (Senator the Honorable Sir Alister McMullin) will be unavoidably absent from the sittings of the Senate this day. In accordance with Standing Order No. 29, the Chairman of Committees will take the Chair as Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) thereupon took the chair and read prayers.

page 1095

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT (EXTENSION) BILL 1965

Assent reported.

page 1095

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has the Department of Civil Aviation decided to grant the Ansett subsidiary, Ansett M.A.L., an airline licence to operate between Madang and Chimbu in New Guinea? Has this route in the past 13 years been operated more than successfully by an independent company, Territory Airlines Ltd.? Did this company recently make application for an import licence to operate larger aircraft to the Chimbu region because of increased demand, and was it then decided by the Department of Civil Aviation to withdraw the existing licence and award it to Ansett M.A.L.? In view of the excellent service that Territory Airlines Ltd. has given to servicing the remote areas of New Guinea, will the Minister investigate this matter urgently in the public interest and revoke any transfer of the licence to the Ansett company?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · TASMANIA · LP

– I will certainly have an investigation made into the position. I am not aware of the matter which the honorable senator has raised. The DirectorGeneral of the Department of Civil Aviation was in New Guinea about six weeks or two months ago, and examined all the air services there. I shall obtain information as to what the position is and let the honorable senator know.

page 1095

QUESTION

WATER PIPELINES

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honorable senator indicated to me that he was proposing to ask a question on this matter. I have conferred with my colleague, the Minister for National Development, and I am now able to advise the honorable senator that the Water Research Foundation of Australia is not a public authority and does not undertake the construction of works such as the laying of pipelines. The Foundation is concerned with the obtaining and allocation of funds for research in the water field. The possibility of the laying of pipelines to carry water over long distances to areas which have consistently low rainfalls is not so much a matter of research or of technical knowhow as of costs and economics. Pipelines have advantages over earth or concrete channels because they can be operated almost irrespective of terrain by the installation of pumps and they also minimise the evaporation and seepage losses that occur in channels. However, pipelines are relatively expensive compared with channels.

Long pipelines have been and continue to be used in many States, particularly Western Australia and South Australia. In the Goldfields and Agricultural Water Supply Scheme in Western Australia water is pumped nearly 350 miles from Mundaring Reservoir to Kalgoorlie. The total length of branch pipelines to mining areas, agricultural areas and country towns is over 3,780 miles. The Comprehensive Water Supply Scheme, which was authorised in 1947, enlarged and extended the Goldfields and Agricultural Scheme, and further extensions now in progress will bring water to 13 more towns and 1,600 more farms. In

South Australia, the 223 mile MorganWhyalla pipeline from the Murray River is being duplicated at a cost of £17.8 million. Where there is a call for new or supplementary water supplies, whether for irrigation or industrial and domestic purposes, supply by pipeline is invariably considered among the several alternative methods that may be possible.

page 1096

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of delays that occurred in air travel this morning, I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation what investigation the Commonwealth is conducting into fog dispersal at airports. What are the prospects of success in experiments that are being conducted here or overseas?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– Not only civil aviation authorities but aviation authorities generally all over the world are conducting experiments into the avoidance of delays caused by fog. I do not think I can cheer the honorable senator’s soul by telling him that at this stage any degree of success is in sight. Every effort is being made in all parts of the world to make airports available for instrument landings in order to avoid such delays. I understand that the delay which occurred this morning was a pretty bad one. I can only say that this is one thing that the Department of Civil Aviation in Australia does not have under control.

page 1096

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted a statement made at the weekend by LT Thant, the Secretary-General, that the United Nations was being bypassed in relation to some recent international disputes? Has the Minister also noted the statement make last week by Sir Alan Watt, the Director of the Australian Institute of International Affairs to the International Co-operation Year convention in Canberra that Australia could raise the Vietnam issue before the United Nations under Article 35 of the Charter? Is not the Australian Government, by its decision to send combat troops to Vietnam, guilty of bypassing the United Nations and therefore of doing less than its utmost to achieve a round table conference on Vietnam? Are the Parliament and the people of Australia to assume that the Government is prepared to do nothing at all to assist in having this matter raised before the United Nations?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have not seen the statement that has been attributed to U Thant. If that statement had reference to the situation in Vietnam, I remind myself and the Senate generally that U Thant’s own efforts towards the settlement of this issue by negotiation received a sharp rebuff from the people to whom they were addressed. In regard to what Sir Alan Watt said at the International Co-operation Year convention, I can only say that the Australian Government has taken an active and responsible part and has thoroughly discharged its obligations as a member of the United Nations. The honorable senator asked whether by sending troops to South Vietnam we were not bypassing the United Nations. I would like to point out to the honorable senator that the background to this decision has been pointed out on many occasions. It has been explained that, as a member of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, we can and do take several actions rather than joint action with all the parties. We have joined the United States of America in the interests of maintaining peace and justice in this part of the world and decided to take action as independent members of S.E.A.T.O. As for the rest of the honorable senator’s question, it interested me that only recently the Prime Minister made it clear that Australia, as an independent nation, has taken action to lend all types of support to South Vietnam in an endeavour to maintain the proper stature of that country and to ensure that the South Vietnamese are not overrun by ideas and forces which they do not want to accept. This has been the consistent attitude of the Australian Government and it shall continue.

page 1096

QUESTION

WATERFRONT

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service by drawing his attention to a report which appeared in the publication “Waterfront” dated 22nd May. The report attributes to Mr. Hood, Chairman of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, a statement, in relation to a stoppage on the waterfront, that it is ludicrous to say it takes 24 hours to discuss a Port Order. Mr. Hood said that the second subject listed for discussion was the Vietnam war and it was obvious that this political issue was the real matter for discussion. He said that over past years there had been unnecessary stoppages and interruptions of port activity and that these strikes had been designed to damage the country’s export markets and, therefore, the national economy. In view of that very important statement by the Chairman, who is principally charged with the administration of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, I ask the Minister: Can I take it that such a statement was made? Did it have the consideration of the Government? What measures does the Government propose for rectification of the position? Can the Minister tell me what has been the experience on the Sydney waterfront in these respects over the last week?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– The four specific questions asked by Senator Wright are: Can he take it as a fact that the statement as reported was made? Has the Government considered that particular statement? What are the Government’s plans to deal with the situation? What has happened during the last week on the Sydney waterfront? In the term “ Government “, I presume that the honorable senator would include the Minister for Labour and National Service and his advisers. I do not have those matters in my mind, and it is of no use asking the honorable senator to place his questions on the notice paper because I do not think there would be sufficient time for answers to be obtained from the Minister for Labour and National Service before the end of the sessional period. I shall write to the Minister for Labour and National Service and ask him to reply to these questions direct to the honorable senator. If it is true that political strikes are engaged in on the waterfront or anywhere else, I can say only that it is a negation of the proper running of the country and a prostitution of the industrial processes of Australia.

page 1097

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: When will the Vernon Committee’s report be introduced in Parliament? Can the honorable gentleman advise why the report was not introduced last August, as everyone expected? Is there any truth in the suggestions that the report has been delayed because it castigates the Government for the uneconomic developmental plans introduced since it took office in 1949 and that the acceptance of the report would create dissension between the Australian Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party in a number of States?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Vernon report no doubt will be made available to the Senate as soon as the Government has finished its investigation of the document.

page 1097

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the high ratio of young Australian men being found to be medically unfit in the current examinations for the call-up of national service trainees for military service, will the Minister take steps to have the Minister for Health authorised to have access to the medical classifications of all of the 20 year old youths examined, with a view to ascertaining the cause of failure to pass the medical fitness test, so that those who are rejected will be advised of the reason for their failure and encouraged to take the steps necessary to rectify as far as possible their physical defects?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I do not know that the basis of this question is correct, that is, that an unduly high percentage of lads now being called up is found to be medically unfit in some way or other. If this proves to be the case, however, I shall be pleased to consider the proposition advanced by the honorable senator.

page 1097

QUESTION

IRON ORE

(Question No. 389.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. To what extent is the iron ore industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  2. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of (a) sources of raw material and (b) existing or proposed refineries?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. At present nearly all the iron ore being commercially mined in Australia for use in iron and steel making is under the control of the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. which mines iron ore from

Yampi Sound in Western Australia and from Middleback Ranges in South Australia. The WoodDistillation, Charcoal-Iron and Steel Industry, a Western Australian Government instrumentality, mines relatively smaller amounts from Koolyanobbing in Western Australia.

Besides the concerns mentioned in the previous paragraph, there are various companies which have announced their intention of mining iron ore in the next few years for export to Japan.I understand that, with one exception, these companies have not yet been officially granted a mining lease; this, of course, is a matter for the Government of the State concerned. (a) The companies which have obtained contracts for export of iron ore are -

Western Mining Corporation Ltd. has a contract for the sale to Japanese steel mills of 5.1 million tons. Western Mining Corporation has been joined in its project by overseas interests which have taken a50 per cent, interest.

Mount Goldsworthy Mining Associates has a contract for sale to Japan of 16.5 million tons. At present this company is whollyowned by overseas interests but it has been reported that Australians will be given a 20 per cent, equity interest.

Hamersley Iron Pty. Ltd. has a contract for sale to Japan of 65 million tons. This company is almost wholly-owned by overseas interests. Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd., (which has a 60 per cent, interest in Hammersley Iron) is at present about 90 per cent, owned overseas, but I understand that this is being reduced to 85 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent, interest in Hammersley Iron is held by the Kaiser Steel Corporation.

Mr Newman Iron Ore Co. Ltd. has a contract for the sale to Japan of 100 million tons. This company is 50 per cent, owned by overseas interests.

Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. has exchanged letters of intent with the Japanese steel mills indicating an intention of the Japanese to purchase 71.4 million tons of iron ore pellets. On the information available this company will be substantially overseas owned.

The quantity of iron ore covered by the contracts or letters of intent referred to above represent a total of less than 300 million tons which would represent no more than 2 per cent, of Australian known resources of iron ore. Other companies are still negotiating with the Japanese steel mills for export contracts. One such company is Pickands Mather of the United States of America which is interested in the development of the Savage River iron ore deposit in Tasmania, in association with Japanese interests. I understand that some Australian equity will be invited to participate in this venture butI have no details as to the actual extent. (b) The only company with firm plans for manufacturing pig iron and/or steel is the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. Both Hamersley Iron and Mount Newman Iron Ore Co. have agreements with the Western Australian Government that envisage the ultimate manufacture of pig iron and steel, but on present indications this will not happen for at least 25 years or so.

page 1098

QUESTION

FUEL TAX

(Question No. 400.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minis ter representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is the amount of fuel lax per gallon levied on State Governments and their instrumentalities?
  2. How much in fuel tax was paid last yearby each instrumentality in the Stales?
  3. How much of this sum has been returned to the States?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following reply -

  1. State Governments and their instrumentalities pay duty on motor spirit and diesel fuel at the same rates as do other purchasers, namely: Motor spirit11¾d. per gallon. Diesel fuel - for use in a road vehicle on a public road 1 2d. per gallon - for other use nil.
  2. Duty on motor spirit and diesel fuel is paid by oil companies in bulk amounts to the Department of Customs and Excise prior to the removal of the motor spirit or diesel fuel from company storage terminals. The Department, therefore, has no knowledge which would enable it to state the individual amount of duty paid by every State Government instrumentality.
  3. The very considerable sums which the Commonwealth makes available each year to the States by way of general revenue grants and specific purpose payments would very greatly exceed the amounts collected by way of fuel tax from State Governments and their instrumentalities.

page 1098

QUESTION

TIMBER

(Question No. 418.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

What will be called for in respect of funds and otherwise to rectify the critical shortage of timber and forest products which must develop in Australia unless urgent remedial measures are taken?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister has supplied the following answer -

The future supply and demand for limber and forest products has ben studied recently by the Australian Forestry Council, of which the Minister for National Development is Chairman. The Council has concluded that to overcome the present and future shortage of timber and other forest products, it will be necessary to increase the annual planting rates of softwoods in Australia to 75,000 acres per annum. The Council envisages that private enterprise will achieve an annual planting of 10,000 acres, leaving an annual programme of 65,000 acres to be planted by the Government forest services. Plans are now being studied for encouraging additional plantings.

page 1099

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 444.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

  1. In each of the past five years, how many migrants were brought to each of the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory?
  2. For the current year, on the arrangements made by the Department of Immigration, what are the estimated numbers of migrants to be taken to each of the Stales and those two Territories?
Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Acting Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following table showing the number of settlers - that is, persons who, on arrival in Australia, indicated that they came intending to settle - according to the State or Territory where they disembarked from the ship or aircraft which brought them to Australia.

The figures in the above table do not show the effect of settler arrivals on the population of the States. Many arrivals use interstate transport to complete their journeys. Others, even though their Stale of disembarkation is the same as their first address, move interstate shortly after arrival. Thus, many assisted migrants disembarking at Melbourne who proceed to the Migrant Reception Centre, Bonegilla, Victoria, may go to employment in other States soon after arrival.

Some indication of the pattern of settlement is provided by figures showing the States or ‘Territories in which persons born overseas who had recently arrived in Australia were found at the time of the Census in 1961. In the following table, the numbers of persons who stated their period of residence us under six years but not under one year, are shown according to the year of arrival, ending June, which their answers at the Census would indicate.

The allocation of settler arrivals in the statistics to their intended State of first residence is a problem on which the Commonwealth Statistician has been working for some time. While there are inherent difficulties, it is hoped that a workable solution will be found as a result of his current investigations.

  1. No special arrangements are made by the Department of Immigration as to the number of migrants to be taken to each of the States. So far as migrants sponsored by individuals, firms or organisations are concerned, their State of residence on arrival is determined by the location of accommodation arranged by the sponsor. The placement of Commonwealth nominees is dependent upon a number of factors, such as any preference of the migrant, the availability of hostel accommodation at the time of arrival and prospects of employment according to occupation, lt is expected that at least 142,000 new settlers will arrive in Australia in the financial year 1964-65.

page 1100

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 455.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. What is done to ensure that Australian diplomatic representatives and staff are well versed in foreign languages?
  2. In respect of each of the languages - Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Polish, Malayan, Chinese, Japanese and languages of the Scandinavian and African groups - how many of our overseas representatives are competent to (a) read and (b) speak the langauge?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Acting Minister for External Affairs has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s question -

  1. Since 1961, the Department has had an annual language training programme which is designed to encourage officers and staff at all levels in the Department, and wives where appropriate, to increase their knowledge of foreign languages. The nature of the training ranges from full-time courses lasting for as long as three years - Chinese and Japanese - to part-time tuition for an hour or two a week. Training takes place in Australia and overseas. During 1965 officers will undergo full-time courses of varying duration in Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, Russian, French, Spanish. Thai, and Vietnamese. At the present time some 100 officers and wives are undertaking parttime study in the following languages: French (27), German (6), Russian (8), Thai (3), Italian (5), Arabic (2), Portuguese (1), Indonesian/Malay (11), Chinese (2), Spanish (17), Hindi (I), Japanese (15) and Swedish (2). Direct incentives include the payment of language proficiency allowances for officers qualifying at standards prescribed by the Public Service Board and the provision of time off for study in cases where tuition is not being undertaken full-time. Where full-time study is being undertaken, the Department meets all tuition costs, the officer continues to receive his salary and, in addition, where officers are studying overseas, the cost of living and other allowances payable to Australia-based officers stationed in the particular country. Arrangements are also made, where possible, for officers to undergo intensive refresher courses from time to time. Officers are also encouraged to undertake part-time language courses at official expense in Canberra and overseas even though there may be no obvious immediate need for them to use the language being studied.
  2. The number of officers in the External Affairs service with some degree of proficiency, other than elementary, in the languages mentioned, is as follows -

page 1100

QUESTION

MINERALS

(Question No. 464.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

In respect of each of the following .resources - arsenic, asbestos, chromium, cobalt, mercury, nickel and phosphates - (a) is Australia’s production sufficient for its domestic requirements; (b) is there a major or a minor deficiency; (c) is the deficiency of production due to a deficiency of available national resources; and (d) has intensive search for reserves been initiated?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s question -

  1. and (b) Australian production of all of the metals and minerals listed in the question is insufficient for local demand. Except for blue asbestos, of which an exportable surplus is produced, the deficiencies are all major, (c) (i) Arsenic has not been produced in Australia since 1952. The greater part of the arsenic produced was a by-product of gold production from gold mines which are now closed. Deposits are known from which arsenic could be produced as a major product. The economics of production are doubtful at present price levels, (ii) Australia produces an exportable surplus of blue asbestos from the extensive deposits in the Hamersley Range in Western Australia. One small mine in New South Wales produces about 1,000 tons of white asbestos annually. A number of localities elsewhere in Australia are known which have produced some white asbestos and from which further production is possible. Many of these are in isolated areas with high transport costs, (iii) Large deposits of chromite are known at Coobina in Western Australia but in an isolated locality. The building of the railway to Mount Whaleback for iron ore transport may assist the re-opening of the Coobina deposits, (iv) Cobalt oxide is recovered at Risdon in Tasmania as a by-product of electrolytic zinc production. Some deposits are known from which cobalt was mined as a main product in the past and from which some further production may be possible. (v) There has been no production of mercury in Australia since 1945. A considerable number of small and mostly worked-out mines are known. (vi) Nickel has not been produced in Australia since 1938. Large areas of nickeliferous country are known in the Tomkinson Ranges in the north west corner of South Australia and in New Guinea. Some prospecting has been done in both areas but no workable ore body has yet been found. (vii) South Australia has an annual production of 4,000 tons of low grade phosphate rock. Some other Australian low grade deposits are known. Until recently it was thought that the prospects of discovering a major rock phosphate deposit on the Australian continent were small. The discovery of indications of rock phosphate at Rum Jungle and in the Amadeus Basin, both in the Northern Territory, has greatly enlarged the area of search and enhanced the prospect of discovery of workable deposits. In this connection I refer you to a statement on the progress made in the search for phosphate in Australia and nearby islands given in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 5th May 1965, by the Minister for National Development in reply to a question by Mr. Molten. M.P. In that statement the Minister also referred to the fact that phosphate had been found on the southern tip of Papua, (d) With the exception of rock phosphate and white asbestos, it would not be worthwhile to mount an exploratory campaign for the minerals and metals listed for the supply of the local market only. A number of exploration companies have taken up areas to search for phosphate. Other companies are investigating known white asbestos occurrences with a view to production. -For the rest it is reasonable to hope that the very vigorous exploratory campaigns by the companies actively searching for minerals in Australia may result in some discoveries of the other metals and minerals referred to in paragraph (ii).

page 1101

QUESTION

RESEARCH ASSOCIATIONS

(Question No. 467.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What has been done by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the last two years to establish associations of persons engaged in any industry for the purpose of carrying out industrial scientific research?
  2. How many such research associations have been established by the C.S.I.R.O. since its commencement?
  3. How many such research associations established by it are still in operation?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. Among the powers and functions of the C.S.I.R.O. set out in the Science and Industry Research Act are -

The recognition or establishment of associations of persons engaged in any industry for the purpose of carrying out industrial scientific research and the co-operation with, and the making of grants to. such organisations when recognised or established.’

A research association is likely to succeed only if there is substantial support for it within the industry concerned. C.S.I.R.O. has therefore been ready to discuss the possibilities of establishing research associations with representatives of industry but has considered it essential that the initiative should come from industry rather than from C.S.I.R.O. In the past two years discussions have been held with representatives of several industries and further discussions are continuing. Within this period the Leather Industry Research Association has been formed, following the cessation of activities of the earlier Australian Leather Research Association in 1960, on a basis more satisfactory to the industry and C.S.I.R.O. This Association is supporting a research programme related to leather manufacture in the C.S.I.R.O. Division of Protein Chemistry, Melbourne.

  1. The research associations which have been established by industry and recognised by C.S.I.R.O. are as follows-

Australian Leather Research Association.

Bread Research Institute of Australia.

Australian Wine Research Institute.

Australian Coal Association (Research) Ltd.

Leather Industry Research Association.

  1. All of these research associations are still in operation with the exception of the Australian Leather Research Association which, as mentioned above, was replaced by the Leather Industry Association in1960.

page 1101

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION

(Question No. 486.)

Senator BENN:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Has the Northern Division of the Department of National Development made an examination of the Burdekin watershed to assess the possibilities of water conservation projects which could provide irrigation for cane lands and other areas suitable for producing a variety of crops?
  2. Has the Division looked into the matter of fluctuating supplies of underground water for sugar cane growing purposes in the delta of the lower Burdekin in order to ascertain what action is necessary to provide an adequate, uniform supply throughout the year?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer - 1 and 2. Investigations of this nature are the primary responsibility of the State concerned and, in the two cases mentioned, no request has been made to the Commonwealth for technical or financial assistance. Research is still being carried out by the Queensland authorities to define the soil availability and suitability for irrigation development on the Burdekin. Furthermore, it is understood that the State hasfirm proposals for recharging the aquifers of the Burdekin delta.

page 1102

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

(Question No. 488.)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

At any time before or since its decision to send a battalion of Australian combat troops to Vietnam, has the Commonwealth Government, as representing a nation directly involved in the Vietnam conflict, taken any steps whatever to report its action to the United Nations Security Council, or to move for the intervention of the United Nations in seeking to avoid the extension of the war?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Acting Minister for External Affairs has supplied the following answer -

On 4th May, the Prime Minister informed the House of Representatives that the President of the United Nations Security Council had been notified of the Government’s decision to despatch forces to South Vietnam. (“ Hansard “, Tuesday, 4th May 1965, page 1110).

page 1102

QUESTION

URANIUM OXIDE

(Question No. 489.)

Do newspaper reports stating that certain negotiations are proceeding between France and Canada indicate that demand for uranium oxide is commencing earlier than was anticipated?

What stock of uranium oxide is now held at Rum Jungle?

Is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission endeavouring to make sales from that stock?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers -

  1. The negotiation between France and Canada for the supply of uranium oxide to France is the only major new activity in the world uranium market known at present. The French interest is in securing forward supplies for the 1970’s, and information available suggests that perhaps other countries are beginning to consider their requirements for uranium oxide in that period as their own plans for nuclear power installations become better defined. These indications offer some hope for a slightly earlier revival of the demand for uranium than had been forecast. But such hopes cannot yet be substantiated by firm evidence beyond the single case of the Franco-Canadian negotiations.
  2. The stock of uranium oxide already processed is about 600 tons.
  3. The question of selling uranium oxide from stocks available at Rum Jungle is continually under review and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission keeps in close touch with market possi bilities overseas. However, in considering the possibility of sales, regard has to be given to the need to ensure proper safeguards to prevent the diversion of material from civil to military purposes and the need to obtain a realistic price having regard to the intrinsic value of the material.

page 1102

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 494.)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. What is the size and composition of the Australian surgical team in Vietnam?
  2. Is this a civilian team?
  3. Under what agreement or arrangement is the team working, and who are the parties to such agreement or arrangement?
  4. To whom is the team responsible in (a) Vietnam and (b) Australia?
  5. From what funds is the cost of maintaining the team paid?
  6. What provision has been made for compensation to members of the team or their dependants in the event of death or injury in the course of their work?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Acting Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following replies -

  1. The Australian surgical team serving at Long Xuyen in South Vietnam is comprised of the following eight members -

Mr. A. M. Cuthbertson (Surgeon and Leader).

Mr. G. A. Syme (Surgeon).

Dr. G. Jerums (Medical Registrar).

Dr. B. L. Dunn (Anaesthetist).

Miss N. E. Anderson (Radiographer).

Sister S. R. Terry (Nurse).

Sister B. C. Thredgold (Nurse).

Sister A. C. Boucher (Nurse).

  1. Yes.
  2. The team is working under arrangements between the Australian Government and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam. The United States aid authorities are providing certain supporting facilities. In Australia the recruitment of the team members is arranged by the Royal Melbourne Hospital through a sub-committee set up for the purpose of implementing the project. This sub-committee works in co-operation with the Department of External Affairs.
  3. Under the terms and conditions of their service, the members of the team are under the control of the Australian Government and are also under the direction of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam. In Vietnam the team is working in the provincial hospital at Long Xuyen and is responsible through the leader to the authorities of that hospital and to the provincial and central Vietnamese authorities concerned. The members of the team come under the general jurisdiction of the Australian Ambassador in Vietnam in accordance with established practice. In Australia the Department of External Affairs has responsibility for the execution of the project in co-ordination with the authorities of the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
  4. The costs of maintaining the team are met from the Budget provision for S.E.A.T.O. Aid (Division No. 795).
  5. The conditions regarding reimbursement of medical expenses and compensation under the Commonwealth Compensation Act, which apply generally to employees of the Commonwealth Government on long term and short term appointments overseas, apply also to members of the team.

page 1103

QUESTION

MEAT

(Question No. 496.)

Senator HENDRICKSON (through

Is it a fact that the Federal Government has protested directly to the United States Administration on the possible effect of State legislation in the United States discriminating against the sale of imported meat?

Will the Prime Minister issue an authoritative statement on this subject, which is of vital concern to Australia?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The following answer to the honorable senator’s question has been provided by the Prime Minister -

The Commonwealth Government has been concerned about the enactment of laws by some State legislatures in the United States discriminating against the sale of imported meat. Generally speaking, these laws require the distinctive labelling of imported meat and meat products with the apparent object of restricting sales of these commodities. The Government has made formal representations to the United States Administration over the past twelve months about the spread of such State legislation, and the matter was raised again by the permanent heads of the Departments of Trade and Industry and Primary Industry in Washington last month. Support has also been afforded to the American Meat Importers’ Council in its efforts to have the State legislation set aside. These efforts were successful in the States of Alabama, California and Indiana.

Following Australia’s representations, the United States Government is endeavouring to counter the restrictive State measures, which it agrees are contrary to the international obligations of the United Stales. The Government will continue to watch developments closely and take such further action as may appear appropriate.

page 1103

QUESTION

MALAYSIA

(Question No. 503.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

Realising the importance of the Federation of Malaysia to Australia and the British Commonwealth and in the light of recent press reports of dissension between leaders of constituent parts of the Federation - (a). What action has the Australian Government taken to attempt to resolve these differences? (b). Have discussions taken place with the British Government with a view to taking joint action to resolve the differences? (c). If not, will the Minister attempt to initiate such discussions so that possible disaster to the Federation and thus threatened danger to Australia may be averted?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply -

  1. The honorable senator is raising matters concerning the internal affairs of another Commonwealth country. It is not the practice of the Government to enter into public discussion of such matters.
  2. . and (c). The answer to this question is covered by the reply to the first part of the question.

page 1103

PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- At the request of the President of the Senate (Senator Sir Alister McMullin), I present the following paper -

Observations on the Permanent Parliament House.

Copies of this paper are available to honorable senators. The President has asked me to state by way of explanation that the paper was prepared in 1963. It represents his observations, made as presiding officer in the light of the situation at that time, on the need for early preparatory planning of accommodation requirements for the future permanent parliamentary building and on some of the more important problems relating to the planning of that accommodation.

The paper was made available to the Government in 1963, but it was not distributed generally. It is tabled now in view of the Government’s proposal to set up a parliamentary committee to examine the construction of a permanent Parliament House. The President’s purpose in writing, and in now tabling, the report is to help senators and members to appreciate some of the problems involved in a project of this magnitude.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the paper be printed.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– In view of the fact that we will be discussing this matter, I understand, when another proposal comes before us - I believe that this proposal has been foreshadowed in another place - all I need to do on behalf of the Opposition at this juncture is to thank the President very much for his interest in the problem. No doubt after we have had time to read and digest his report we will bs enabled to discuss the forthcoming proposal much better than otherwise would have been the case.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1104

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– by leave - in reply to a question that was asked on Tuesday or Wednesday of last week I explained to the Senate that it was the intention of the Government that we should sit on Friday last and again today until we had brought the business of the Senate to finality. Since 1 made that statement we have not made the progress that we expected to make. In addition, as a result of the delay to aircraft that occurred this morning, the House of Representatives was unable to sit until well over an hour after the scheduled time of meeting, and it is now apparent that it will be impossible to complete the business of the House by sitting only today.

After consultation with the Leader of the Opposition in this place, and incidentally following consultation between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition in another place, I propose that we should sit until about midnight tonight. I say “ about midnight “ because I cannot yet give a definite assurance about the time. But it is certainly my intention not to sit much beyond midnight. It is proposed that the sitting should then be suspended until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– by leave - I am delighted that the Leader of the Government (Senator Paltridge) has made the statement we have just heard. I ask the honorable gentleman, with great respect, could he consult his colleagues in another place to determine whether it is possible for us to deal first with the Bills - such as the Bills relating to dairy produce, and others - on which we will not spend a long time in discussion? T think the Minister knows the Bills to which I refer. In this way we may take a reasonable time to discuss the very important Bills that are to come before the Senate.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– 1 can assure the honorable senator that the position of the Senate in respect to its own programme is constantly kept before the Leader of the Government in another place. As I leave the Senate this afternoon my first task will be to see that the business comes forward in an even flow, and possibly in the manner suggested by the honorable senator. I quite understand his point and I assure him that I put it earlier this morning. I move -

That the Senate, al its rising, adjourn till 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1104

DEFENCE (RE-ESTABLISHMENT) BILL 1965

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator SANDFORD:
Victoria

– The ‘basis of the legislation before us is quite sound. As the Government has achieved its objective of legislating to call up certain numbers of men by its infamous lottery system, it is quite obviously important that sonic provision should be made to safeguard the interests of servicemen who are discharged after their period of service in the forces. To me, one aspect of the Bill is really objectionable. I refer to the proposed discrimination between certain sections of the Services. In his second reading speech the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) said that national servicemen who serve in special areas - it is obvious that those areas have not yet been designated - will qualify under the same conditions as those applying to regular soldiers for repatriation or war service homes entitlements.

I find it most objectionable that each year men are to be conscripted for service under the same conditions yet, after serving the required period, certain sections of the forces which serve in special areas, are to receive the benefits of repatriation and war service homes legislation in the future. The others, who do not serve in special areas, are to be penalised. Everybody knows that when a person joins the Services he does not choose his own playground. He is in the Services to go when and where he is ordered to go. Why should the Government discriminate against those who do not serve in what are called special areas? It is perfectly obvious that a person serving in what is not a special area may receive just as grave an injury or disability as, or possibly graver injury or disability than, a person who serves in a special area. Yet a sharp line of demarcation is being drawn between the two.

I am concerned about quite a number of other matters, but they are of relatively minor importance. I should like the Minister to indicate why the Government sees fit to penalise one section as against the other. Let me illustrate my point. Suppose Darwin is declared a special area and Alice Springs is not. Is it not perfectly obvious that a man serving in Alice Springs may meet with just as grave a disability as a person serving in Darwin? One section of the men conscripted will be given repatriation and war service benefits. What about the other section? The only redress that a person in this section would have on being discharged on medical grounds would be through social service benefits. The Bill refers to a scale comparable with the invalid pensions. This person might be entitled to seek workers’ compensation, but that is hazardous at any time. Look at the interminable wait involved in prosecuting claims for compensation. I hope that the Minister will clear this up to our satisfaction, but I do not think he can.

This is an unjust discrimination. Before the system starts, the Government is laying a foundation for discontent and disharmony in the conscripted force. Everybody knows that the first essential in the Services, just as in any other team, is contentment. These men will have no control over where they will be sent. 1 should like the Minister to indicate the reasons for the discrimination, for drawing this line of demarcation. If he can satisfy me, he is a better man than I am.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

.- Before I deal with the point raised by Senator Sandford, I should like to refer to the question raised by Senator Bishop last week as to what would happen in the case of a man who, without having qualifications or training, was called up and who, in the course of his service, did not receive qualifications or training. Senator Bishop pointed out that when such a man was discharged he could not be retrained because he had not previously been trained, and the honorable senator asked whether such a man had a right to request some training on his discharge. Last March, in relation to this point, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) stated that, where necessary or desirable for effective resettlement, a national serviceman would be given post discharge training. This means that if it were considered that training a person without qualifications would be helpful or necessary, he would be entitled to that training; but he would not necessarily get it in all circumstances.

On the point raised by Senator Sandford I can only say, first, that there is no discrimination between members of the regular forces, volunteers and national servicemen.

Senator Sandford:

– I am not suggesting there is.

Senator GORTON:

– I did not say the honorable senator suggested that, but the use of the word “ discrimination “ might have led someone listening to him to think that there was some discrimination. I wanted to make clear that there was not.

Senator Sandford:

– We are not on the air today.

Senator GORTON__ No, but there are some members of the public in the chamber and even some honorable senators who listened to Senator Sandford and heard him make the remark. That is the first point - there is no discrimination between regulars, volunteers and national servicemen. The treatment accorded troops who served Australia in the equivalent of a front line or in a front line has always been different from that accorded those who remained in Australia. Irrespective of whether this is philosophically proper or correct, this has always been the case with Australian servicemen. The proposal now before us is a mere extension of that. Of course, national service trainees will not be serving in separate formations. There will not be regular formations and national service formations. National service trainees will fill gaps in regular formations. There will be no distinction. Members of a formation will be one, whether they are regulars or national service trainees.

The test applied in the case of repatriation benefits will be the same as that which has always been applied to our troops. Did they in fact go abroad and fight in the equivalent of a front line or did they remain at home? I suppose the thinking behind that is that troops serving in the equivalent of a front line or in a front line are far more likely to suffer danger and hardship which may affect them later. The present proposal is a continuation of the policy which has always been in existence in Australia.

Senator SANDFORD:
Victoria

– The Minister has not answered my question to my satisfaction. He has said that the proposal, purely and simply, is an extension of what has been the practice in the past, but on this occasion conditions are vastly different from what they were previously. Certain numbers of young men are to be called up for service each year. The cases to which the Minister referred of certain members of the forces not being entitled to repatriation benefits occurred only in the Second World War, when both volunteers and men who were called up were in fact serving. I want to impress upon the Minister and the Government that the men who are to be called up each year - the conscripts whose names come out of a Tattersalls lottery barrel - will be called up under the same conditions. It is irrelevant whether they serve with different arms of the forces. However, some of the national service trainees who are discharged medically unfit will receive repatriation benefits and enjoy the provisions of the war service homes legislation, but others will not. These young men will not choose their own playgrounds. They will go where they are sent. The whole thing is completely unjust and unfair. The Minister has said that a serviceman is more likely to suffer seriously in the front line than if he were anywhere else. That may be so, but let me repeat that it is quite possible, and in some cases probable, that men will suffer just as severely, and perhaps more severely, in what are called unspecified areas as in specified areas. The Minister has not explained the position satisfactorily merely by saying that the present proposal is a continuation of the practice adopted in the past.

What justification is there for drawing a line of demarcation among national servicemen being called up each year under the same conditions? We know that regulars are entitled to repatriation benefits or retiring allowances and we know that some of the conscripted men will also be entitled to repatriation benefits, but why are these benefits being refused to others? What is the justification for that? The ones who will not receive repatriation benefits will be paid a social service pension comparable with the invalid pension. They may even be entitled to the benefits of Commonwealth workers compensation, but those benefits are not to be compared with those that are available under the repatriation and war service homes legislation.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– The point raised by Senator Sandford is incorrect. Regulars are not entitled to repatriation benefits unless they have served abroad.

Senator Sandford:

– I did not say that.

Senator GORTON:

– The honorable senator said: “ We know that regulars are entitled to repatriation benefits “. They are not entitled to repatriation benefits unless they have served abroad. In that respect, therefore, they are in no way different from the troops who will not be called up. There is no discrimination. Senator Sandford is suggesting that the application of the repatriation policy, not only to the people referred to in this Bill but also to all of our regular forces, ought to be changed. All I can say to him is that I do not believe he, or anyone else, has made out a case to show that it should be changed.

Although it is perfectly true that a serviceman has no say in where he will serve, it is also perfectly true that the hardship, privation and danger suffered are much greater in an area which is the equivalent of the front line than in a rear area. People in a rear area are not penalised, as has been suggested, but they are not given the additional advantages which accrue to those who happen to serve in forward areas. That is the only explanation I can give the honorable senator.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- Perhaps the best contribution to make to this debate is to say that time does not permit us to arrive at a proper solution of the problems before us. Senator Sandford is probably trying to make the point that members of the Regular Army are entitled to the benefits of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund and also to repatriation benefits if they have served in what I might call a repatriation area. It is not true that there is a distinction between Regular Army personnel, Citizen Military Forces personnel or Regular Army Supplement personnel if they are injured in a forward area, except insofar as Regular Army personnel are entitled, as I have said, to the benefits of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund.

I suggest to the Minister that that is not the only matter deserving of consideration. There is also the matter of civilian compensation being allowed to a Regular Army man, a Regular Army Supplement man or a C.M.F. man if he suffers injury in other than a repatriation area. Great confusion has arisen over compensation claims in disasters such as the “ Voyager “ disaster. It has been conceded that the Commonwealth employees compensation scale is not the proper measure in such cases. Mr. Justice Windeyer has, I think, very cogently questioned the propriety of using common law negligence as the test. That throws up for Government consideration - very appropriately, I think - the distinction between compensation for injuries suffered in a forward area and compensation for injuries suffered in Australia, So far as compulsory service is concerned, we have now refused to draw any distinction between home service and foreign service. I do not deny that conditions in forward areas are such as to attract additional benefits. My claim is that conditions of home service attract much better benefits than are given under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. If the common law basis is denied - as it is in fact and as Mr. Justice Windeyer has stated it is in law - it is most appropriate that a man serving in other than a forward area should know immediately that he has a better basis of compensation available to him than Commonwealth employees compensation. I have referred to these provisions to try to put together in proper sequence matters which bear examination from a legal point of view so that the Government’s advisers will take them into consideration. These matters are important and a final decision on the proper basis for them should be made early having regard to the fact that we are applying compulsion to service in the Army.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Before the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) replies I wish to refer briefly to a matter related to service in prescribed areas. I shall refer also to a difference in treatment accorded to those who earn repatriation benefits and those who will be entitled only to what I might call normal civil rights which would be available to them in any case. The Minister will remember that I referred earlier in the debate to Part V of the Bill relating to the rehabilitation of disabled persons. It appears that clause 47 is designed to provide that a trainee who is disabled during national service training but not in a prescribed operational area will have rights only equivalent to those available to a civilian under the Social Sevices Act. This has some relevance also to clause 48. Clause 47 (3.) states -

For the purposes of this Part, a disabled person is a person who has been discharged, otherwise than by a dishonourable discharge . . .

I raise these matters, first, because I believe those concerned should be entitled to something better than the provisions of the Social Services Act. Further, clause 47 (3.) appears to impose other restrictions because the inference is that a person who has a dishonorable discharge will not be entitled to the benefits of Part VIII of the Social Services Act as would any ordinary civilian.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– Senator Bishop has correctly interpreted the provisions of clause 47 (3.). A person who has a dishonorable discharge will not be entitled to benefits under the Social Services Act. Clause 47 sets out the authority for the extension of Part VIII of the Social Services Act to disabled servicemen who have been discharged with other than a dishonorable discharge.

I am sure Senator Wright realises that the matters he has raised go far beyond the specific legislation we are discussing today. They are related to the whole question whether benefits payable to all classes of Australian servicemen who do not become eligible for repatriation benefits are sufficient. This is a major matter of policy and I imagine that it is one for consideration by the Minister for Defence rather than the Minister for Labour and National Service since it extends over the whole field of benefits. Senator Wright indicated that he would like the responsible Minister to know that he had raised this matter. He wanted the Minister to examine it and see what could be done. I am sure that will be done but of course I cannot forecast the result.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- Has the Minister for Works considered the matter I raised on Friday concerning clause 12 (3.) (c)? This paragraph relates to failure to reinstate a member because it is not reasonable or practicable for an employer to reinstate him. Will consideration be given to the viewpoint that compensation should be paid by the Crown in such a case? 1 suggest that such a provision would be in line with the provisions of the Bill which make the Crown subject to the Defence Act although clause 7 (2.) of the Bill provides that the Crown cannot be prosecuted for an offence. Clause 16 provides that a court considering a case of failure on the part of the Crown for reinstatement can award compensation just as, under clause 15, it can award compensation for failure to reinstate by a private employer if he has failed to reinstate without reasonable cause. It seems to me that if an employer proves it is impracticable or unreasonable to reinstate a member of the Services under clause 12 (3.) (c). the member should not go unrewarded but should get the same compensation as if the Crown or a civil employer failed to give him reinstatement without reasonable cause.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to a matter related to that raised by Senator Wright. I refer to the position of a national service trainee who on discharge from the Services cannot be employed in his former occupation. It may be that the trainee cannot be employed for reasons set out in clause 12. A trainee might return to his former employer and find that there have been changes in the employment available. I understand that the Department of Labour and National Service will try to find such a member of the Services a job or will retrain him. If the Department cannot do either, the serviceman will receive the unemployment benefit. This provision would apply also to a person such as one to whom the Minister for Works referred in earlier comment; that is, a person who had had no experience in employment.

The point is that something better than the unemployment benefit should be paid to a person who tries to return to his former occupation but finds that he is redundant or that his job had disappeared because of the collapse of the business. In fact, it could be argued that his defence pay should continue until he had been compensated by way of retraining or re-establishment. As I have said, this is related to the matter raised by Senator Wright and I again ask the Minister for Works for some information on this point.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– These are matters of policy which are not covered by the Bill but I did give some attention to the matter that has been raised by Senator Wright before the Senate adjourned last week. This matter was also considered by departmental officers. Take the case of a man who, having been employed in a particular job, is called up and, at the end of his period of service, seeks to re-engage in that employment, only to find that, for some reason, he cannot be re-employed. It may be that the factory has shut down or has ceased to run the machines he used to operate, or something of that kind. In that case it is a defence for an employer to say: “ We cannot reinstate this man, because we no longer do the kind of work he used to do “. However, the employer must show that he has offered to employ the man in the occupation and under the conditions that were the most favourable that it was reasonable or practicable to offer. I presume that a court would decide whether the alternative employment was the most reasonable or practicable employment to offer.

I do not think Senator Wright referred so much to that position - which would perhaps be the most usual - as to a case where the factory had gone out of existence and there was no question of offering the man concerned alternative employment. Senator Wright asked whether, in such a case, the Crown should pay the man the compensation which would have been payable to him had the employer been able to re-employ him and failed to do so. Is that staling the point correctly?

Senator Wright:

– Yes.

Senator GORTON:

– This, again, opens up a question of policy affecting a wide range of bills, not only this measure. The principle would have to run through a number of other enactments. This is a question which at present I do not feel able to answer, except to say that it will be noted, as also will be the matter raised by Senator Bishop.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I wish to deal with the moratorium provisions of the Bill. In clause 17, “ mortgage “ is defined as - a mortgage (legal or equitable) of land;

Clause 19 deals with hire purchase agreements. This provokes me to ask: Where in the Bill is there provision for a moratorium in respect of mortgages of personal chattels, as distinct from land?

Senator Gorton:

– I am informed that it is not directly there.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I did not see it there and I thought I must have made an error in perusing the Bill. I cannot see why it should be assumed that all mortgage liabilities over personal chattels given by servicemen will be in the form of hire purchase agreements. I know that the ordinary run of business is such, but there are a lot of other liabilities not of that character. I think consideration should be given to making provision for them. Subclause (2.) of clause 20 seems to me to be open to ambiguity. It reads as follows -

The time for payment is postponed so that the payment falls due upon the expiration of -

the period immediately following the date on which the national serviceman completes his national service equal to the period of that service; or

the period of twelve months immediately following that date, whichever is the shorter.

Everything in paragraph (b) depends upon “ that date “, which, I take it, refers to the date mentioned in paragraph (a), but it seemed to me to be difficult to distill the meaning. Then in relation to sub-clause (9.) of clause 20, which refers to court orders, I raise the question whether, if a court has ordered that the mortgagee may exercise his remedies, he may do so at any time and whether an appeal is pending or not. There is no urgency about this being decided before the Parliament adjourns, because no ex-serviceman will be sued in relation to these matters in the immediate future. However, it seems to me that in this respect the provision requires attention. Those are the only matters which I desire to raise.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

.- I hope Senator Wright will forgive me if I have not been able to keep in mind all the various points he raised. Dealing with his first point, in relation to chattel mortgages as such, I said there is no direct provision in the Bill. There is, nevertheless, an inherent protection in clause 30, which deals with bills of sale.

Senator Wright:

– I would not have thought so.

Senator GORTON:

– Sub-clause (1.) of clause 30 reads -

A person shall not, except with the leave of the appropriate court, under a writ of execution of other process issued by a court, by way of distress, or under the provisions of a bill of sale or hire purchase agreement made before the date that is the moratorium date-

And so on.

Senator Wright:

– I see.

Senator GORTON:

– I am informed that there is also a protection in that if a judgment were obtained with regard to personal chattels, it would not be able to be enforced because of the provisions of the Bill. So although there is no direct mention of it, there seems to be protection along the lines the honorable senator suggested.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Sub-clause (1.) of clause 30 reads as follows -

A person shall not, except with the leave of the appropriate court, under a writ of execution or other process issued by a court, by way of distress, or under the provisions of a bill of sale or hire purchase agreement-

As I read that, it does not prevent the enforcement of a sale, otherwise than through a court, under a bill of sale mortgage.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– I think the provision might be read in two ways, but my legal advisers think it meets the point which Senator Wright wanted met. I will leave to the legal advisers the other legal points which the honorable senator thought might be included in the Bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1110

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 1090), on motion by Senator Henty.

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– The Bill has the simple purpose of providing for exemptions from estate duty in two classes of cases. The first case is where there is a gift by will to the Winston Churchill Memorial Fund and the second case is where a person has made a gift within three years of his death. Under the Act, as it stands, estate duty would be attracted. The Bill purports to negative that and will operate in relation to gifts or bequests made after 1st February 1965. The Opposition has no objection to the proposals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1110

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 1090), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. Deputy President, the Opposition supports the measure. It is a simple one which treats gifts paid to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust as allowable deductions for income tax purposes. The same provision is extended to gifts that are made to the National Trust of Queensland. Gifts to both Trusts are already under the existing law free from gift duty. When this Bill is passed they will be deemed to be free from inincome tax.

The other main purpose of the Bill is to exempt from liability to income tax payments made pursuant to Commonwealth scholarships. That is a purpose which is approved. It has already been announced. At the same time, the proposal under the Bill is that amounts paid in respect of education expenses through Commonwealth scholarships will be taken into account in determining the consessional deduction to which parents would otherwise be entitled. That seems to be reasonable. The amounts paid for maintenance will not in any way be affected. As I have said, the Opposition supports the measure.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland) [4.3]. - I would like to express appreciation, on behalf of the National Trust of Queensland, of the fact that donations made to the Trust are to be exempted from the income tax provisions. I have been associated with the Trust for a long time. We have been disturbed by the fact that Queensland was the only State which did not receive this taxation benefit. Owing to the representations that have been made we will now receive it. I express our appreciation to the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Madam Temporary Chairman, I rise merely to say through you to the Commissioner of Taxation how very much we appreciate the service that is rendered to the Parliament in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill. It is in accordance with the existing high standard that the Taxation Branch has set for itself in the presentation of income tax legislation to members of Parliament. To those who practice in the income tax field outside this Parliament, it is of the greatest use in promoting a clear understanding of what would otherwise be a very technical measure. It would be quite difficult for the layman to understand. I take the opportunity of expressing appreciation of the usual courteous and helpful service given by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– There is one matter in connection with this Bill on which I would like to make an observation for the consideration of the Government. It arises from the incidental reference to the constitution of Tax Agents Boards. Time has not permitted me to make even a casual examination of this matter since the Bill was introduced last Friday, but there are various matters, with regard to these Boards, that concern me. First, I think that a board such as this should not be under the control of the Commissioner of Taxation. I think that a board that has authority to register or deregister tax agents should be an independent authority. If that jursdiction is placed in the hands of the Commissioner of Taxation it could make too subservient to him the people he approves for registration and it could sap the independence of those whose registration he threatens not to approve.

I am not standing here in defence of any dishonest or unreliable tax agent of whom it can be proved that he has not the quality of integrity to officiate as a tax agent. I submit that the principle is wholly wrong. Tax agents upon whom the public has to rely and who should be able to discharge their duties most independently exclusively in the interests of the public, should be in no sense be beholden to the Commissioner of Taxation for approval of registration. The authority to approve of their integrity should be in the hands of an independent authority.

The other point which I wish to raise is that the Commissioner must go to a lot of useless expense. Every year I, as a tax agent, get an inquiry: “Do you want to renew your registration as a tax agent?” It is just a question of filling in a form. These people must have a surplus of time in order to be able to send out these queries year after year. If you do not send back the form you get a reminder and then a further reminder. It seems to me that registration should be for a period of three or five years and not for one year only.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– The Tax Agents Board, to which the honorable senator refers, is not subject to the Commissioner of Taxation. The Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act provides - . . each Board shall consist of three members who shall be -

  1. the officer for the time being performing the duties of Accountant at the Commonwealth Sub-Treasury in the State, who shall be the Chairman of the Board;
  2. the officer for the time being performing the duties of Commonwealth Chief Auditor for the State, or such substitute for that officer as the GovernorGeneral at any time appoints; and
  3. a person appointed by the GovernorGeneral.

Regarding the right of appeal it provides -

Where the registration of a tax agent is cancelled, an appeal shall lie to a County Court, District Court, or Local Court of Full Jurisdiction, or a Court of Requests constituted by a barrister, solicitor, attorney or proctor of any State. . .

I think that what the honorable senator is looking for is a right of appeal to a court, as in the case of customs agents.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1111

GOLD MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 1093), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Mr. Deputy President, the Opposition will not oppose the Bill because its purpose is to provide assistance to an industry which produces, on the average, 35 million dollars of foreign exchange each year. While this industry is of great importance to Australia, it is of greater importance to Western Australia because approximately 80 per cent, of the production of the gold mining industry comes from that State. In addition to this fact, the gold mining industry is situated in the more remote areas of Western Australia where no other industry is carried on. It is essential for the purpose of decentralisation as well as producing foreign exchange that this industry should be carried on. The Bill will take care in some small measure of part of that need. Any lessening of activity in the gold producing areas of Western Australia would create an even greater concentration of population in the cities. This growth would be not necessarily in the city of Perth but in other cities which are quickly growing in Western Australia. For this reason alone, the Bill is to be commended.

If the gold mining industry is allowed to fail because of the lack of adequate assistance, it would be unfortunate for a number of remote areas. Later I will deal with the unfortunate effect it would be for the working people who live in those areas. While the gold mining industry in Western Australia does not employ an over large number of workers - it is between 3,500 and 4,000 - it supports a population in the outer areas of the State of something like 25,000. Therefore, the importance of continuing the industry even at its present level of activity, without any incentive to open up new areas is of national interest.

It is estimated that the increased assistance to be provided by this Bill, will amount, in the first year of operation, to some £50,000. This is not a large amount. Nevertheless, the subsidy will be appreciated by the industry because the measures that are afforded in the Bill will provide for the assistance to grow over the years. However, the extra amount that the subsidy will provide in later years will be governed by the methods that governments and management use to reduce costs, because the subsidy that is to be paid is based on costs of production. If costs of production rise owing to the failure of governments or managements to control costs, then the subsidy provided by the Bill will increase. It is interesting to note that in 1963 two rather large gold mines in Western Australia closed down, resulting in the loss to Australia of some 100,000 ounces of gold or £1.5 million of foreign exchange. We could ill afford to lose that export income.

There are several reasons why these mines closed down, but I think that the three main ones would be - the loss of values in the ore mined; increased costs of production; and a lack of sufficient subsidy to offset the increased costs of lower grades. I would not accept any argument to the effect that inefficiency had anything to do with the closure of the mines because I believe that the gold mining industry in Western Australia at least is just about the most efficient industry that is operating anywhere in Australia.

Senator Branson:

– Hear, hear! That is right.

Senator CANT:

– The price of gold was fixed in 1934. It has remained fixed since that time. The only increase that the industry has had was by devaluation in 1949. Since that year, we have encountered a great inflationary spiral which has increased the costs of every industry. Yet, the gold mining industry has been able to absorb these costs up to this time without getting into serious difficulties. But time is quickly running out and the industry will not be able to continue to absorb these increasing costs. Therefore, despite the fact that Australia is in some difficulty with the international monetary fund agreement over this question, I think that if the Government cannot persuade the powers that be to increase the price of gold then other means and methods will have to be found to assist the industry in order that it shall be kept going.

Unless the industry can be assured of some stability over a long period of years - and this Bill provides for assistance for a period of five years only although this provision, I know, is subject to amendment at any time by the Parliament - it is not likely that the efficiency within the industry will continue. Workers look for greater stability in their employment, and responsible workers look for a greater period of security than five years. Unless there is an assurance of stability within the gold mining industry, skilled workers will tend to look for more secure employment in other areas. As the efficient workers move out of the industry, so the efficiency of the industry decreases. This, again, will tend to increase costs until it will become impossible by subsidy, in view of our overseas agreements, to provide the necessary assistance to keep the industry going. No-one wants to subsidise an inefficient industry. We have to face up to this problem.

Rising costs tend to encourage management to be less efficient. All sorts of ways and means are sought by the mine managements to maintain the efficiency of the industry, but underground mining is a very unsafe occupation and the methods of keeping it safe are rather expensive. Overall, taking into consideration the method of development of the gold mining industry, particularly on the Golden Mile, I think that managements have done a reasonably good job in providing for the safety of their workers. I refer particularly to industrial disease factors. Preventive installations are expensive, and if costs spiral and tend to get out of hand management could cut down on the provision of them. That, of course, would make the industry unattractive to prospective employees.

If governments and management were able to stabilise costs - that is unlikely, because there is a continuing increase in costs throughout the world - the cost of mining would still increase because as the top levels arc worked out and the shafts have to be sunk deeper they get further away from the lodes! Shaft sinking is absolutely dead work. Of course, it is done for the purpose of developing the mine, but the gold bearing ore gets further away from the service shaft and the dead work of getting to it and extracting it increases. As I said, even with stability in costs, the cost of production in the mining industry must continue to increase. This is something over which nobody has any control, but we must look at it continually when we base subsidies on the cost of production. The work involved in going deeper in the mine is in itself not productive. The rock that is brought up is thrown on what is commonly called a mullock heap. Sometimes it is used for filling after the ground has been stoped out; sometimes it is not. In 1959 the average cost of production was £12 10s. per ounce; it has since risen to approximately £14 10s. per ounce. That is an increase of £2 per ounce in a most efficient industry. When one notes that the price of the product is approximately £15 12s. 6d. per ounce, one gets an idea of the fine margin upon which the industry is forced to operate.

In addition to the assistance that is proposed in this measure, I should like to have seen the cost of production figure reduced below £13 10s. per ounce. This would have provided a great incentive for the industry. Of course, it certainly would have increased the subsidy that the Government will have to pay. The subsidy paid to this industry by the Government runs at about £550,000 per annum. But if we had to go overseas to borrow 35 million dollars annually, the interest bill would be much greater than half a million pounds. Indeed, the Government is getting out of this situation fairly cheaply. I repeat that I should like to have seen the base figure for the cost of production reduced below £13 10s. so that the industry would be able to function much more securely.

The amount of the subsidy will be only three-quarters of the excess over £13 10s.

As the cost of production increases, so the amount of the debt or the amount represented by 25 per cent, of the excess over £13 10s. must increase. The maximum amount of subsidy is to be £4 per ounce; it is to be increased by 15s. under the terms of this Bill. The fixing of the cost of production as £13 10s. an ounce cannot but tend to lead to inefficiency. The inclusion of clause 8 in the Bill indicates that the Government realises that that will be so. I have never heard anybody suggest that the goldmining industry is not efficient; but the Government has gone to the trouble of providing, in clause 8, that the following sub-section shall be added to section 14 of the principal Act -

Where, in the opinion of the Treasurer, a mining operation by a large producer in a year, being an operation the cost of which is to be taken into account in relation to subsidy in respect of bullion produced in that year, is not conducted in accordance with good mining practice, the Treasurer may make such adjustment in the amount of that subsidy as he thinks proper in the circumstances.

I believe that that is a recognition by the Treasurer that the pegging of the cost of production at £13 10s. per ounce when the actual average cost of production is £14 10s. could tend to cause inefficiency to be allowed in order to attract the subsidy. That could be the only reason for the inclusion of that new provision in the legislation.

Small producers are defined as those who have a production of less than 500 ounces per annum. The subsidy for small producers is to be increased by 12s. from £2 8s. to £3 per ounce. This will mean that the subsidy to small producers will continue to be three quarters of the maximum rate for large producers. The legislation as it stands at the present time allows a small producer to get a subsidy even though his production is in excess of 500 ounces per annum, but the amount of subsidy payable is reduced by Id. per ounce on production in excess of 500 ounces. While the Bill makes provision for increasing the subsidy by 12s. per ounce, the subsidy payable on production in excess of 500 ounces will later be reduced by one-fifth of a penny per ounce. This, I realise, will be done in accordance with the monetary units that will be available after February 1966 when we enter the decimal era. Then the amount of Id. to which I have referred will be equal to one and one-fifth pence, or one cent. At first glance, the increase of 12s. would seem to mean that another 144 ounces of gold could be produced in excess of 500 ounces and the mine still attract the full subsidy. But increasing by one-fifth of a penny per ounce the rate by which the subsidy will be reduced will mean that, instead of having, as at present, a production of 576 ounces the mine may have a production of no more than 600 ounces in excess of 500 ounces before the subsidy ceases. In fact, miners will be able to produce only an extra 24 ounces before the subsidy cuts out. I think the Government should have worked out a better arrangement. Any increase in subsidy should not be related wholly to the limit of 500 ounces. As production increases, th; subsidy reduces very much more quickly.

The small producers might properly be called the life of the industry. They prospect, find the lodes, and develop them to a certain stage before the big companies become interested. The small producers should be encouraged to prospect. The rich pockets of ore are usually found in what might be termed the oxidised areas. Quite often a small producer will have flushes of production. The Bill quite rightly provides that production cannot be held over from one year to another to attract a subsidy. Each year’s production must be declared and the subsidy paid accordingly. But it may happen that at the end of a year a crushing sent to a battery by a small producer yields much more richly than he expected. His production for that year is increased. It is a flush of production which he may not achieve again for 12 months, or 2 years, or ever. But that flush of production may deprive him of the subsidy. The Bill makes no provision for such circumstances. It seems to me that the Government should have studied this aspect in view of the importance of small producers to the continuation of the industry.

One has only to travel through the goldfields of Western Australia or to any other mining centre to realise what happens to a mining area when the mines close down. Over the weekend I visited Captain’s Flat and saw there the business premises which have closed down. Fortunately, Captain’s Flat is not a great distance from other centres of population and people who formerly worked at Captain’s Flat may continue to live there and seek employment in other centres. No alternative centres of employment are located near the goldmining areas and when a mine closes down the workers just walk out and leave behind almost everything they have gained. 1 well remember what happened in several mining centres where I was working until the mines closed down. Properties for which people had paid £2,000 or £3.000 and which contained the best furniture their owners could buy were worth practically nothing when the mines closed down. They were pulled down and sold to farmers for machinery sheds or transported to other centres. A house of five or six rooms could be bought for £50, or even £30. Heavy losses are incurred by the workers in those circumstances. In addition, they suffer loss of employment and incur the costs of transporting their families and belongings to another place of employment. These unfortunate circumstances should be prevented, if possible.

Although Kalgoorlie is an active mining centre, empty houses and empty shops can be seen there today. Hotels have closed down as the population has decreased following closure of some mines. Four big mining companies are operating in the Kalgoorlie area at present. In past years, very many more mining companies operated there. Most leases have been taken over by mining companies, but some are active and some are not. More efficient mining methods employed by mine managements have decreased employment requirements. Again, this has reduced the population of the area as is evident in these places. The effect on a mining town when a mine closes down is devastating. The people wear worried looks when the assets they have built up over a period of working in the industry are lost overnight. They are forced to find ways and means of getting out of the area to alternative employment so that they and their families may find security.

Because this Bill will provide additional assistance to the gold mining industry the Opposition does not oppose it. We will wait to study its results. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the Gold Mines Development Assistance Act - the parallel Act to this legislation - will be allowed to run out at 30th June when the period of its operation expires. It is not proposed to prolong that form of assistance. In any event, it was not effective assistance. Too many restrictions were placed upon it. When the Act was introduced I said that 1 regarded development assistance as perhaps the most important assistance that can be given to the industry. Although developmental work produces nothing, it must be done if the gold bearing ore is to be recovered. Development work is a drag on the mines at all times. Unless a realistic view is taken of the type of development work that is necessary and its difficulties and value to the mines are appreciated, we will not be giving the industry the assistance that it should have.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– As the Senate has a very busy period ahead, I shall be brief. As a Western Australian 1 believe I must say how delighted I am with the Government’s decision to provide for the gold mining industry the assistance detailed in the legislation before us. In saying that, I believe I may speak for every person on the Western Australian goldfields. Senator Cant said that the Opposition does not oppose the measure. He mentioned a figure of £550,000 as the amount of the subsidy at present. He went on to say that he believed it should be increased. I shall remind Senator Cant and anybody else who is interested of the submissions made by the Chamber of Mines to the Government. A summary of that submission states -

The industry submits that the following steps should be taken: Liberalise and extend the operation of the Goldmining Industry Assistance Act for an indefinite period.

I think that the Government has been wise in making the assistance available for a period of five years because the industry can plan ahead. It can calculate the assistance it will receive over that period, and to me it seems to be a much wiser course than providing assistance for an indefinite period. The summary continues -

Increase the maximum subsidy under the formula to £4 an ounce.

That is the provision requested by the Chamber of Mines. To say that more assistance should be given to the industry is to imply that the Government has not gone as far as it could have. This is unfair, because the Government has granted the two requests I have quoted from the submissions of the Chamber of Mines. The summary continues -

Increase payments under the Act to small producers from £2/8/- to £3 an ounce.

That is exactly what has been done. The summary goes on -

Delete section 12 of the Goldmining Industry Assistance Act.

This section, which it was felt was working against the industry, has been deleted. The Chamber of Mines also suggested the subsidisation of exploratory diamond drilling on a £1 for £1 basis. That is being done.

The Government has approached this matter in a very realistic way, appreciating the importance of the industry in so many directions. I have been fairly closely in touch with management in Kalgoorlie, particularly, through the Chamber of Mines over the past few months, because all were conscious of the fact that this arrangement had to be renewed after 30th June. I believe that the people of Kalgoorlie will be breathing a little easier now that this decision has been made. I refer not only to those who are directly associated with the gold mines but also to the hundreds of people who make a living in the business world on the gold fields. It is always a pleasure to talk to management representatives at the Chamber of Mines, whose approach to their work and to members of Parliament is made with old world courtesy. They are most genuine people and I have the greatest of admiration for them.

Senator Cant referred to the fact that management had done a magnificent job in holding costs in this industry. The mines just had to hold costs because they have been working on such a small margin. Gold has been a wonderful standby to Australia over the years in respect of our overseas reserves. It has done a particularly good job in decentralisation, certainly in my own State. I was born in the East Murchison and I know the area fairly well. I venture to say that the pastoral industry there would not have been opened up nearly as early, had it not been for the first prospectors finding gold, the gold mining industry developing, and around it growing the rather wealthy pastoral industry that is there today. We should also remember that last year gold mining produced about £15 million worth of overseas credits. Senator Cant referred to this, I thought appropriately, in dollars.

The closure of two mines in Western Australia was a blow, because between them they were producing about 100,000 oz.; the effective loss of annual export income was about £1.5 million. In Western Australia only three gold producing centres of any size remain - Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Norseman and Mount Magnet. The mines employ 3,730 people and they are entirely responsible for supporting an aggregate population of 25,250. The annual wage bill of the industry is about £5,278,000. Some of the major mines have been encountering increasing difficulties in maintaining levels of production. Consequently, their profit margins have been seriously eroded. The decline in prosperity has accelerated during the past 12 months due to the cumulative effect of a number of factors. Senator Cant referred to some of them. They include the increase in the cost of labour and the shortage of experienced employees for underground production. This is quite a real problem, which was alleviated a little during the Mount Isa strike but not as substantially as the industry would wish. Another factor is the loss of production consequent upon the granting of an extra week’s annual leave to employees. The industry itself had to bear this when it was still working on the subsidy that was agreed to some three years previously. Another factor is the necessity to adopt more expensive ore production methods at depth.

I believe that this measure will help to keep these mines on their feet and will also give the industry towns, particularly Norseman, Kalgoorlie and Mount Magnet, greater confidence. There was evidence that people were starting to lose heart. This Bill will alter that tendency quite a bit. I would not conclude without paying personal tribute to a man who I believe has done a great deal for the mining industry in Western Australia. I refer to Mr. George Jennings, Secretary of the Chamber of Mines in Kalgoorlie. He is completely dedicated to his job. From the type of submissions that the Chamber makes where it wants some sort of assistance, I infer that he must have a big hand in the preparation of them. In most cases the representations that the Chamber has made have been successful I support the Bill.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– My participation in this debate on the Gold Mining Industry Assistance Bill is partly due to the fact that Senator Drake-Brockman has been given additional responsibilities in connection with the conduct of the business of the Senate and consequently is not able to make the contribution that he expected to add to the debate. At the outset I, like Senator Branson, wish to say how happy I am as a Western Australian to be paying a tribute to the Government for introducing this additional measure of assistance to the gold mining industry. My interest in gold mining is of a rather sentimental character, as both my father and grandfather were attracted, with many, many others, to participation in the industry before the turn of the century. I know very well just how much the industry has contributed to the development of Western Australia and of the Commonwealth. The incentive given to other industries is a material part of the contribution that the gold mining industry has made to Australia’s present sound economy.

The needs of the gold mining industry in Western Australia were responsible for the securing of a water supply, and it is possible that the subsequent effects of that development upon the agricultural industry are still being felt. The initiative and enterprise of those pioneers of engineering in Western Australia who developed that system benefited the whole of the Commonwealth. The South Australian pipelines, for instance, were made possible because of the discoveries that were made in supplying water to the eastern gold fields. I mention this because certain economists lately have taken the view that in assessing the value of a particular industry we must narrow the field to consideration of that industry only. The gold mining industry is an example of how a narrow assessment of the return would lead us very far astray in understanding the true value of the industry to the economy.

The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) set out with clarity and directness what the Bill proposed. Senator Cant explained in detail the effect of the Bill, and I do not propose to weary the Senate with repetition. The need for revision and continuance of this legislation should be apparent to all who are aware of the fact that the price of gold is fixed at £15 12s. 6d. an oz. under the International Monetary Agreements Act. While the price has been fixed, costs have been rising. I do not know whether the figures which I am about to cite have been mentioned. In 1954-55 the consumer price index was 102.6. In December 1964 it had risen by 26.8 to 129.4. In the same period wages in Australia as a whole rose by 48 per cent, and in Western Australia by 46 per cent. Despite these increases, efficiency on the part of both management and workers enabled the industry to maintain a fairly constant output after 1953, in the vicinity of 1 million fine ounces a year. Output fell below that figure in 1963 and that, I think, was the warning sign that something more was needed and that the industry was beginning to feel the impact of rising costs.

The disappearance from the scene of two mines is greatly to be regretted. My Party has been deeply concerned about the necessity for maintaining communities which are playing a part in widening our area of development and settlement. In the ideal of a decentralised community the gold mining industry plays a very important part.

Both Senator Drake-Brockman and the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) recently visited Kalgoorlie to assess some of the claims which were being put forward on behalf of the industry. The concern which we have for the maintenance of this industry leads us to give very hearty approval to what the Government is doing. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) is to be congratulated on his forthright statement about the Australian industry at the recent conference of the Internationa] Monetary Fund. We need to be alive to the importance of the industry, not only on a sentimental basis but also on a real practical basis, because it is contributing to our overseas balances and doing something substantial in maintaining and expanding Australia’s development. I heartily support the Bill.

Senator MORRIS:
Queensland

– Western Australia is making the greatest contribution in Australia to goldmining, which is a very important aspect of our national operations. Although Queensland is not very prominent in this sphere I, as a Queenslander, enter the debate to speak for a few minutes because, thanks to the courtesy and help which I received from Senator Scott earlier this year, from Mr. Jennings of the Institute of Mines and from Mr. Elvy of Great Boulder, I have gained some slight knowledge of the need for this

Bill. When I was in Western Australia I had the privilege of seeing the operation of this industry and of forming for myself a judgment of the very real contribution which, particularly in that State, it is making to our economy. “I was most impressed with the noticeable efficiency of the industry. Besides being of great importance to the Australian economy, it is also of great importance as an employment factor. Of course, it is of the utmost importance to Kalgoorlie. If an honorable senator from another State has the opportunity to see in a State far from his own a great industry which he believes to be valuable to Australia, it is in the spirit of this Senate that he should support assistance for that industry. I rise to say that I was deeply impressed with this industry and, having heard the case which was advanced by the Institute of Mines, I am delighted, for the sake of our friends in Western Australia, to see how very closely the Government has kept in mind the needs of the industry. I give the Bill the wholehearted support of, I am sure, all Queenslanders.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– Without wishing to delay the Senate for more than a minute or two, I want to refer to one aspect of the Bill which, I believe, is probably its most important aspect - the humanitarian side of the subsidy which will keep in existence the town of Kalgoorlie with its population of some 20,000 people. lt is unfortunate that the price of gold has been fixed since 1934 at 35 dollars ari) ounce. A section of the Bretton Woods Agreement stipulates that no country which joins the International Monetary Fund shall pay moneys to produce additional quantities of gold, but it provides also that ny member country may spend moneys to keep present goldmines in existence. The Government has done exactly this. If it were not for this subsidy, the city of Kalgoorlie would become a ghost town in a very short period. This measure, which will provide assistance to the goldmining industry for a further five years, will guarantee the future for at least this period not only of Kalgoorlie but also of other towns concerned in goldmining. I have no doubt that whatever government is in power five years from now will give the same sympathetic treatment to the industry as this Government has given. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - I thank the Senate for the reception it has given this Bill. It is understandable that support for it should come from representatives of Western Australia, but it is pleasing that senators from other States from both sides of the chamber also have given it their support. I was interested in Senator Prowse’s remark that in the early days gold production in Australia was inhibited by a lack of water. In Tasmania the opposite was the case. The great Tasmanian gold mine unfortunately struck an underground source of water and the extremely high cost of pumping was the final factor which decided the management to close down that great mine. I hope that this subsidy may play some part in reviving it. Today, with plenty of electricity available and with modern pumping facilities, the Tasmanian gold mine on the River Tamar may come to life again. Beaconsfield, like Kalgoorlie, was once a great city. It has now been reduced to very small dimensions and relies for its livelihood practically entirely on the rural interests around it. Once again I thank the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I seek clarification on several matters. Clause 5 relating to ascertainment of cost of production sets out to amend section 10 of the principal Act and to provide - (1.) For the purposes of the application of subsection (I.) of the last preceding section in relation to bullion produced in a year by a large producer from minerals obtained by him from a mining property, the cost of production, for each ounce of fine gold contained in the refined gold produced from the bullion, is the sum of the amounts determined by the Treasurer to be -

  1. the cost in respect of that year of development of the mining property; . . .

What exactly is meant by that statement and how is the provision to be applied? The cost of production in any year can be overhigh in a particular mine. The company might determine that higher levels are being worked out and that it is time to take a lift out of the shaft and bring into production a new level or levels. Such a major development programme would increase the cost of development work over a particular period. I notice that the Treasurer, under both the principal Act and the Bill, is given certain discretions in this connection and I hope a liberal view will be taken of this matter of cost of production in a particular year. I should like some explanation of the application of this provision.

Paragraph (d) of the proposed new subsection states that the cost of production shall be determined by the Treasurer to be-

One-half of the net cost, in respect of that year, of approved diamond drilling carried out by the producer elsewhere than on the mining property . . .

This is a provision additional to that set out in paragraph (c). The statement “ elsewhere than on the mining property “ is pretty vague, and I should like some clarification. It must be realised that under the Western Australian mining legislation, provision is made for a certain employment level in respect of the number of workers who can be employed. The size of a lease is 12 acres and if my memory is correct, a leaseholder can hold 12 acres for every two workers employed. Larger mines such as Lake View and Star and Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie - Great Boulder is not so materially affected because it is jammed in between a lot of other leases - have unlimited areas which can be pegged. I think this would apply also to North Kalgurli (1912) Ltd. The words “elsewhere than on the mining property” require some clarification. I am not clear about the exact meaning of the words. If diamond drilling is being conducted half a mile away or even a mile away from an actual working lease, but on a lease which is held by the parent company, is that considered to be on the mining property? Is it intended that the cost of diamond drilling is to be taken into consideration only if the company is drilling to find lodes in another mining field, for example if Lake View and Star were drilling at Kanowna or at some similar place?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– Paragraph (d) of the proposed new sub-section refers to an allowance of half the cost of drilling outside the existing leases that a company or a mine might hold. The leaseholder gets all the costs of diamond drilling inside the existing lease at present. If he goes outside the lease and explores other areas, he is to be allowed half the cost of drilling. The provision in paragraph (c) is an extension of the provisions in the principal Act and will be administered in similar fashion.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I refer the Minister for Civil Aviation to the following proposed new provision in clause 5 - (10.) In this section - approved diamond drilling ‘ means diamond drilling approved by the Treasurer as being diamond drilling that would, if it resulted in the discovery of gold-bearing minerals of payable grade, contribute to the continued production of gold-bearing minerals in, or in the vicinity of, an existing gold-mining area;

This is a definition of approved diamond drilling. When taken in conjunction with the answer that the Minister has given me to the effect that one-half of the net cost of diamond drilling elsewhere than on the mining property will be granted, it leads to some confusion as to what is meant by the words - in the vicinity of, an existing gold-mining area;

Will the Minister clarify the two related matters?

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– As Senator Cant has said, clause 5 proposes to amend section 10 of the Principal Act by adding a new sub-section (10.) which contains the following definition - approved diamond drilling ‘ means diamond drilling approved by the Treasurer . . .

I should like to know what is in the mind of the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in relation to this clause. If a gold mine qualifies for subsidy, surely it should be the intention of the Government to encourage those operating the mine to explore for additional ore bodies. These ore bodies might not be near the mine that is being worked but the company might be able to get additional leases in distant areas or it might be able to take an option over another gold mining area or another lease.

The area where the company might intend to do additional drilling might not be adjacent to or in the vicinity of a gold mining area. Therefore a company would no doubt apply to the Mines Department in Western Australia, or in another State, for an additional lease. That is exactly what the Government wants a company to do in such a case. It wants to encourage existing gold mining companies to explore for new ore bodies which might be richer than those being worked in the hope that such activity will prolong gold mining. The Government has stated that provided this is done, it will take into account in the total cost of drilling 50 per cent, of the subsidy the company will get for the gold produced from the original mine.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I appreciate what Senator Scott said, but there seems to be some confusion with regard to this measure. I referred’ to paragraph (d) of proposed new sub-section (1.) of Section 10. I drew the attention of Senator Henty to the words “elsewhere than on the mining property “. I asked him to clarify them for me and he said that they meant somewhere away from the leases presently held by the mining company. As Senator Scott knows, in some cases these leases can be quite extensive. When we look at the definition of “ approved diamond drilling “, we see that it is approved diamond drilling carried out by the producer in, or in the vicinity of, an existing gold mining area.

The position which is exercising my mind at present is that the Western Mining Corporation Ltd. is doing extensive diamond drilling at the southern end of Kalgoorlie to see whether it can pick up the southern extension of the Golden Mile. This work is being done on leases which are held at the present time. This is probably the biggest diamond drilling operation that has taken place in Western Australia for a great many years. If the Company is successful in finding the southern extension of the lodes of the Golden Mile, this will create a whole new field. There have been very favorable indications in some of the holes being drilled. I am wondering whether this work is being done “ elsewhere than on the mining properly “ or whether it is work “ in, or in the vicinity of, an existing gold mining area”. These two terms seem to me to be in conflict. I would like the Minister to clear the matter up for me if he can.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

.- This drilling is on leases held by the companies, and they get the full allowance for it. They were chasing the tail end of the Golden Mile when 1 was in that area 10 or 12 years ago. Bless their hearts, I hope they find it. They deserve something for the great amount of work they have done in an effort to continue the production of gold in that area.

The purpose of the subsidy is to encourage the finding of gold. The provision refers to work done on existing leases, or outside leases, but it must be in a gold mining area. There is a difference between an area and a lease. The work must be done in a goldmining area. 1 do not suppose that the subsidy would apply to a company drilling for oil or water, in another part of the State. The work must be in a goldmining area, where it would be considered possible to increase the production of gold. That is the whole basis of the subsidy.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1120

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 1094), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– The Bill before the Senate, which deals with parliamentary retiring allowances, is one of great importance to all honorable senators. The fact that quite a number of defects in the legislation passed last year have now to be corrected indicates, I suggest, either great carelessness or great casualness on the part of the Government in submitting the 1964 Bill.

Senator Wright:

– Or perhaps impatience.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not suggest that. But there are defects in the legislation, and three of them are quite obvious. First, it is found necessary to restate the basis for the actuarial calculations in paying to those who have retired and are enjoying pensions - or certain of those people - a proportion, by way of lump sum payments, of the surplus of the funds that are held. It has been necessary to validate the payments that have in fact been made.

Another defect relates to the ministerial fund and affects only the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. Last year’s Bill provided that contributions to the fund should cease after 14 years. That entitled those who were contributing to the fund at the full rate to end their contributions at the end of 14 years, but also it entitled those who were contributing at half or one quarter of the full rate to cease their contributions at the end of .14 years. That obviously was not fair and was never intended, so it is now being corrected. It is surprising that this was not put right in the first instance.

Senator Wright:

– What is meant by “ those who contribute at half or one quarter of the full rate “?

Senator McKENNA:

– The provision is that Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition in another place shall contribute at the full rate. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber contribute at only half the full rate, but they are also credited with only half the time they serve. In other words - the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber - are credited with only six months in respect of each year of their service in qualifying for the minimum of eight years that brings entitlement to a ministerial pension. They pay only at half rate and are credited with only half the time they serve towards the qualifying period. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place is credited with only one quarter of the time served towards the eight years qualifying period. He has a long way to go, having regard to the fact that if he is to acquire his entitlement upon the basis of service as Deputy Leader of the Opposition he has to serve for 32 years.

Senator Hannaford:

– That is not beyond the bounds of possibility, is it?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am sure that office holder would be delighted to know that the honorable senator takes that view of his longevity. But I do not think he would be so happy to know that that is the view of his continued activities in that office. It is obvious that the provision that payment should cease at the end of 14 years could not be applied to those paying at half rate and quarter rate and only getting proportionate entitlements for their terms of service.

The next defect was the provision in the Act which provided that any of the office holders who were contributing to the ministerial fund should acquire entitlement on an 8-year basis if they had been serving at the end of their term in each of three Parliaments. Again there is the fact that that could hardly apply to those who contributed at full, half or quarter rates. The Bill corrects the position and ensures that the same distinction is applied there, having regard to the varied nature of the contributions. The eight year rule will not apply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place, the Leader of the Opposition here or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition here. We are not complaining about it. Obviously, these are matters that should have been presented in that way in the first place.

The other change - this relates not to a defect but to a rule of convenience - is that the basis of contribution for ordinary pensions, as well as Ministerial pensions, is now a monthly one. It involves, in the case of the three office bearers I mentioned, namely, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition here, a very slight increase in payments when it is put on a monthly basis. The Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition in another place will contribute £222 instead of £221. The Deputy Leader of the Oposition in another place and the Leader of the Opposition here will contribute £111 instead of £110 10s. and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition here will contribute £55 10s. instead of £55 5s. I have a feeling that the Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition in another place will not mind the additional £1 per annum any more than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Leader here will mind the extra 10s. per annum or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition here the extra 5s. per annum. I think that we will be able to stand the financial strain involved in that slight variation of the contributions.

The other provision of the Bil!, which is referred to as a defect, is to correct the omission to vest the management of the ministerial fund formally in the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust. That is the fourth of the defects acknowledged under the Bill to have existed in the Act which we are amending. Apart from those matters, there are provisions dealing with’ the delegation of the powers of the Trust, the contributions by way of monthly instead of weekly payments, to which I have referred, and the question of the accrual and method of calculation of payments of contributions and pensions. Finally the election or option which a person may exercise to take a lump sum may be revoked, even though exercised, at any time before it has been in fact acted upon. The Trust has, in equity and justice, been meeting that position, but probably without the formal authority of the Act. This is included as one of the powers under the Bill.

The Opposition does not oppose any of the provisions in the Bill. I hope that the Senate will see that I, on behalf of the Opposition leaders who are affected, am not shedding any tears over what has been done to us.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

.- Honorable senators will recollect that at this time last year a similar Bill was brought into the Senate and dealt with rather speedily because it was on the eve of the end of that sessional period. The same thing has happened this year. I rise to make some conments on the Bill in order to put it in a new light altogether. I have spent the last week or so going over the debate that took place on similar legislation in the Senate last year. I was heartened to read the undertakings which were given by Senator Paltridge, who then represented the Treasurer in this chamber, that the matter which I raised, in relation to depriving the Presiding Officers of access to the ministerial fund, would be examined by the Government, lt was also pointed out that, in the event of a revision of this legislation, the matter would be considered. I note that neither in another place nor in this place did the Minister in his second reading speech make reference to the matter. I see that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) is consulting his advisers, but I wish to inform him at once that I have no intention of pressing the case that I pressed in May of last year, In fact,

I wish to say to the Senate that I retract unequivocally any claim that I made that the Presiding Officers should be included in the ministerial fund. I will explain why in a moment.

I have looked through the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act of 1959 and the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act of 1964, and I have carefully examined this Bill. It disturbs me to find in all these measures, which relate to members of Parliament, provision being made for the Ministry. It is most disturbing to find that Ministers, who represent the Executive in the Parliament, have embodied in Bills, which relate to the retiring allowances of members of Parliament, provisions for their own retirement. I do not object to Ministers having retiring allowances. I think that, poor creatures, they are entitled to them, but the allowances should be contained in a bill or an act dealing with Ministers. Ministers are of a dual nature. They are members of Parliament and they sit here only with the permission of the Parliament. They have another role, that of Her Majesty’s Ministers. If Her Majesty wishes to make provision for them, the Crown must make provision in a separate Act.

One of the things that disturbs members of Parliament - it has been disturbing them over the last few years - is that not only in Australia but also in other areas of the world where the parliamentary system of government exists, increasing power which is being embodied in the executive government is exerted against both the Crown and the Parliament. It varies in degree from one country to another, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is being embodied in the executive elements of Government vast powers of patronage which overbear Parliament and certainly overbear the Crown. I am making the general statement that there is a tendency in the parliamentary system of Government for the executive component to overbear both Parliament and the Crown, which is the source from which executive government draws its authority.

Senator Wright:

– Permit me to say by way of interjection that it exists here to a disturbing degree.

Senator CORMACK:

– Senator Wright may care to elaborate on the matter afterwards. I am merely making the com ment that in these circumstances in the twentieth century this dangerous element is beginning to grow in other parts of the world and also here, as Senator Wright suggested. That is not what I propose to discuss, but there is an illustration that the thin dividing line which must exist between Parliament and the Executive is not acknowledged in this Bill.

I shall take a minute or two to remind the Senate of how Parliament rose to a position of authority. History records the rise and fall of constituent elements of government. The example that comes most readily to my mind, of course, is the source from which a great deal of the authority of government in Western Europe has originated. The first great attempt to create a national forum was in Rome wilh the creation of the Senate. Rome rose to power and greatness under the Senate. Its decline began when the young Octavius, who became the Emperor Augustus, set up the Principate and began to castrate the Senate. From the growth of the Roman concept of the Principate came the system of rulership in Western Europe embodied solely and arbitrarily in the Crown, and it existed for 1,000 years. From there began the peculiarly Anglo-Saxon institution of Parliament which set out to wrest power away from the Crown. Beginning in 1620 and culminating in the Civil Wars and the English Revolution, Parliament asserted its authority against the Crown. Parliament also discovered, in that process, that Parliament can never govern; nor should it attempt to govern. Parliament may rule, but not govern.

In the time of the early Georges, the Cabinet system developed and Cabinet began to operate as the communicating link between the authority of the Crown on the one hand and the authority of the Parliament on the other hand. But from that day onwards, there has been a constant evolution in which power has tended to pass away from the Parliament into the hands of the executive components of Parliament. That power has tended to a substantial degree to move entirely away from the Crown and embody itself in the executive government. So, we have a third echelon of government.

The executive Government is providing in this Bill for the needs of its Ministers upon retirement. I agree that they should be provided for. But the executive Government embeds that requirement for providing pensions for the Ministry in a parliamentary bill, whereas it has always been the practice in our history for the Ministry to be rewarded by the Crown, outside the ambit of Parliament. I think this is a dangerous intrusion into the parliamentary sphere, and that a clear line of distinction should be kept drawn between the Executive and the Parliament.

J feel sorry that there are embodied in this Bill provisions for the Leaders of the Opposition in another place and the Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate. I am disturbed by the minor point that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) and his deputy, Senator Kennelly, have become, if I might use a term from the grazing industry of which I have a great deal of experience, the barrowers on the shearing board for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) in another place. When the mighty guns have stopped shearing sheep during the lunch hour, the barrowers take over the shears and try to learn how to shear as expeditiously and efficiently as the shearer who is sitting down rolling his cigarette. I do think that, without applying any flattery to the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, they are men of the highest distinction and quality who do just as much work as the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place. I think it is a derogation of the Senate for the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber to be reduced to the ranks of political barrowers.

Opposition Senators. - Hear, hear!

Senator CORMACK:

– Yes, I agree with the Opposition from time to time.

Having said that, I want to refer to another element which also adds to the danger that I envisage. It is this: The Bill is not the final Bill in relation to this matter, and the Act can be amended by any future Parliament. Recently the news was bruited abroad that it is the intention of the Opposition in another place to form what is called in Great Britain a shadow Cabinet. What is there to say that once this principle is admitted into the Parliament, the next amendments to this Bill will not contain provision for the payment of pensions for members of the Opposition shadow Cabinet.

Senator Ormonde:

– That would be all right.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The honorable senator might get a pension at the end of his term here.

Senator CORMACK:

– Well I am quite sure that this, will be the next provision to be included. If the Opposition party cannot say that it will have a shadow Treasurer, it will say that there is to be a First Deputy Leader of the Opposition for Treasury or, to take another example, the First Deputy Leader of the Opposition for External Affairs. In this way, a whole system of patronage will be set up inside the Parliament in which the Crown can thoroughly overbear Parliament by making special provisions for members of Parliament inside the Parliament.

Senator Wright:

– The honorable senator may be sure that that position will not come unless there is a quid pro quo.

Senator Hannaford:

– There is no substance in a shadow, after all.

Senator CORMACK:

– What does the honorable senator mean?

Senator Hannaford:

– Can the honorable senator move a shadow? Can the honorable senator penetrate a shadow?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order! The Senate will come back to the Bill.

Senator CORMACK:

– I beg your pardon, Sir. I certainly cannot envisage what is going to happen in the night in the future. But I know my fellow men and their actions are reasonably predictable. It is not my intention to oppose the motion for the second reading of this Bill, nor to oppose it in Committee. But I draw the attention of my fellow senators to the explosive situation which I seem to think is embedded in the Bill and the way its predecessor was presented to Parliament in May of last year and the way in which this Bill is presented at this time.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– I feel sure that all honorable senators have daily witnessed endeavours by peoples and countries to win economic security. We have before us at the present time a Bill which will strengthen the economic security which was awarded to Ministers and others last year. We recall the actions of Peron when he was in charge of the affairs of Argentina. He had fears about his future security because he could see that his power would diminish. So he transferred valuable securities to countries in Europe. We learnt that Hitler, during the Second World War, feared the result of that war and feared also that he would have to go back and work as a builder’s labourer at its conclusion. So he transferred securities of the State into secret hiding places. This legislation is an endeavour - and it does not amount to anything more - to Peronise and Hitlerise the powers of the Parliament to give more payments to people who do not require them.

Senator Hannaford:

– Pure, unadulterated rubbish.

Senator BENN:

– I will proceed from that point. I will deal with the payments which have been fixed. Senator Hannaford said: “Nonsense” -

Senator Hannaford:

– I did not. I said: “ Pure unadulterated rubbish “.

Senator BENN:

– I will show to the Senate the grave danger underlining this type of legislation. Senator Cormack only hinted at it. I can go further. I can say that this is a grave threat to our Commonwealth Parliamentary system. It is a threat to the democracy upon which we place a high value.

The ordinary senator - the senator who is not a member of the Ministry or who is not a Leader here - and the members of the House of Representatives who are not Ministers will, when they retire from the Parliament, if they have qualified for a pension, be paid the sum of £32 18s. 7d. per week. It is proposed under the legislation with which we are dealing to add to that for Ministers and for the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate the sum of £21 per week, making a payment to them of £53 per week. I may be wrong in a shilling or two, but that is my calculation of what this legislation means. The legislation provides that members of the Ministry, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall make contributions to the Ministerial Fund. Then it provides that the Ministerial’ Fund shall bc merged with the general fund.

Senator Wright:

– Is that provided for in the Bill?

Senator BENN:

– Well, I think it is. That is the way I look at it. After eight years’ service, a retiring Minister will receive the sum of £53 a week.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator has the story wrong.

Senator BENN:

– Well, why did the Minister not state the figures here? I am relying upon information that was given to me elsewhere.

Senator Henty:

– Did the honorable senator say that after eight years’ service a Minister would get an increase of £21?

Senator BENN:

– Yes.

Senator Henty:

– That is nonsense. After eight years he will get an increase of £9.

Senator BENN:

– What is the maximum?

Senator Henty:

– He has to be a

Minister for 14 years or more.

Senator BENN:

– To get £21?

Senator Henty:

– Yes.

Senator BENN:

– I want to prove my point. Where will the money come from to pay the £53? Will it come from the Ministerial Fund? Will it come from the trust fund that is provided for in the legislation or will the Government go to the Treasury and get it from the Consolidated Revenue Fund which is money provided by the taxpayers of the Commonwealth? Will the Government go to the fund which provides the money for the ordinary pensioners who receive less than £6 a week? The Government will go to the Treasury to get 70 per cent, of the £53 that it will pay to a retired Minister. The remaining three-tenths will come from the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust Fund. That is how it will work out. Of the sum of £53 an amount of £37 2s. will be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which feeds the National Welfare Fund which was established to pay the poor pensioners. A sum of £15 18s. will come from the Trust Fund. Is that equitable? Has the Government told the people all about this glorious payment - this superstructure that it has added to the parliamentary retiring allowances scheme? The Government has withheld this information. It has adopted a policy of concealment. As far as I am concerned, the Government will not get away with it. Let us consider a Minister’s service and the payment that he will receive. Why should he be favoured with this huge payment from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? A Minister’s contribution will be nothing more than a token when we consider the weekly payment that will be made, and the Government is aware of that.

Senator Kendall:

– Does the honorable senator call £4,000 a token? That is what I have paid into the superannuation fund.

Senator BENN:

– The honorable senator will not retire as a Minister. I am speaking about payments to Ministers. Nevertheless, let me tell Senator Kendall that when he retires 14s. of every £1 will come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and 6s. from the Trust Fund. The same sort of thing will apply to the honorable senator as to Ministers.

Let me move on to another point. I have already mentioned that the Bill provides for payments to be made to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. They are the only two members of the Opposition who will get any benefit under this scheme. They were included because that is the price the Ministers are prepared to pay to have this legislation passed without any opposition. They have made the Opposition leaders the pall bearers. We have heard about an investigation being made into poverty.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator BENN:

– At the suspension of the sitting, I was quietly explaining some provisions of the Bill before us and the legislation that it has been designed to amend. The Minister, by interjection, said to me that, after serving eight years as a Minister, a member of this Parliament would be entitled, if he then retired, to a pension of £9 a week. I would like the Senate to consider that for a moment. If he were a senator for eight years, he would be entitled to the ordinary pension prescribed for a retiring senator, which amounts to £32 18s. 7d. a week. If he were a member of the House of Representatives, and had ceased to be a member of the House of Representatives on three occasions, he would be entitled to the same rate of pension of £32 18s. 7d. If a Minister’s pension is added to that sum, the total weekly payment is £41 18s. 7d. That amount would be paid as follows: The Treasury would draw from the Consolidated Revenue Fund seven-tenths of the total weekly pension, which is £29 6s. lOd. the Treasury would draw from the trust fund - that is the members’ retiring allowance fund - £12 lis. 9d. a week, the balance of three-tenths of the total pension payable.

If the Minister can refute the figures I have quoted, I shall be happy to hear him do so. He may have an explanation. He may say that the Treasury does not draw 70 per cent, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but I have in my possession concrete evidence to that effect. Prior to the passage of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act in November last year, the Treasury drew about 68 per cent, of the pension from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I hope I have cleared up any doubt that existed on that point.

Some very odd features are associated with the Bill before us. The Labour Party has indicated that it does not propose to oppose the legislation. I do not wish to oppose it. 1 am simply trying to explain it for the benefit of the Australian people. My real objection to this legislation is the objection concerning secrecy which I voiced last year. Certain features of it should be fully explained to the people of the Commonwealth. The secrecy that surrounded the introduction of the legislation last year and attempts, more or less, to conceal the provisions of the Bill with which we are dealing now are not in the interests of democracy. The Government should be forthright and explain every facet of this legislation. It should be introduced and dealt with openly, and not stealthily, as the Government is attempting to deal with it.

I wish to express my sympathy to Senator Kennelly. If he remains for 32 years as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate he will qualify for a pension. Mr. Whitlam, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, has given the show away. He believes that he will never qualify for a pension as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Calwell, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, and Senator McKenna, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, both qualify now for a ministerial pension. They are the only two members of the Australian

Labour Party in the Commonwealth Parliament who can possibly qualify for a ministerial pension. The scheme is most lopsided. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) is laughing and enjoying a chat with an officer from the Treasury.

I shall point out a few facts. The Australian Labour Party has been in charge of Commonwealth affairs for about 16 years out of 61 years. The Watson Ministry governed from 27th Aprl 1904 to 18th August 1904. The Fisher Ministry governed from 13 th November 1908 to 2nd June 1909. It also functioned from 29th April 1910 to 24th June 1913. Did I hear Senator Hannaford trying to interject?

Senator Hannaford:

– No.

Senator BENN:

– The honorable senator has not been on his feet to address the Senate for the last three months. The Fisher Ministry also governed from 17th September 1914 to 27th October 1915. The Scullin Ministry was in office from 22nd April 1929 to 6th January 1932. The Curtin, Forde and Chifley Ministries were in office from 7th October 1941 to 6th July 1945, from 6th July 1945 to 13th July 1945 and from 13th July 1945 to 19th December 1949 respectively.

The present Government - the Liberal Party and Australian Country Party Government - has been in office continuously for the past 15 years and at present has many Ministers who have qualified for a pension. The legislation before us has been so framed that the contributions commence now and the period of service given by Ministers is counted to their credit. It is a retrospective element. Is that fair and equitable? Is that the way the legislation should operate? Why not start from the day that the legislation was introduced and have the contributions correspond with the period of service as Ministers as from that time? The Minister will tell me later whether that is fair and equitable.

In about 10 weeks we shall have the Budget delivered to us and there will be many people in the Commonwealth who will be interested in it, all wishing to know whether the rate for an age pensioner will be increased from £6 a week. Let us make a comparison of the age pensions payable to a man and wife, totalling £12 a week, with the pension of £53 a week that will be paid to a Minister. A Minister who has served for a period of eight years will be paid a pension of £41 18s. 7d. If we wish, we can go further and compare the sums that will be taken from the Treasury to pay the pensions. In the case of the Minister receiving a pension of £41 18s. 7d., the sum of £29 6s. lOd. will be taken from the Treasury. Why should there be that difference? That, more than anything else, is why I object to this proposal. This is strongly anti-Labour legislation. The Australian Labour Party is an egalitarian party. It does not believe in putting parliamentary pensions up to the level that this Government proposes. It suggests earnestly and sincerely that the pensions of the battlers in the community should be increased.

I wish only to bring these matters into focus. It is dangerous to introduce these things in a hush hush way. We should ventilate this and let the searchlight shine upon it so that everybody will know what is being done. Otherwise, we shall have in this country a Government worse than that of any other democratic country in the world. I just warn the Ministers who will qualify for this fat pension later on that “ they are as sick that surfeit with too much as they that starve with nothing “.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– A speech from the Government side as well as the speech from Senator Benn has raised issues upon which I cannot decide. I think that the Senate ought to face up to the course that is appropriate to giving proper consideration to those speeches. As I conceive the present legislation, Senator Benn is completely in error when he suggests that the Ministerial Fund is merged with the parliamentary pension fund. I remind the Senate that when, soon after the Richardson report, it was proposed by the Ministry of the day to bring in a ministerial noncontributory pension fund, that was scotched before it was presented to the Parliament and the Ministry did not go on with that proposal.

Senator Henty:

– That was a recommendation of the Richardson Committee.

Senator WRIGHT:

– A non-contributory pension.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– Yes.

Senator WRIGHT:

– And the Government announced its adoption of it.

Senator Henty:

– No.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If you will pardon me, Mr. Minister-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order! The honorable senator will address the Chair.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Before the Government parties met, the Government said that it was adopting the report in its entirety. The parties met and the proposal was never submitted to the Parliament. I was trying to elucidate this matter. Therefore, I think it is important that we should have it clearly established that the present contributory Ministerial Fund that was introduced last year is a separate fund from the ordinary parliamentary pension fund.

It ought to be established that it is a contributory fund. But there is no mystery about the degree of contribution. Here, when we were discussing parliamentary pensions just after the Richardson report, I pointed out that without an actuarial investigation the Government of the day lifted the relationship between the Treasury contribution and the fund contribution from about 63/37 per cent, to 70/30. Since that time, out of every £10 of pension that an ex-parliamentarian receives the Consolidated Revenue pays £7. We need not go into complicated arithmetic about that. If the country needs to be informed as to that - and I should think that it does - 1 point out that out of every £10 of pension paid to any single ex-member of the Parliament at any time, £7 comes straight from the Treasury and only £3 comes from the fund with which we have been concerned. That is the position as it applies to private members. Precisely the same proportions apply to the Ministerial Fund. But there is one thing that needs to be understood with regard to the Ministerial Fund. Last year when we passed the proposal I supposed in its favour that it had been established on some actuarial advice. I am informed that that .s not so but whether or not it is so, out of every £10 pension received by an exMinister £7 is a direct contribution from the Treasury and only £3 is from the Ministerial Fund.

Clearing away those confusions which Senator Benn brought into the debate, it still remains true that by this legislation it is proposed that we provide a special pension fund for Ministers of the Crown and Leaders of the Opposition. I should have thought that there was great danger in that principle from the point of view of the independence of the Opposition, but that may not be a valid argument; I cannot find myself completely convinced about it. The next point, as Senator Cormack says, is that the legislation proposes to give special emoluments to Ministers, who are the Executive representatives in the Parliament, long after they have served their term of office. I rose to express my indebtedness to Senator Cormack’s thought, although I shall not go back as far as Octavius, but I want also to bring to notice a work entitled “The Passing of Parliament “ by Professor G. W. Keeton, published in about the 1950s. I refer to this passage -

Even in Great Britain, Parliament no longer governs, ft criticises, and sometimes checks government, and by an adverse vote it can dismiss a ministry. Owing to the intensity of the Party system, however, such a right has become almost as formal as the royal veto.

Do I hear “ Hear, hear! “ around the chamber? The author goes on -

So, in our day, the seventeenth century battle . . . to which Senator Cormack referred -

. between Parliament and Common law on one side, and the Executive on the other, is being fought again, but this time the struggle shows every indication of being decided in favour of the despotism of the Executive.

There is no mystery about these things. Some people say that despotism is being created because a Ministry has behind it a gradually increasing bureaucracy, acquiring great strength from ils improving skills and increasing numbers. The author of this work does not fail to notice that. He says -

The relentless growth in size and function of the Departments of State and the relatively high level in the calibre of those who staff them, coupled with the steady decline in importance and function of members of Parliament, has led to a gradual transfer of power and influence from the floor of the House of Commons to the private rooms of permanent civil servants. In fact, if not in form, Parliament has conceded to every one of the great Departments of State wide powers of autonomous legislation.

Then he refers to well known matters such as the whole armoury of orders, unexaminable by law, issued by departments, and the escape from the power of the Parliament by means of Executive decrees. We permit Ministers to dispense the benefits of housing loans insurance by prescribing what classes of persons shall receive the benefit of the Government’s legislation, not by regulation but by an instrument that is unexaminable by the Parliament.

I need not quote any further from the work. It is well recognised that the power of Parliament is being eviscerated and that the Executive with the immensely strengthened adjunct of the civil service, is gaining such an ascendency, as exemplified by the experience of this House, that the voice of the private member of Parliament simply goes for nought. The strength of the Executive is being increased by the scheme to give emoluments in the form of special pensions to persons who have the opportunity to enjoy the high office of Minister of the Crown and Leader of the Opposition during the time they are in Parliament.

I opposed the whole of this legislation last year. I did not imagine that this issue would arise again. If, in the Committee stage, I can find a clause which will appropriately throw up the issue I will give Senator Benn an opportunity to vote upon it.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - The Bill proposes some amendments of legislation which passed this House last October. It was interesting to hear Senator Benn say that he objects to the legislation but will not oppose it.

Senator Benn:

– That is a Party decision.

Senator HENTY:

– He registers his objection but does what he is told to do by his Party. He voted for the legislation of last year and no doubt he will vote for this Bill on this occasion. The Bill proposes certain alterations to correct some anomalies in the legislation which was passed last year. Senator Benn cited certain figures. He said that a Minister of the Crown, after eight years in that position, will receive an additional pension or superannuation - call it what you will - of £9 a week. He then said that an age pensioner couple receive £12 a week. He forgot to say that a retired senator will receive £32 a week. He did not compare that pension with what an age pensioner receives. He concentrated on Ministers.

Another thing he forgot to mention was that Ministers make an additional contribution of £18 10s. a month and become qualified for the additional pension only after being in office as Ministers for eight years. I mention that point because the Richardson Committee recommended that after six years service Ministers of the Crown should receive a special additional pension without being required to make any additional contribution. The Government rejected that proposal and notified the Parliament that it would introduce ministerial pensions on the basis that additional contributions would be made by the Ministers concerned. That was accepted by the Parliament - a point which Senator Wright forgot.

Further, the Government took steps to introduce this scheme just prior to an election. If that is not an example of acting in good faith, I do not know what is. Just before facing the people again, we announced our proposals. The legislation was debated and was written up in the Press throughout the country. In Senator Benn’s own State of Queensland there was a great Press campaign about this matter just prior to the election. If the Government’s action on that occasion also was not an example of acting in good faith, 1 do not know what is.

In fairness and justice one should consider two things. First, I suppose it would be fair to say that an ordinary senator entering this House would spend six years as a private member before attaining ministerial rank. I think that is shortening the period somewhat but let us suppose it takes only six years. He then has to be a Minister for eight years before he can qualify for the additional £9 a week, so that he has a total of 14 years service. For this additional pension he makes a contribution of £18 10s. a month over and above the £20 a month he contributes for his ordinary pension.

Senator O’Byrne:

– He can always resign.

Senator HENTY:

– If the honorable senator will stop interjecting flippantly I will reply in all seriousness, because the point was raised, I believe, in all seriousness. The second point that I think it is fair to take into consideration is that we are all liable to income tax and, quite frankly, at least one-half of the ministerial pension will go back to the Government in the form of income tax.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The contribution is deductible.

Senator HENTY:

– Just as everyone else’s is deductible. I am not claiming that it is not deductible. The real point I want to make to the Senate is this: Having served for six years as a private member and eight years as a Minister, any man who owned his own business before entering the Parliament would find it almost impossible to succeed when he tried to enter again the competitive business world of today. As a result of the complexity of growing responsibilities of government, to which Senator Wright referred, he has had to devote his full time and energy to his ministerial duties. This is the very point which the Richardson Committee took into account. If the Opposition ever became the Government, I am sure that Senator Benn, who is interjecting again, would never attain ministerial rank. With his outlook, which is as wide as threepence, Senator Benn would never be a Minister so he can never know what ministerial service entails. Ministerial service in the Commonwealth Government today means total service if a Minister is going to conduct the department under his administration efficiently. It is a full-time job; make no mistake about that.

Senator Marriott:

– A Minister has to resign his directorships and so reduce his income.

Senator HENTY:

– That applies to some and not to others. I am speaking of general principles and I do not think I should refer to individual cases. Ministerial work is a full-time job. A Minister cannot conduct a private business as well. He cannot leave the Senate for business commitments; he has to be here. A Minister cannot earn money outside and he cannot treat his membership of this House as only a part-time job. A Minister has to give full-time service to the Parliament.

I would like to see honorable senators opposite trying to go back into competitive business after working as Ministers for 10 years. They would then see whether they could resume activity in the business world. This difficulty was recognised in the Richardson report. I know that Senator Wright opposed this proposal previously. I have read his speech a number of times and I do not think he took that into account fairly and squarely. As a result of modern developments in government and the responsibilities of a Minister, he must give all his time and attention to ministerial activities and the Richardson Committee recognised that a Minister cannot resume private commercial activities after 10 years in office. A senator who is not faced with ministerial responsibility can still conduct his own business. He can draw his salary as a senator and still earn money elsewhere. That cannot be done by a Minister in charge of a senior department.

Senator Wright corrected the figures that were quoted by Senator Benn. Senator Benn began by saying that after eight years a Minister qualified for an additional pension of £21. That is quite wrong. I shall quote the correct figures so that those who want the facts may be properly informed. After eight years of service as a Minister - which is the qualifying period and was’ not attained by many until this Government came to office - a Minister receives a pension of £9 a week for a contribution of £18 10s. a month. The pension paid for the same contribution for longer periods as a Minister rises as follows: Nine years, £10 10s.; ten years, £12; eleven years, £14; twelve years, £16; thirteen years £18 10s.; fourteen years or more, £21. Much has been made of the contribution by the Government. In these days any normal company considers this a primary responsibility to its employees. There are many superannuation schemes in private enterprise which are more attractive than the scheme we are considering.

Senator Hannaford:

– Would it be comparable with the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme?

Senator HENTY:

– Yes, it would be comparable and there again there is a Government contribution. I think I have answered all the questions that I can be expected to answer and have corrected the misstatements that have been made by some honorable senators. I have put a fairly reasonable point of view, in my opinion. A Minister who has had 14 years or more ministerial service would have been a member of the Parliament for 20 years. Could he be expected to return to the commercial world after being out of it for 20 years?

Senator Morris:

– How many of them would live long enough?

Senator HENTY:

– Yes, how many would qualify? It is only common justice to take these things into account as was done by the Richardson Committee. Senator Benn might have objected to the recommendations of the Richardson Committee, but I know of only one man in this Parliament who ever took steps to divest himself of an increase in salary. I say to Senator Benn: It can be done if it touches your conscience to receive the emoluments recommended by the Richardson Committee. You can divest yourself of any part of it to bring yourself down to what you think you are worth. The only man in the Federal Parliament who did so was the present Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies). Wages were pegged and when the Labour Government increased parliamentary salaries from £1,000 to £1,500, the present Prime Minister refused to take the increase until he had been to the people. He said: “ Wages are pegged and therefore our salaries should be pegged “.

Senator Morris:

– So did I.

Senator HENTY:

– I was speaking in a federal sense.

Senator Kennelly:

– Moses Gabb refused an increase, too.

Senator HENTY:

– I did not know. So there were two of them. Whether one or two refused, I say to Senator Benn with great respect if he feels so bitterly about this: “ Go thou and do likewise “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1130

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The primary purpose of this Bill is to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942- 1964 to make more effective the provisions relating to the ownership and control of television stations. Because of the substantial amendments required to the existing provisions of Division 3 of Part IV of the Act it has been decided to redraft the whole of this Division. At the same time the opportunity has been taken to introduce a number of incidental amendments to the Act. It is also proposed to make certain alterations to the manner in which, in the future, problems in respect of programme matters are to be dealt wilh.

Honorable senators may remember that on 17th December 1964 the PostmasterGeneral made a statement announcing the Government’s intention to bring down legislation to deal with problems which had arisen with respect to the ownership and control of television stations. The Minister pointed out in that statement that the Government’s policy with respect to the control of commercial television stations has always been, broadly, that no person, and this includes a company, should be in a position to control, either directly or indirectly, more than two commercial television station licences and that, as far as practicable, licences for country television stations should be held or controlled by interests of the area which the station is designed to serve. The present provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act relating to this matter were enacted in 1960 and were framed with the intention of giving effect to this policy. However, notwithstanding the comprehensive provisions of that legislation, situations have developed which, though they are not in breach of the law, are in conflict with the Government’s stated policy.

At the time the 1960 legislation was enacted, it was thought that the new provisions of the Act would be effective in limiting, to the desired extent, the control or influence which might be exercised by any one person or company, or group of persons or companies, over companies holding licences for television stations. Although there was no departure from the original concept that a person might control, directly or indirectly, two licences, providing they were not both in the same capital city, the 1960 provisions attempted to give practical force to this concept by amending the definition of “ control “ to extend to practical and commercial control by any means, and secondly, to provide that a person would be deemed to exercise control of a company and all its operations if that person was in a position to exercise control of more than 15 per cent, of the voting rights of that company, either directly or indirectly. The 1960 amendments represented a sincere endeavour on the part of the Government to ensure that its policy in respect of the ownership and control of television stations would not be frustrated. I must, however, be frank and say that our expectations in this regard have not been completely realised.

The Government has had the question of the ownership and control of commercial television stations under review for some time. Honorable senators will gather from the comprehensive and rather complicated provisions of this Bill that this has been a difficult area in which to legislate.I am confident, however, that the provisions of this Bill which I now introduce will be effective in carrying out the Government’s policy in this important field of mass communication.

Because of the complex nature of this Bill,I do not propose in this second reading speech to deal in any great detail with the various clauses of the Bill, but to leave the detailed examination to the committee stages of the Bill. I do propose, however, to outline broadly the meaning of the main clauses of the Bill for the benefit of honorable senators. I should say, at the outset, that in its deliberations, the Government has taken cognizance of the fact that a measure of influence over the affairs of a company may be exercised through the medium of funds contributed in other manners than by way of share capital. With the purpose of making effective the Government’s policy that any person or company may not control more than two licences, either directly or indirectly, the Bill provides that no person shall be permitted to acquire more than a 5 per cent. “ interest “ in more than two licensee companies. In determining the’ extent of the “ interest “ held by any person in a commercial television station, interests of a financial character in the widest sense will be taken into account, in addition to interests by way of voting rights and shareholdings, both directly and indirectly.

Proposed section 92 of the Bill provides that a person shall contravene the provisions of the Act if he has a “ prescribed interest “ in each of three or more commercial television stations in Australia or in two or more stations in a Territory or in the capital city of a State. Proposed Section 91 (2.) provides that a person has a “ prescribed interest “ in a licensee company if he is -

  1. the holder of a licence for a commercial television station;
  2. in a position to exercise control, either directly or indirectly, of such a licence;
  3. in a position to exercise control, either directly or indirectly, of more than 5 per cent, of the maximum number of votes that could be cast at a general meeting of a company holding such a licence;
  4. the holder of an interest - i.e. shareholding or loan interest - in the licensee company exceeding 5 per cent, of the total of all interests in the company;
  5. the holder of a shareholding interest in the licensee company in excess of 5 per cent, of the total amount paid on all shares in that company.

In ascertaining whether a person has a “ prescribed interest “ in a licensee company, the Bill provides in the case of tests (c), (d) and (e) which I have mentioned, that indirect interests shall be taken into account in each case by tracing down interests through related companies in those cases where companies are shareholders in licensee companies or are holders of loan interests in licensee companies. Proposed section 91a provides for the tracing back of share holding interests through a series of companies, whilst proposed section 91b provides for the determination of indirect loan interests, which are taken into account together with shareholding interests, for the purposes of test (d) relating to prescribed interests. The concept of the tracing back of interests was already contained in existing section 92b of the Act relating to “ control of a company “, involving the tracing back of interests on the basis of voting rights.

Proposed new section 92b extends the meaning of “ control of a company “ to embrace, in addition to 15 per cent, of voting rights as contained in existing section 92b, the holding of more than 15 per cent, of the shares carrying unrestricted voting rights, or the holding of more than 15 per cent, of the total share capital of a company. This provision, in effect, applies the principle of “ one share - one vote “ and will remove the effect of any manipulation of the articles of association of a company with the intention of restricting voting rights, no matter how large the shareholding, for the purposes of preventing a contravention of the voting rights test of control of a company for the purposes of the Act. It was, in effect, mainly by the amendment of articles of association to limit a shareholder’s voting rights to 15 per cent, that the existing provisions, which deemed a person to be in control of a company if he was in a position to control more than J 5 per cent, of the voting rights of the company, were circumvented.

Proposed section 92f deals with changes in the ownership of shares in, or debentures of, a company holding a licence, or shares in a company having a shareholding interest in a licensee company. It provides that the Minister’s approval must be sought in respect of transactions defined in that section, where such transactions involve the acquisition of a “ prescribed interest “ in a licence or an increase in an existing “ prescribed interest “.

Proposed sub-section (4.) of section 92f provides that the Minister shall not refuse his approval for a transaction unless the transaction would result in a contravention of section 92 of the Act, which restricts the interests which may be held by any one person, or unless the Minister considers it necessary to do so in the public interest, such as in the case of an undesirable takeover of a licensee company. Experience has shown that the Minister must have power to refuse approval of transactions on the grounds of public interest if the provisions are to have any real meaning. It is not difficult to imagine the many undesirable changes which could take place - quite lawfully - if the Minister is not in a position to exercise some control over the situation. It is relevant to point out that, pursuant to section 86 of the Act, the Minister has power to revoke a licence in the public interest. It is, to say the least, logical that the Minister should also have power to refuse approval of changes of ownership and control on the grounds of public interest. I should point out, in this connection, that proposed section 92f (4.) provides that the Minister shall not refuse his approval of transactions unless there has first been a report by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Proposed section 92fa provides that changes in the memorandum or articles of association of licensee companies shall not take place without the approval of the Minister.

I turn now to the provisions of the Bill relating to programme matters. Briefly, it is proposed to repeal section 105a of the Act, relating to the monopolising of television programmes, which provisions were enacted in 1960, and to extend the provisions of section 134, which provide for the making of regulations, to embrace a number of matters in the programme field which it is considered could properly be dealt wilh by regulation, if the need should arise. When the 1960 legislation was introduced, it was explained that the provisions of section 105a were intended primarily to prevent the “ cornering “ of television programmes. The Government had hoped that these provisions would ensure that the ownership of programmes did not become concentrated in the hands of a few, who by means of their control over programmes, might effectively control the operations of a television station seeking to use such programmes. It was realised that unless some action was taken in this connection, the policy of the Government with respect to the control of commercial television stations might be frustrated by leaving an independent station in a position where it could not obtain, on just or reasonable terms, the television programmes required to maintain its service.

Experience has demonstrated that the provisions made in the Act in 1960 were inadequate to deal with the problems which subsequently developed. In a relatively new and rapidly developing industry, it will be appreciated that it is difficult to foresee with any certainty the problems which might arise in the future. I might add, in passing, that this situation is not confined to Australia, as in most countries where television has been introduced it has been necessary to make continuous changes in the form of regulatory controls to meet the changing circumstances during the course of development of the services.

It is, I think, not unrealistic to say that the capacity to exercise control of television stations through the ownership of programmes or through programming arrangements or agreements, is a significant part of the overall problem of control and is matter with which we shall probably be concerned from time to time. Although ft is my understanding that no licensee is at present experiencing difficulties in obtaining programmes on reasonable terms, it is nevertheless considered necessary that provision should be made in the Act to deal with any situations which may develop in this field. The principal difficulty in this connection is that it is not possible to predict with any certainty the nature of the problems which may arise in the programme field and, for this reason, it has been considered that the most appropriate course is to provide in the Act for the power to make regulations in respect of programme matters. The proposed amendments to section 134 of the Act are being introduced for this purpose.

Another aspect of this matter which requires some comment at this stage is the proposal to repeal section 16 (3.)(e) of the Act which empowers the Board to regulate the establishment of networks of stations and the making of arrangements by licensees for the provision of programmes or the broadcasting or televising of advertisements. There has always been doubt regarding the application of this provision and it is, in fact, difficult to say precisely just what a network is. A similar difficulty has been experienced in other countries. In’ these circumstances, it has been considered desirable to repeal this provision in the Act and to provide for the making of regulations in respect of such matters.

In introducing this legislation, the Government has given close consideration to the position of persons or companies who, by virtue of their present shareholdings in licensee or related companies, or financial interests in licensee companies, would be in breach of the Act when amended. However, we have come to the conclusion that serious difficulties would arise if the provisions of the Bill were made to apply retrospectively in such cases. Apart from being required to divest themselves of interests held directly in licensee companies, some of the persons and companies involved would, in many cases, be required to divest themselves of shareholdings in companies other than licensee companies. The acquisition of these indirect interests may have come about in the normal course of business, and although such interests are not significant in terms of the existing legislation, they might well become significant under the new provisions.

For this reason, as indicated in the Minister’s statement of 17th December 1964, it is proposed that no shareholding arrangement existing as at that date will be invalidated by the new provisions or will constitute an offence against the Act as amended. However, if a person, or company, who has acquired excess interests prior to 17th December 1964, subsequently divests himself of such interests, he will not thereafter be entitled to recapture those excess holdings, although he will be able to participate in any new issue of shares which may be made. This position is covered in sub-sections (3.) and (4.) of proposed section 92 of the Bill. It has also been necessary to make provision in this section for proposals relating to rearrangements of interests in licensee companies which have been submitted to the Minister prior to 1 7th December 1964, but in respect of which the Minister’s approval has not yet been given.

Necessarily, the comments I have made relate only to the main features of the Bill. Honorable senators may think that this is a complicated piece of legislation, and I would agree, but I am satisfied that, in the light of experience, it must necessarily be so if effect is to be given to the Government’s policy. In essence, however, the major effect of the Bill may be fairly succinctly stated. It provides that no person shall, in the future, be permitted to acquire interests of a voting, shareholding, or financial character in television licensee companies, which would result in such interests being in excess of 5 per cent, in more than two licences. I comment the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McCelland) adjourned.

page 1133

NATIONAL AIRPORTS PROGRAMME

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 1st April (vide page 243), on the following paper presented by Senator Henty -

National Airports Programme - Ministerial Statement, 1st April, 1965. and on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the paper be printed.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) announced on 1st April 1965, that work on the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) airport and the Tullamarine airport in Melbourne originally scheduled for completion in 1967 would not now be completed until 1969. If the work is completed on time - and I think that is a pretty big “ if “ - one can say that there has been a delay of two years at a time when the existing facilities, particularly at Melbourne, are very inadequate to meet the requirements of the travelling public.

The Minister gave two reasons for the alteration in the time of completion of the work at the two aerodromes to which I have referred. First, he said that the traffic in recent years had grown beyond what could have been foreseen, and that larger aerodromes would have to be planned, and extra time would have to be taken in their construction. Secondly, he stated that the cost of the projects, if I remember correctly, was £16 million at Sydney and £.16 million at Melbourne. He also said that those sums should be considered alongside other Government commitments, and that the Government proposed to spread the expenditure over a five year period.

Let us look at the reasons that the Minister gave which have caused a delay of at least two years in the construction of the aerodromes that I have mentioned. I say a delay of at least two years because I think the Minister himself will admit that he would be pretty fortunate if he could assure the Senate that what he has stated is correct, namely, that these two aerodromes are to be completed by 1.969. As I say, let us have a look at the two excuses that have been offered for the delay. The Minister referred first to the increase in the number of people travelling by the airlines. The Minister did attempt to justify this excuse but, to my mind, the situation proves extremely poor planning on the part of his Department. He said that the original decision that the terminal was to be built at Tullamarine was made some years ago. Now we are told that, in fact, the aerodrome is to be twice as large as was originally planned.

Let us look at the figures that the Minister gave in his first excuse. He states that in the 10 year period ended 1962, traffic increased at the rate of 4 per cent. In 1963. traffic increased by 11 per cent, and it is now 16 per cent, above that for the previous year.

I found the quotation of these figures most interesting because. I remember that, last year, when the Minister introduced a Bill to increase air fares, I attempted, although 1 do not have any accountancy qualifications, to work out the figures in this regard to show him that the profits which would be made by the two airlines through the increase in the number of passengers did not justify an increase in fares. That argument was dicounted at the time. I produced those figures from the annual report of the Department of Civil Aviation, if I remember correctly. The figures I produced did not seem to satisfy the Minister although that report stated that the number of passengers carried in the last 12 months had increased by 17 per cent. When 1 calculated those figures, I said that even without any increase in fares at all the airlines could meet the anticipated expenses. There was a paragraph in the report which stated what those expenses were, and those figures came from the Chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission, Sir Giles Chippindall. It is amusing to note that that situation did not suit the Minister’s argument at that time but that he now says that this increase, which was stated in the report of the Department of Civil Aviation, is one of the reasons why this project has been put back for two years. He asks us to accept that decision in the light of these figures.

The Government should have foreseen and could have foreseen the need for the terminal that is now proposed because of the huge increase in the volume of traffic that has taken place. It seems to me that this was very poor planning on the part of the Department of Civil Aviation, which advises the Minister. What are the reasons for this huge increase in the number of passengers carried? Honorable senators will recall that, at the end of 1960, there was a credit squeeze. One would imagine that the credit squeeze automatically curtailed any dramatic rise in the number of people using the airlines. The Minister said that in 1962 there was a jump cif i I per cent, in passenger traffic. That increase could or should have been understood. One of the effects of the credit squeeze was to warn off people from travelling by air, and it is only natural that, after the credit squeeze, a larger number of people would use this modern method of travel.

Then, the Minister says that we should reflect upon the increase of 17 per cent, in the number of people flying last year. I ask the Minister: Was not that increase due to the introduction of jet planes on the main routes between the capital cities? It is only normal, I would have thought, to expect a very big rise in the number of people using this faster method of travel. Passengers can leave Melbourne and arrive in Sydney in about 65 minutes if they travel by the Boeing 727 jets. I think I am right in saying that I believe that very little thought was given to this matter if the Department of Civil Aviation did not expect a rather large jump in the percentage of people who were using this means of travel. Therefore I do not think that the excuse or the reason submitted by the Government for this action can be justified.

It should have been easy for the Department of Civil Aviation to get much nearer to the mark in this respect. I do not want people to be perfect. I do not want even the Minister for Civil Aviation to be perfect; that would be asking a great deal. But the facts are that the credit squeeze in 1960 curtailed the number of people using this modern means of transport, as one would naturally expect. Then, with the great impetus given to this method of travel after the credit squeeze with the introduction of the new jets which started flying between the capital cities in 1964, surely one would expect an increase in passenger traffic somewhere near the increase that was later shown to have occurred. The Minister has stated that the large increase in air traffic could not be foreseen when the runways etcetera at both Mascot in Sydney and Tullamarine in Victoria were being planned, but I still think that he has a case to answer.

Now let us look at the second argument he has advanced in regard to priorities. I agree with him when he says that the Government needs extra money for defence, but surely expenditure of the extra money that he now says will be needed for those two aerodromes could have been foreseen much sooner. What did the Government really expect? This country is enjoying a state of prosperity, as a result of which more ordinary people are travelling by air. If the female work force in this country embraces 42 per cent, of the married women, one may say that at least 40 per cent, of the people of Australia are enjoying what is called a two wage packet economy. Taking that factor into account, and also the fact that the credit squeeze of I960 held back air travel and the fact that new jet aircraft have since come into service within Australia, surely the Government could have foreseen that its plans would not be adequate to cater for the increase in air travel.

The people of Melbourne, who have been looking for an airport at Tullamarine for a great number of years, are not satisfied with being told in April 1965 that instead of getting this airport in 1967 they will have to wait until 1969. And there is a very big “ if “ attached to that date. The reason that has been advanced for the delay is not a sound one, because a substantial part of the cost of aerodromes in question will be incurred in construction of the airport itself, its runways and aprons. As I said, the Government originally intended to complete these projects by 1967. It cannot very well argue now that large terminals will require such a great reallocation of priorities. To put the matter bluntly, it seems to me that the arguments that have been advanced are only a smoke screen for bad planning and for not forming a better judgment about the likely increase in the number of people who travel by air. I repeat that the Government has a case to answer.

Most people, particularly the people of Melbourne, know that existing facilities are not adequate to handle the present traffic at peak times with anything like the speed that is an essential part of air travel. I said earlier that we now have jet aircraft that travel from Melbourne to Sydney in 65 minutes. But in Melbourne it takes a person from 10 to 15 minutes to be ticketed, and when he arrives at his destination it takes at least another 15 minutes for him to collect his luggage. Unless facilities can be improved at both ends of the journey, we will soon be spending almost as much time on the ground waiting at one aerodrome before we commence to fly and in waiting for our baggage at the other end as we will be spending in the air. One wonders why in this modern age the position should have been allowed to drift as it has drifted. The people of this country, particularly in the two major cities, should not be placed in this position.

One wonders whether we will ever have an international airport at Tullamarine, [f people want to travel by Qantas or Air

New Zealand aircraft to Christchurch, they must travel from Melbourne to Sydney and then take a plane across the Tasman Sea. Is it any wonder that people in all walks of life in Melbourne are asking themselves: “ How much longer must we wait before we will be able to travel direct from our own city to our sister dominion or further afield without having to board the aircraft in another State?” Not for a moment do I believe that an international airport will ever be built at Melbourne to rival that at Sydney, but I do not believe that we should have to wait, as it seems we must, for the international airport to be built at Tullamarine. The excuses - if I may call them that - given by the Minister in his statement cannot satisfactorily explain the delay that he states must take place. Our only hope left is that the Tullamarine airport will be finished by 1969, but I have very grave doubts that it will. We are hopeful that we will not be told later that a further reason has arisen to delay the construction of the two aerodromes. The Minister’s predecessor stated a time by which the aerodromes would be completed. I sincerely believe that it is the responsibility of the present Minister to ensure that the Tullamarine airport, at least, will be constructed in accordance with the time schedule he has stated.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I welcome the opportunity to discuss the statement made by Senator Henty, the Minister for Civil Aviation, on 1st April relating to the national airports programme. As honorable senators will recall, the statement dealt with the problems associated with increased airlines traffic, both domestic and international. The Minister explained the difficulties of airport construction associated with the Tullamarine and Mascot airports.

I shall read to the Senate the last paragraph of the Minister’s statement. As a Senator who represents South Australia, I am particularly interested in the predicament in which South Australians find themselves as a result of the Minister’s statement. Senator Henty said - . . the Government also considered a number of other airport projects in its review. These include terminal and runway extensions at Adelaide, strengthening of the runway at Brisbane to handle the heavier type of international jets, extension of the Perth runway, major extensions to the terminal at Canberra, some further runway works at Coolangatta and Mackay, a new terminal at Port Moresby and also some temporary extensions to the existing international terminal at Sydney. I should emphasise that all these projects are in addition to the Government’s normal airport works programme which has been running at an annual rate of about £2 million. The Government has decided that this group of projects, which also involve a further large sum of public money, should be referred to a special inter-departmental committee for further investigation for possible Budget consideration in the next few months.

That latter statement, in particular, concerns me when I consider it in relation to the promises made from time to time by the Minister and his predecessor on extensions to the Adelaide airport. In August of last year the Minister visited South Australia. On 11th August I directed a question to him and by way of preface to it I congratulated him on his recent visit to South Australia. I drew his attention to the great congestion of passenger facilities at the terminal building at Adelaide between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. I invited the Minister to make a statement in the Senate as to the plans he had to alleviate the unsatisfactory position, first, by means of airport reconstruction and, secondly, by encouragement to the larger operators to rearrange their schedules. I thought the Minister took a very realistic view of the situation at that time because he told the Senate -

I found that the problem was perhaps even greater than we had anticipated and that the plans then in embryo would have to be greatly extended to deal with the congestion at peak periods at Adelaide airport. 1 therefore told the Press at that time the type of plan we envisaged to cover the position, and the completion of which may yet be two or three years off.

In Adelaide in August of last year the Minister explained that he had a plan and that it might be two or three years off fulfilment. He then went on to say -

First, I am consulting with the airlines in an endeavour to arrange for them to stagger the times of aircraft arrival at the airport, because no Government can be called upon economically to provide facilities for peak periods only, and this is the position which has developed in South Australia. Over a period of one and a half hours, from six to eight aircraft arrive and depart and the number of visitors, passengers and those seeing passengers .off cause congestion. But within an hour and a half one could fire a cannon across the aerodrome without hitting anyone. This is a wrong use of modern facilities and if we can arrange some staggering of the times of arrival and departure of aircraft we will get better use of the facilities and less congestion.

It seems to me that the Minister was closer to a solution of this problem almost a year ago than he is at present. As a representative of the South Australian people I would like the Minister to supplement his statement. In other words, I would like him to say what has been done by the special interdepartmental committee in the way of further investigation. I would like him to say, also, whether any other committee, such as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, has before it the report on the proposed extension at the Adelaide airport, to both the terminal building and the runway. The situation has deteriorated considerably since August of last year when the Minister answered my question on the Adelaide airport. As Senator Kennelly has said, the Boeing 727 jet aircraft are now in full operation. The Government is to be congratulated on its readiness to see that both major domestic operators are equipped with these fine aircraft, but the practical effect is that 80 passengers arrive at Adelaide and 80 leave Adelaide in each aircraft. There is not just one of the aircraft on the ground at once. All of the four such aircraft in Australia are in Adelaide at one period between about 10.30 and 11.15 a.m.

Each of these four aircraft is setting down and picking up between 80 and 90 passengers. As one can well imagine, with each aircraft handling well over 100 pessengers, 500 or 600 people are on travel bent at Adelaide airport. Then there are the visitors to wish the passengers good travelling, the officials, clerks and taxi drivers. I can assure the Minister that at one time there may be 500 to 600 persons moving about this building at the Adelaide airport. As the Minister, on a humorous note, said in a previous answer to me, at another time one could fire a cannon across the aerodrome and not hit anyone. Therefore, far from the Minister’s being successful in getting the airlines to stagger times of arrival and departure, the position has got worse, because aircraft carry double the number of passengers that were being carried in August last year, when the major aircraft using Adelaide airport were the Viscount and DC6B, which would barely carry more than from 40 to 45 people at a time. So the situation has got considerably worse since I last raised the matter. I take the opportunity to raise it during this debate on the Minister’s statement. I hope that when he replies to this debate he will be able to inform the Senate that things are on the move with regard to rebuilding and extending the Adelaide airport terminal.

Surely the Government has some control over the airlines. After all, the Department of Civil Aviation provides enormous benefits for them. An amount of £20 million is spent annually by the Department in providing airway facilities, beacons, runways, &c. About 3 million passengers are carried each year. That means that every time a passenger is lifted from and returned to the ground the cost to the Commonwealth is about £7. As I see it, the Department of Civil Aviation, spending such a large amount per passenger, ought to be able to direct the operators to stagger their timetables, if it is not possible to enlarge existing airport facilities. It is just ridiculous that two of these vast Boeing 727 aircraft should be arriving in Adelaide from Sydney at about a quarter to eleven each morning, within a minute or so of each other, and leaving for Perth also within a minute or so of each other; and that two should be arriving from Melbourne also within a minute or so of each other and returning to Melbourne at about the same time.

The Department of Civil Aviation, which is providing so much in the way of airport facilities, should have the final say in directing that the interval between the departure times of these aircraft should be greater than the minute or two that exists at present. I really think that unless the Minister does use his undoubted power to cause this staggering, we shall be putting up with this tremendous congestion in Adelaide for years. I should think that, apart from anything else, it contravenes local health regulations. In about 8,000 square feet, 500 or 600 people are moving about, awaiting their calls to board one of these four aircraft.

I commend the Minister for the bold plans that the Commonwealth is making for Tullamarine and Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport, but I invite his attention most urgently to the adverse situation that prevails in Adelaide daily, between the hours that I have mentioned and to a lesser extent at other times of the day. It is likely to continue for several years unless something is done either to stagger arrival and departure times of these large aircraft or to get busy with the extension of the Adelaide airport terminal.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland) [9.38]. - I have heard with very much interest the statement of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) and the discussion tonight. At this stage I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1138

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1133) on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

, - If one compares the second reading speech of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) in introducing the Bill into this chamber this evening with the second reading speech of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) in introducing the Bill in another place, one must come to the conclusion that this Government is frightened of using the word “ monopoly” or any derivative thereof. It would appear that Senator Anderson’s speech was deliberately framed to exclude reference to such a term in an endeavour to hide the fact that there is a monopoly existing in the television industry today. In the second reading speech made in another place by the Postmaster-General, one sees in the very first paragraph this sentence -

Certain alterations are also proposed in respect of the way in which, in the future, problems in respect of what is termed “ the monopolisation of programmes “ will be dealt with.

The comparable passage in Senator Anderson’s speech reads -

It is also proposed to make certain alterations to the manner in which, in the future, problems in respect of programme matters are to be dealt wilh.

There is no reference to monopolisation in this chamber, and one asks: Why? One need only turn to the second reading speech of the Minister who introduced the Bill in the other place. In this context he said -

In introducing the i960 Bill to the House my predecessor explained that the provisions of section 105a were intended primarily to prevent any monopolising of television programmes.

In the corresponding passage in the speech of the Minister in this place the word “ monopolising “ has been deleted and the word “ cornering “ has been substituted. The passage is in these terms -

When the 1960 legislation was introduced, it was explained that the provisions of section 105a were intended primarily to prevent the cornering of television programmes.

One really wonders whether the Government, by the deliberate changing of the word, is trying to cover up for the vested interests which control this industry. On this basis alone, not to mention many others, I move, on behalf of the Opposition the following amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time -

That the following words be added to the motion: “ but the Senate is of opinion that a Senate Select Committee should bc appointed to inquire into and report upon shareholding, networks and control of companies holding and operating broadcasting and television licences.”

I am sure honorable senators will agree with me that this is a very important piece of legislation, affecting one of the most powerful media, if not the most powerful medium, of mass communication. Although this matter obviously has been receiving the attention of the Government for a considerable time, not only the Government, not only the Minister, but also those advising the Government on this important aspect have, in rather typical fashion, been responsible for the introduction of this legislation in the dying hours of the sessional period. The Minister in this chamber commenced his second reading speech at about 8.40 p.m. and completed it at about 8.57 p.m. Now, at 9.40 p.m., the Opposition is called upon to debate the Bill. Honorable senators have been able to peruse the legislation only cursorily. They certainly have not been allowed much time to give it detailed consideration, although the Minister, in his second reading speech, readily admits that this is a rather complex matter.

I have used the words “ typical fashion “ deliberately because if one traces the history of legislation affecting broadcasting and television one can see readily that amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act have all been introduced in previous years in the dying hours of a sessional period. I refer, first, to the amendment of 1960. The Bill, which is now Act No. 36 of 1960, was introduced on 31st May 1960. It received a third reading on 2nd June 1960 and the Senate rose on 2nd June 1960. In 1961 there were further amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. The third reading took place on 18th May 1961 and the Senate rose on 18th May 1961.

Then in 1962 there were more amendments to the Act. The third reading took place on 6th December 1962 and the Senate rose in the early hours of the morning on 7th December 1962. In 1963 the amending Bill was introduced on 29th October, the third reading took place on 30th October 1963 and the Senate rose on 30th October 1963. There was an amendment in 1964 related to combined radio and television listeners licence fees but that did not affect the administrative provisions of the Bill. However, in 1964 a bill was introduced to amend the general provisions of the Act. The third reading took place on 12th November 1964 and the Senate rose on 18th November 1964.

This would rather tend to indicate that legislation of this nature has not received detailed consideration by this Parliament for some considerable time. Because it is a matter affecting the most powerful medium of mass communication, I believe that the Parliament is entitled to more opportunity to give it detailed consideration. Surely the present situation indicates that while the Minister and his advisers have taken their time over the introduction and presentation of amendments to this very important Broadcasting and Television Act - I understand a number of amendments were even introduced in the other place after the second reading speech had been made - over a number of yeaTs the Parliament has given scant consideration to amendments to the Act. Perhaps it is because of this lack of proper and adequate consideration of legislation of this kind that the Government now finds itself trying to overcome the problems which are arising in this industry. Previous legislation was poorly drafted or poorly presented, and powerful commercial interests have been able to take advantage of the situation.

In his second reading speech the Minister claimed that the primary purpose of the Bill is to amend the present provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act to make more effective the provisions relating to ownership and control of television stations. He also stated that certain alterations are proposed in relation to the way in which problems regarding the monopolisation of programmes, to use the words of the Post master-General, or the cornering of programmes, to use the words of the Minister in this chamber, will be dealt with.

I say quite bluntly and frankly that this Bill clearly is an admission that the Government and its instrumentality, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, have failed completely to keep in check, according to Government policy, licensees of commercial television stations. This is legislation which, when enacted, will preserve the commercial interests of those who have gained advantages in the face of Government policy merely because they have been able to find ways and means of skirting around the legislative intention of the Government. In short, those who had licences which were functioning prior to 17th December of last year, who had entered into the purchase of shares, who had entered into takeover arrangements or who had evolved systems of networks prior to that date, will be able to retain them under the provisions of this Bill.

Senator Wright:

– What is the validity of the 5 per cent, interest as a criterion of control?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I will come to that later. This legislation appears to me to be designed to catch up with those who might come into the industry in the future, but it preserves for existing licensees all that they have gained in the past. What its effect in the future will be no one can foretell at this stage, having regard to the fact that difficulties were experienced after the 1960 legislation which was introduced to overcome the very problems that now confront the Government. I have little doubt that ways and means will be found by some people to circumvent some of the proposals now before the Parliament.

Let us consider the history of this matter. For this purpose I turn to the second reading speech of the former PostmasterGeneral, Mr. Davidson, when he introduced the Broadcasting and Television Bill 1960. The Bill was designed to correct certain practices which had existed in the broadcasting and television industry only some 3i years after television had been introduced into Australia. The PostmasterGeneral of the day said as reported at page 1705 of “Hansard”-

First, the Government has made it quite clear by a definition of the word “ control “ that the former section 91 which now appears as section 92 refers not merely to legal control or control by voting power, but to practical and commercial control by any means. Next, the Government has felt that it will be necessary, in order to have certainty in the operation of this division, to fix a percentage of the voting power which shall be deemed to give control of the company and of its operations, lt should be borne in mind that this division is directed to preventing a person from having control of more than two licences. The policy of the provisions of the division is quite clear and in this respect quite unchanged, namely, that a person may lawfully be in a position to control two television licences providing they are not both in the same capital city, so that the various definitions and criteria set up by this division are particularly applicable to a person who has already placed himself in a position to control two television licenses and is seeking to control a third and further television licence.

That was one of the reasons why the 1960 legislation was enacted by the Parliament. Now we find practically the same situation existing in 1965. In the same second reading speech, as reported at page 1707 of “Hansard”, the PostmasterGeneral of the day made this comment -

Mr. Speaker, this is necessarily a very brief account of a tremendously important part of this bill. It can be taken as an earnest that the Government, believing in a free-enterprise economy, knows that the protection of that economy at times requires measures to be taken against monopolistic and restrictive tendencies. It recognises that in taking any such action the safeguarding of genuine transactions which are beneficial to the maintenance of such a free economy is important. This area of mass communication is one in which the Government has consistently taken the stand that there should not be an undue aggregation of power in the hands of any few. Proposed new Division 3 is an endeavour to prevent such a situation from arising.

A new Division 3 was inserted in the I960 legislation and now we find in 1965 a new Divison 3 is again to be inserted. Let us consider the statements of the PostmasterGeneral in I960 and the statements made by the present Minister in relation to the Bill before the Senate. A situation has developed which if not in breach of the law is in conflict with the Government’s stated policy. Clearly there is an admission by the Government and the Postmaster-General that between 1960 and 1965 there has developed in the industry an undue aggregation of power in the hands of a privileged few. Of course, this legislation will still allow such people to retain their influence over this most powerful medium of mass communication. Within three years of the 1960 legislation being approved the dangerous situation should have been obvious for everyone to see. One need only turn to the 1962-63 report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. At paragraph 111, we find a long statement by Mr. Davidson, the PostmasterGeneral of that time. In paragraph 1 10 of the report, the Board set out important changes in shareholdings in television stations and the Postmaster-General had this to say in paragraph 1 1 1 - . . In recent months there has been considerable movement in substantial shareholdings of commercial television companies and also amendments to the articles of association of some of the companies owning or interested in television licences have been made to enable persons and companies to own considerably more than IS per cent, of the capita] of such a company although not thus becoming entitled to exercise more than 15 per cent, of the voting strength of the company. Provisions are being inserted to the effect that no shareholder irrespective of the amount of his shareholdings may exercise more than 15 per cent, of the votes cast in general meeting. Also difficulties in the way of television stations obtaining access to first rate programme material have become apparent.

That comment was made in the fifteenth annual report of the Australian BrodacastinR Control Board for 1962-63. Now we find new legislation before us. The PostmasterGeneral then stated at paragraph 1 1 1 of the Board’s report -

  1. . The Government is anxious that the Australian people, both in the metropolitan and rural areas should have the best of programmes available and that television, as a powerful means of mass communication, should not fall into the control of too few hands.

That was some two years ago and already we find the situation confronting us again. Steps were to have been taken to prevent this occurring in the future but this legislation preserves all the advantages that have obtained over the past two years.

As I have said, the situation was evident to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and to the Postmaster-General soon after the 1960 legislation was enacted but for some unknown reason, the Government has permitted this state of affairs to proceed on its own merry way. This has been to the advantage of the powerful friends of the Government - the owners of the licences of commercial stations - as is shown in the report for 1964 of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. One has only to refer to that report to see what happened. In paragraph 99, the Board recorded changes in shareholdings in television stations. We find that TCN in Sydney which relates to Channel 9 acquired the following shares as reported by the Board -

Consolidated Press Holdings acquired an additional 175,800 stock units formerly held by Philips Electrical Industries Pty. Ltd. making its total 444,325 stock units. A total of 1,321,475 stock units are held in the licensee company by Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd. and associated interests.

The report deals with the issued capital of the company and then with Channel 10 in the Sydney area, which is owned by United Telecasters (Sydney) Ltd. There follows station CBN, owned by Country Television Services Ltd., in which A. & F. Sullivan Pty. Ltd. acquired 175,700 shares. Similar conditions apply to the Upper Namoi area, where we find that Breeza Investments Pty. Ltd. acquired a large number of shares in the licensee company. In the Newcastle area we find Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners Advocate Pty. Ltd. indulging in the acquisition of a large number of shares. We come next to station WIN in the Illawarra area, and to Ballarat and Adelaide.

In paragraph 100 of its sixteenth annual report the Broadcasting Control Board had this to say -

Paragraph 111 of the Board’s Fifteenth Annual Report contained a statement by the former Postmaster-General, the Honorable Sir Charles Davidson, on transactions in the shares of Newcastle Broadcasting and Television Corporation Ltd., licensee of commercial television station NBN Newcastle, in which it was indicated that the Government had “ decided that there should be a detailed review of the shareholdings and voting arrangements which have developed in relation to television stations and of the difficulties being experienced in connexion wilh the availability and control of programme material, with a view to considering whether, and if so what, amendments need to be made to the existing legislation in order to ensure that the policies of the Government are implemented.” These matters were still under consideration by the Government al the time of preparation of this Report.

That was in 1964. The matter was first mentioned in the 1962-63 report. We find that on 17th December of last year the PostmasterGeneral made a statement in which he said that he hoped he would be able to introduce legislation of this nature, tightening up the voting arrangements and the control of these stations, in the present session of the Parliament. Now we find this legislation, made retrospective to 17th December last. In other words, all the things about which the Government has been so concerned and which have been made the subject of comment in the annual reports of the Broadcasting Control Board, have been allowed by this Government to continue.

Let me now say something about the networks. In his second reading speech the Minister said -

Another aspect of this matter which requires some comment, at this stage, is the proposal to repeal section 16 (3.) (e) of the Act which empowers the Board to regulate the establishment of networks of stations and the making of arrangements by licensees for the provision of programmes or the broadcasting or televising of advertisements. There has always been doubt regarding the application of this provision and it is, in fact, difficult to say precisely just what a “ network “ is.

The Minister said that it is difficult to say precisely just what a “ network “ is, but apparently this has not given the Broadcasting Control Board any trouble in nine years of association with this industry. In its report and recommendations to the PostmasterGeneral on applications for commercial television licences in provincial and country areas in 1960, the Board said -

It was put to us during the inquiry that the development of associations or networks of stations will become an integral part of television services in Australia and that the Board should at this stage, for the purpose of preventing the development of undesirable practices in respect of network operations, exercise its powers under section 16 (3.) of the Broadcasting and Television Acts to regulate the establishment and operation of networks.

That was the submission made to the Board at the time of the applications for licences. The Board came to this conclusion -

That rules to regulate the establishment and operation of networks are not necessary at present. For this purpose more information would be required as to actual proposals for the operation of country and provincial stations on a network basis, and this cannot be obtained until the licences are granted. However, each network arrangement should be subject to the approval of the Board and contain the essential conditions necessary to secure the independence of the member stations.

Apparently at that time the Board realised what a network was. In another place on 27th April last the Postmaster-General answered a question asked of him by Mr. Buchanan, relating to Austarama Television Pty. Ltd., holder of the licence of Channel O in Melbourne. Mr. Buchanan directed the attention of the PostmasterGeneral to the facts that in its application to the Broadcasting Control Board this company had promised a 58 per cent. Australian content in its programmes and that it was then barely achieving a 15 per cent. Australian content. He suggested that the station was not living up to the undertaking which it had given to the Broadcasting Control Board. In reply the Minister said -

The matter is constantly under inquiry and supervision by the Board and I hope that when other new stations in Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane come into operation - the Sydney station has already commenced operation - the new network facilities will then enable the company referred to by the honorable member to carry out the obligations required of it by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Some of the stations - namely, those of the Packer group in Sydney - refer to themselves as The National Television Network. “ Network “ is a common term in the industry, or it appears to be. It has been used by the Minister himself, by the Broadcasting Control Board and by licensees of commercial television stations. If the Minister now says it is difficult to define precisely what a network is, I will tell him some of the networks now operating nationally in this country. Firstly, there is the PackerMurdoch network which takes in TCN 9 Sydney, GTV 9 Melbourne, NWS Adelaide - a Murdoch station - and QTQ in Brisbane. There are Wollongong and Newcastle stations as well, connected with the Packer-Murdoch group.

Then there is the Channel 7 network, which seems to incorporate the Melbourne “ Herald “ group and the Fairfax group in Sydney. That network consists of ATN in Sydney, HSV in Melbourne, which is the Melbourne “ Herald “ station, ADS in Adelaide, which again, I understand, is a Melbourne “ Herald “ station, and BTQ in Brisbane. 1 also understand that the Melbourne “ Herald “ group has a very solid link with the Hobart station because of Sir John Williams’ link with the Hobart “ Mercury “.

The effect of this legislation, of course, will be to preserve the Packer, Murdoch, Fairfax and Williams network for all time, thus making it practically impossible for all others to operate competitively with them. Prior to 17th December last, dominating the main centres of population were 24 commercial television stations and 19 national television stations. Of those located in the State capital cities, 1 1 were commercial and six were national, No organisation, other than the wealthy, powerful and commercial interests, particularly those in the newspaper field, has really any influence in the control of television stations at all. As a member of the Senate Select Committee that inquired into and reported to this chamber Upon the encouragement of Australian productions for television, I was astounded to learn from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board that at that time, two years ago, no orders or directions had ever been given by the Board to any of these commercial television stations.

Senator Wright:

– Why does not the Board inquire into these companies before it issues a licence?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– That is another matter that could well be opened up. The whole subject is one that is worthy of close consideration by the Parliament. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has a national network. It has one television station in every major centre.

In short, this legislation leaves two-thirds of the capital city stations completely in the hands of private commercial interests, particularly those engaged in newspaper ventures, hooked up in many cases with networks of broadcasting stations. One has seen day after day since 1960 this great medium of mass communication, along with other mediums, becoming controlled by a privileged few. I believe, as I am sure all honorable senators in this chamber believe, that this certainly is not in the interests of a healthy democracy. But the difficulty is that whilst this legislation is intended to look into the future and to see that no breaches of Government policy occur in the future, it is giving, in effect, so far as the Government is concerned, laissez-faire to those who have operated in this industry in the past.

I suggest that the lofty attempt of the Government to control this most powerful form of mass communication has been a complete and abject failure. The Government’s alleged policy to encourage Australia productions to raise the standards of programmes and to present programmes of reasonable intelligence and social values certainly has not been implemented. Although the Australian Broadcasting Control Board might not like to say so, that situation certainly is highlighted by the annual reports of the Board year after yeal.

The Government so far has completely ignored the recommendations of an all party Senate Select Committee which dealt with this matter of Australian programmes for about 12 months in 1963. Although the report of that Committee was presented to the Parliament in October 1963, we find on pursuing the notice paper that the debate has not yet been concluded.

Commercial licensees year after year are allowed to break all the rules laid down by the Broadcasting Control Board, in complete disregard of the requirements of the Board and of the stated policy of the Government, and certainly against the best interests of the general public. We of the Opposition believe that this industry should be completely investigated by a Senate select committee, such as has been suggested in the amendment that I have moved. If this proposal is rejected, we of the Opposition certainly will move in the Committee stage to date this legislation retrospectively to a time when all operators, present and future, will be roped in by the Bill now before the Senate. 1 believe that it is in the interests of the Parliament and of the people of Australia to have a general inquiry into the ownership and control of these stations. We have already had a Select Committee inquire into programmes. I am sure that honorable senators on the Government side who were members of that Committee will agree with me that even in the limited and restrictive field in which we operated over a period of 12 months, serious deficiencies and anomalies were thrown up to us.

A gentleman named Lee De Forest, the inventor of the Audion tube which was the main technical element of radio, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of its discovery, in a letter to the American National Association of Broadcasters wrote something which is certainly pertinent to the television industry of Australia today. He wrote -

What have you gentlemen done to my child? He was conceived as a potent instrument for culture, fine music, the uplifting of America’s mass intelligence. You have deposed this child, you have sent him out onto the streets to collect money from all and sundry. You have made him the laughing slock of intelligence, surely a stench in the nostrils of the gods of the ionosphere.

I suggest that those remarks are very apt to the television industry in Australia today because of the negligence of this Govern ment to cater for the welfare and wellbeing of Australians generally and because the vested interests, which have been given licences by the Government to control this industry, are controlling it in their own interests and not in the interests of the Australian public.

Australians generally can ask the same question about their television industry as Lee De Forest asked the Americans about the radio industry. I believe that if they ask the question they certainly will receive the same answer. I suggest that the amendment to establish a select committee of this Senate is in the interests of this nation and certainly in the interests of the Parliament. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

.- The Senate is now dealing with a Bill to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1964. One of the reasons for this amending Bill is that some of the provisions in the original Act have been found to be unworkable, particularly the provision that the Government made in relation to the control of ownership of television stations. I have listened with interest to the very fine speech in relation to this matter made by Senator McClelland. The honorable senator certainly had some sound facts on which to base his arguments. But I cannot agree with his contention that the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television has had no effect up to date.

I do not know from the amendment moved by Senator McClelland just what he seeks to bring forward. Everything that is suggested in the amendment put forward by the honorable senator is already known and is reflected in the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for 1963-64.

Senator Wright:

– Is the honorable senator attributing futility to all select committees just because the Government ignores their reports?

Senator WEBSTER:

– No. The amendment moved is -

That the fallowing words be added to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time - “ but the Senate is of opinion that a Senate Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into and report upon shareholding, networks and control of Companies holding and operating Broadcasting and Television licences.”.

If Senator Wright likes, I will read the provisions governing those matters to him. It will save him the time. Those provisions are already printed in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1964. An amendment along the lines of deciding what should be done in the event of discovering that there were already monopolistic controls in the industry might be of some benefit.

If we look at the original Act, we could imagine that the provisions contained in it had sufficient strength not to warrant the introduction of the amendments with which we are. now dealing. This Bill would not be necessary. The actual difference between this Bill and the Act which is being amended is that the word “ control “ was used in most instances in the original Act seeking a means whereby licences should come under some control. The definition of “ control “ is found in section 91 (2.) of the original Act, which reads -

In this division, “ control “ includes control as a result of, or by means of, trust, agreement, arrangements, understanding and practices, whether or not having legal or equitable force and whether or not based on legal or equitable rights.

Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1964 provides - (1.) A person shall not be in a position to exercise control, either directly or indirectly, of -

  1. licences in respect of more than one commercial television station within a Territory or more than one commercial television station within a radius of 30 miles from the General Post Office in the capital city of a State; or
  2. more than two licences in respect of commercial television stations in Australia.

Penalty: One thousand pounds, and One hundred pounds for every day on which the offence continues.

One would have thought that there was sufficient material in that section to indicate the will of the Government. I agree that the pity in relation to what has happened is the weakness of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which has not sought satisfaction, prior to the granting of a licence to a telveision company, as to who would have ownership of that particular company.

The amending Bill seeks to go about this matter in a different way. In clause 7 we find that proposed section 91 (2.) provides -

For the purposes of this Division, a person has a prescribed interest in a licence if he is - (a) the holder of the licence;

in a position to exercise control, either directly or indirectly, of the licence;

in a position to exercise control of more than five per centum of the maximum number of votes that could be cast on a poll at, or arising out of, a general meeting of the company holding the licence . . .

the holder of interests in the company holding the licence exceeding in amount five per centum of the total of the amounts of all the interests in that company that would exist if sections ninety-one A and ninety-one B of this Act had not been enacted -

Proposed sections 91a and 91b relate to an interpretation of this Division -

  1. the holder of shareholding interests in the company holding the licence exceeding in amount five per centum of the total of the amounts paid on all shares in that company.

Paragraph (e) covers the situation which provided a means whereby the original intentions of this Act were overcome by television companies. That is to say, companies intending to keep within the limits of the original Act altered their Articles of Association so that they would keep within the prescribed ownership defined. So, proposed section 91 (2.) (e) is probably as important as any other proposed section because it defines what is a “ prescribed interest “.

In clause 7 we also find proposed new section 92 which prescribes - (1.) Subject to this section, a person contravenes this section if, and so long as, he has a prescribed interest in -

  1. each of three or more licences;
  2. each of two or more licences for stations in a Territory; or
  3. each of two or more licences for stations in a State and within a radius of thirty miles of the General Post Office of the capital city of the State.

In short, here we have an alteration of what was intended by “ control “ of a television station. This provides now that a person having a prescribed interest and who contravenes this provision is not entitled to obtain a licence.

I congratulate the Government and, indeed, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme), for bringing these amendments before the Parliament. A determined effort is undoubtedly being made through these amendments to improve the Act and to strengthen the original proposals of the Government in relation to the ownership of television stations. This Bill has a number of provisions which I will mention in a moment. But in relation to the position of ownership, I think it is to be regretted that in the second reading speech by the PostmasterGeneral in another place it was stated that the provisions of this Bill would not apply to any agreements or arrangements that were made prior to 17th December 1964. I do not for the life of me think that it is sound to say that this action would upset a great number of shareholders. Indeed, the suggestion was that it would throw the share market almost into chaos because of the volume of shares that would be put to the market. The individuals who are likely to be holding the shares undoubtedly will hold many of them. But the value of the shares now is probably so high above their nominal value that the sale price they would command on the share market would not be detrimental to the interests of the shareholders. Indeed, I do not doubt that the public would be most anxious to obtain a shareholding in companies which, in some instances, are paying up to 40 per cent, by way of dividend.

Again, I draw the attention of the Senate to a comment of the Postmaster-General in another place when he said -

However, it a person or company who has acquired excess interests prior to 17th December 1964 subsequently divests himself or itself of such interests, he or it will not thereafter be entitled to recapture those excess holdings, although he or it will be able to participate in any new issue of shares which may be made.

I believe that this is a wise provision because it provides that if a shareholder in a company sells his shareholding - and that share holding had been acquired prior to 17th December 1964 - that shareholder is not entitled to participate in any new issues of shares which may be made. The Minister said that he will be able to participate in any new issues of shares which may be made.

Debate interrupted.

page 1145

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - 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 negative.

page 1145

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1965

Debate resumed.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I had drawn attention to the fact that the Minister had said that the shareholder will be able to participate in any new issues of shares that may be made. To my mind, this means that an individual having a particular share capital will be able to take advantage of new issues and thereby build up his capital holding in a company while the interests of others may ebb and flow. I doubt whether that really was the Minister’s intention. It is not in the best interests of the industry that the Bill should not contain some provision whereby shareholding companies or individual shareholders who have established holdings in a variety of companies, knowing that in doing so they were contravening the intention of the original legislation, will be required to divest themselves of those holdings over a period of five years. To do that would be to get back to what the Government desired in introducing the original legislation. As I indicated earlier, I cannot imagine that such a requirement would necessarily throw the stock market into confusion.

I regret that the Bill does not contain any provision in relation to programmes of Australian content. In view of the fact that programmes of Australian content have exercised the minds of many honorable senators and were dealt with in the report of the Senate select committee on television, it is a wonder that some effort has not been made to enforce the intention of the original legislation in this respect. One needs only to look at the 1964 report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to ascertain the names of the fortunate companies and gentlemen who have received the wonderful gift of television licences from this Government. Surely in some way or other those companies and people should be made to live up to the promises they made on oath in their original applications for television licences. One station, which I shall not name, promised that 72 per cent, of its programmes would be of Australian content. Today only 44 per cent, of its programmes are of Australian content.

Senator Cormack:

– What station is it?

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is a Melbourne station. Another station promised that 54 per cent., rising to 63 per cent., of its programmes would be of Australian content. Only some 30 per cent of its programmes are of Australian content. Another station, which is situated in New South Wales, promised that 67 per cent of its programmes would be of Australian content. According to the report of the Broadcasting Control Board, only some 40 per cent, of its programmes are of Australian content. The Board said in its report that what had been promised in at least one instance was considered to be quite reasonable and economically sound. Of course, the argument that would be advanced today would be that it is not economically sound to provide programmes of Australian content at the cost of £6,000 an hour when probably other equally good material could be bought for £2,000. I do not blame a station in any way for saying that. Nevertheless, those promises were made and I see no reason why the Government should not suggest to those concerned that if they want to keep their particular shareholdings, which are of great value to them, they should live up to their original promise.

Senator Cormack:

– Would a telecast of a Melbourne league game be a programme of Australian content?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Yes, as I understand the situation, Australian football would be considered to be Australian content.

Senator Prowse:

– Soccer would be too?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not know about soccer. I have referred to the subject of ownership. I should now like to refer to the subject of directorships. Perhaps the Minister will be able to advise me later in regard to the points I raise. I refer to proposed new section 92c. I. mentioned earlier that it has been said that a television station may retain ownership prior to 17th December 1964, but as I understand the situation that will not apply to directorships. Proposed new section 92c provides - (1.) A person shall not be a direotor of two or more companies that are, between them, in a position to exercise control of three or more licences.

Then provision is made for a penalty. The proposed section then provides - (2.) Where-

  1. a person is contravening this section immediately after the commencement pf the Broadcasting and Television Act 1965 by reason of directorships that were heldby him immediately before that commencement; and
  2. the holding of those directorships did not, immediately before that commencement, constituted an offence against section ninety-two C of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-64, the contravention is not an offence unless it continues after the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-five.

Where companies have control of a number of television stations, undoubtedly there are directors who are common to those stations. My understanding of the proposed new section I have just read is that a director will not now be in a position to hold a directorship in two or more of those companies. Doubtless the PostmasterGeneral has included that provision for some reason. I now wish to deal with two other matters, one of which relates to ownership.

Senator Anderson:

– I suggest that the honorable senator might like to raise these matters at the Committee stage, when I shall be in a position to answer him.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The Bill might be taken as a whole then. So I shall raise them now. I refer to proposed new section 92f (2.) which provides -

Where, on or after the date of commencement of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1965, a transaction in relation to which this section applies to a person is proposed or has taken place -

I direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that the words are “ on or after the date of commencement of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1965 “ -

That person may apply to the Minister for approval of the transaction in so far as it affects that person, and the Minister may, subject to this section, grant or refuse approval.

I take it that the matter of ownership, as dealt with here, will still be in the hands of the Minister and that he may either grant or refuse approval of a transaction.

The words “ public interest “ are used in sub-section (4.) of section 92f. As I understand it, if there were loopholes in the original Act, there may now be loopholes in respect of “ public interest “, because that is very difficult to define. Provision is made for changes in ownership through share transactions. Sub-section (4.) of section 92f states -

The Minister shall not refuse to grant approval under this section, and shall not give a notice under the last preceding sub-section unless . . . (bt considers it necessary to do so iti order to maintain such ownership and control, whether direct or indirect, of the company holding the licence as, in his opinion, best accord with the public interest.

Honorable senators probably have had the words “ public interest “ before them much more often than I have. It is difficult to say what is public interest and to so define it that there is no loophole in the measure.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The capitalist system never considers public interest. Profits are its motive and purpose.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Profits are very important in our system. Very few people do not consider them when they start out in business. Another point that concerns me is a matter that has not yet arisen in Australia. I am pleased to find that the provisions relating to overseas ownership in the original Bill appear in total in the current amending legislation. I refer to the provisions relating to non-resident shareholders. To the best of my knowledge, this section has never been tested. I hope that the Minister has given this aspect serious consideration. Undoubtedly all honorable senators are concerned that monopolistic ownership by overseas interests should not come about. While we can be fairly confident as to the use to be made of licences by Australian ownership, problems will arise if a television station is sold out to overseas interests. That could happen in a variety of ways. The Senate is familiar with transactions in shares in television companies which have taken place. It was the Government’s intention that share transactions should not take place without its approval. It was found that a company which wanted to operate a television station would have a licence put in the name of another company. By this means, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board were circumvented. That type of transaction has occurred in certain States.

Section 92d, which relates to nonresidents’ shareholdings, has been included in the amending legislation in exactly the same form as that in which it appeared in the original legislation. I am concerned because loopholes were found in the original legislation. I believe that the Minister or the Australian Broadcasting Control Board should have power, at least, to withhold approval of transfer of shares in television companies to overseas interests unless it is in - that elusive term - the public interest.

I congratulate the Government on the effective alterations it has made to the original Broadcasting and Television Act. I again express my regret that a longer period has not been taken into account in which to attain the Government’s original objective in relation to ownership of broadcasting and television stations. I cannot do other than commend the Bill to honorable senators and to ask the Minister to consider at the earliest opportunity including provisions in relation to Australian content of programmes. I also ask him to consider building up the Australian film industry as was proposed in the original Act. I comment the Bill to the Senate.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- I rise to support the amendment that has been moved by Senator McClelland and to express my appreciation of the very comprehensive way in which he dealt with the subject matter the Senate is now discussing. The Bill before us is an abject confession of failure by the Government. It is an admission that the Government, for five years since introducing legislation to deal with the control of television licences, has been helpless to implement its policy. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) has said quite frankly: “We have had our policy flouted by some of the interests who control the commercial licences, but since the letter of the law has not been broken, we have not been able to devise a way to do other than approve of particular transactions which offend against our policy, although not against the Act “.

Senator Wright:

– Can the honorable senator tell me, by way of illustration, what is a type of transaction that comes within the law that we are amending, but offends against its spirit?

Senator COHEN:

– To put it bluntly, the Queensland transaction where the Ansett interests-

Senator Wright:

– What is the fundamental of that transaction?

Senator COHEN:

– The fundamental of it is that the Ansett interests have acquired more than a 15 per cent, shareholding, but, as I understand it, the memorandum and articles of association of the company holding the licence limit their voting rights to 15 per cent. That situation illustrates that, side by side with a limitation of voting rights to 15 per cent., it is possible to have a shareholding much in excess of that figure.

Senator O’Byrne:

– By wangling the books.

Senator COHEN:

– I do not say wangling the books, but a distinction is drawn between the percentage of permissible shareholding, on the one hand, and the percentage of votes which can be exercised, on the other hand.

Senator McClelland has handed to me a “Hansard” report of 23rd April 1964 which contains an answer by the PostmasterGeneral in another place to a question asked of him by the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson). The PostmasterGeneral said -

I made a public statement in relation to the matters to which the honorable member refers. It is true that the Ansett group has acquired some 49 per cent, of the shares in this company. The licence will be issued to Universal Telecasters Queensland Limited.

Senator Webster:

– The honorable senator should not be concerned about Ansett in this instance. He is being hurt by this Bill.

Senator COHEN:

– I do not know that he is. I say that this Bill does not hurt anybody who is already in a sitting position.

Senator Webster:

– Yes, it does.

Senator COHEN:

– Will the honorable senator show me where it does?

Senator Webster:

– It does not make the others divest.

Senator COHEN:

– The honorable senator put his finger on one point that might have been raised by the Government. The legislation might have provided that those who have offended against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, should have been required over a period of years to divest themselves of what they have obtained by taking unfair advantage of the existing law.

Senator Anderson:

– Is the honorable senator putting Ansett’s holdings in that category?

Senator COHEN:

– If the Minister does not mind, this is not a seminar. I would like to go on and put the point of view I want to state on this issue. Whilst it must be conceded that the Bill, on the face of it, tightens up the control position and may well close loopholes for the future, it does not act effectively to break up in any way the monopolistic type of control that is being exercised over the television industry. I think that on all sides there is recognition of the fact that the television industry is substantially, though not exclusively, in the control of the large newspaper interests. All I can say about this is that, looking to the future, it is almost irrelevant for the Government to say that the law will now be clear and effective to deal with the situation. I’ believe, and I think that every other honorable senator believes, that it is in the highest degree improbable that these commercial newspaper and television interests will ever be wanting voluntarily to dispose of part of their shareholdings or give others a chance to share control with them. That is the political reality and that is what makes this Bill a toothless wonder, because it is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Some years ago it might have been said with truth that the control structure of the Australian television industry was in a state of flux, and in the formative years of the industry, the early years of the industry, there was a real opportunity for manoeuvring and perhaps for some diversity in the capital that was to be invested in the industry and in the control that was to be exercised over it. But the experience has been that within a comparatively short time those interests that were capable of being acquired by the newspaper proprietors have in fact been acquired, and I do not believe that they are going to get rid of them. I think they realise full well that their control is effective, and they have no intention of divesting themselves of what they have. The only type of legislation that would have been effective on this occasion would have been legislation which had some kind of retrospective operation or to put it, perhaps, in the manner suggested by Senator Webster, some kind of phased divesting of their interests and a phased withdrawal from control. That is not provided for here and we are really conducting some sort of academic exercise, because we are patting the Government on the back for having put the legal position right long after such action has ceased to be effective.

Senator Wright:

– Speak for yourself if you think anybody deserves to get a pat on the back for this Bill.

Senator COHEN:

– I am damning it, I think, with faint praise. If the honorable senator wants to spell any support for the Bill out of what I am saying, I do not think it is there, but I am being charitable because I. enjoy being charitable. The most that one could possibly say of it is that it has shut the stable door after the horse has bolted and that is not going to achieve anything in practical terms.

The Minister’s reply to this is to say: “ Oh, well, it is difficult. There are formidable difficulties in the way of making the legislation operate retrospectively.” He says that apart from being required to divest themselves of interests held directly in licensee companies, the persons and companies involved would, in many instances, be required to divest themselves of shareholdings in companies other than licensee companies. He goes on to develop the practical difficulty. His second reason for putting forward legislation in this limited way is to explain his impotence in the past. What he says, in effect, is: “ Under the section as it exists, I am able to refuse my approval of these transactions only if they offend against the law and, looking at the existing section 92F, I have been unable to find that the proposed changes in the beneficial ownership of the shares in the companies that have been the subject of applications to me for approval have been offensive to the section. Therefore, reluctantly and recognising that Government policy is being flouted, I find myself in the position of being unable to refuse my approval.”

That may be strictly correct, having regard to the meaning of existing section 92F, but that does not matter because had the Minister been firmly committed to a policy of standing up to these vested interests, he would have appreciated that he had other powers under the existing Act. The most significant of these powers is the power to be found in section 86, that is, the power to suspend or revoke a licence where the Minister is satisfied that one of a number of grounds exists. Ground (d) is that it is advisable in the public interest for a specified reason to do so. I suggest to the Senate that if the Government had been really serious about confronting these marauding interests the Minister could have said: “ 1 just will not sanction an arrangement which is contrary to Government policy and contrary to the spirit of the Act, and I will revoke or suspend the licence until the matter is put right.” Nobody is going to stand in this Senate and tell me that the Minister did not have power to do that if he thought it wise to do so. The fact is that if the Governemnt is seriously interested in fighting these monopoly interests it has to take a firm step. That has been conspicuously missing from any of the policy attitudes in the legislation that this Government has introduced to date.

If ever anything were needed to reinforce that statement, it is the discovery that Senator McClelland made and mentioned in the opening remarks in his speech today, of how the second reading speech has been fiddled with between its introduction in the House of Representatives on 13th May and its introduction by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) today. When I say “ fiddled with “ I make plain exactly what 1 mean by that. The wording has been altered to cut out the only two uses of the word “ monopoly “ in the speech. That is of the utmost significance. The PostmasterGeneral, on the very first page of the circulated copy of the speech which he delivered in the House of Representatives, spoke about “ the monopolisation of programmes “. He put those words in inverted commas. When the Bill went through the House of Representatives and was introduced into this chamber a few hours ago, that expression “ the monopolisation of programmes” had been eliminated and there had been substituted for it the milk and water expression “ problems in respect of programme matters “.

The other example appears at page 6 of the circulated copy of the speech of the Postmaster-General in another place. It reads -

In introducing the 1960 Bill to the House my predecessor explained that the provisions of section 105a were intended primarily to prevent any monopolising of television programmes.

When the matter comes to be dealt with in the Senate at page 5 of the circulated copy of the speech delivered by the Minister for

Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson), we read -

When the I960 legislation was introduced, it was explained that the provisions of section 105a were intended primarily to prevent the “ cornering “ of television programmes.

It is perhaps possible to dismiss that alteration as being a mere difference in the choice of language. Lt cannot be done as easily as that, because here there are references to monopolisation. That is what this Bill is about, or supposed to be about, yet the very word is eliminated, no doubt because between the time when the measure was introduced in the House of Representatives and the time when it came to the Senate the monopoly interests which support this Government up to the hilt said: “ Let us not have any talk about monopolies “.

Senator Cormack:

– This is just a matter of semantic discrimination by the Minister in the Senate.

Senator COHEN:

– That may be so. On the other hand, it is more consistent with the view that these interests said: “ One anti-monopoly bill every year is enough. One was introduced on another subject in another place last week. Let us not have too much talk of monopolies.” The point is made, and I do not want to labour it.

Senator Wright:

– I do not think it would bear labouring.

Senator COHEN:

– Well, I have made it. I do not propose to keep on making it. I think it is a good point and I think it shows the Government’s attitude on this question very clearly.

Reference has been made on this occasion, and on other occasions, to the effective control of television stations by newspaper interests. This is very well documented at pages 33 to 37 of the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30th June 1964, the last occasion on which the Board reported to the Senate. I think we have to say of this present legislation that it does not really get down to the essential questions, which are, of course: Who controls television and broadcasting? In whose interest is the control exercised? Are licensees fulfiling their obligations to the community?

The Senate Select Committee on television, of which I had the honour to be a member, dealt with the three-fold re sponsibility of the commercial licensees. That is now a matter of record in the Committee’s report. The Committee stressed the great importance of appreciating the national responsibility which attaches to the grant of a licence, that it is a privilege in the nature of a monopoly and u privilege which has to be exercised with a full sense of responsibility to the public. Senator McClelland’s amendment, which I support fully, underlines, the importance of that proposition and gives an opportunity to the Senate to say that it is interested enough to have an inquiry into that aspect of television which was not entrusted to the other Select Committee.

The last Select Committee dealt with programme matters and specifically with the many problems of encouraging Australian content in Australian television programmes. But it did not deal, nor was it asked to deal, with the questions of control of networks and of shareholdings, so that the real ramifications of control and shareholding interest in the television industry could be examined and assessed and recommendations made for the future of the industry, so far as those aspects are concerned, in the light of the evidence and the material that came before such a Select Committee. I ask the Senate to vote for the amendment I hope particularly that those who have shown some interest in the work of the last Select Committee will see their way to support the proposition advanced by Senator McClelland.

Of all the media of mass communication, this is the most important, with the greatest potential for good or evil. Mr. Newton Minow, the man appointed by the late President Kennedy to head the agency in the United States dealing with this problem of television, referred to the vast wasteland which the television industry had managed to create in the few years of its existence and operation in the United States; of the great deficiency in the manner in which the industry fulfilled its responsibilities to the public; and of the vast potential that was going to waste because of failure to measure up to public responsibiltiies in a truly national way.

It should, of course, be appreciated that commercial television stations are not in existence merely to do what others tell them to do. They have an interest in producing their own programmes, a legitimate interest.

They have an interest, so long as the present kind of commercial licensing system operates, in making their shareholders happy and keeping their enterprises buoyant. While the present system continues, I do not think anyone would want to be understood as trying to interfere wilh efficient functioning in that direction. But there must be a recognition of a primary responsibility to the public.

In matters of standards and of programming much remains to be done. I appreciated what Senator Webster had to say about his. disappointment that the Government has not yet seen fit to put into legislative operation or administrative practice the recommendations of the Select Committee. Surely (he Senate should be concerned about that. Surely we are not to be put through exercises merely for the sake of indulging our own fancies. The Select Committee was appointed on the motion of a Government senator. It haj the support of the Government and it had a majority of members from the Government side. Of the seven members, four were from the Government parties and three from the Opposition. But, as Senator McClelland has said, we have not yet received any indication from the Government that it is interested in carrying out any one of the many recommendations which were made by the Committee. The report received widespread support from the interested sections of the community.

Senator Dittmer:

– Including financial support from the community.

Senator COHEN:

– To a certain extent 1 think that may be so. but centainly there has been the widest expression of support for the general approach of the Committee as outlined in its report.

I believe that both these matters - the question of programmes and standards, and the question of control - are important. I strongly support the amendment moved by Senator McClelland which, if accepted, will enable this Senate to appoint a committee to do a thorough and workmanlike job in ascertaining, first, the facts. There may be a great deal of invective and perhaps prejudice about these matters but a Senate select committee, following the traditions of fair mindedness and co-operative attitudes between the parties which have operated in the past, would, I believe, do a great service to the community in unravelling the intricacies of these controls, in assessing their impact in a factual manner and in laying the basis for some kind of new look and new approach to the problems of the television industry. For that reason I second the amendment.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I congratulate the Government on the principles enshrined in this Bill even though some of the mechanical methods used to bring about the happy state of affairs contemplated by the Government may be perhaps a little difficult to discern. This Bill is in line with the Trade Practices Bill 1965, directed against monopolies and restrictive trade practices, which was introduced in another place recently by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Snedden). I think we can sum up this Bill in a few words by saying that the intention of the legislation is to ensure that the control of mass media of communication shall not pass into too few hands. It is a truism to say that in Australia today most people believe that the impact of mass media is determined by three men - two in Sydney and one in Melbourne. This legislation has been introduced with a view to improving and broadening the shareholdings in television stations.

I support strongly the remarks of Senator Webster who has given a detailed and careful analysis of the problems presented by this legislation and, God forgive me, I find myself in agreement with wide areas of what has been said by Senator McClelland and even with some areas of what Senator Cohen said. However, when I refer to what Senator Cohen said, I know that he, as an erudite practising Queen’s Counsel, was not serious when suggesting retrospective legislation in this context. As a good Socialist, he knows that retrospective legislation is anathema to the Socialist mind. The honorable senator took some umbrage at the fact that the ATV shares were not compulsorily to be discarded. I find some difficulty on that point myself but at the time the transaction was made, it was lawful. I put it to Senator Cohen: If the shares had been purchased by the Trades Hall Benevolent Society in Melbourne or the All Union Centre of Sport and Machinery or something of that kind rather than a wicked capitalist enterprise, would he have been so keen to see the Socialist enterprise deprived of shares which h:d been acquired lawfully and under the provisions of the legislation existing at the lime?

Senator Cohen:

– It would be interesting to know what the Government would have done about it.

Senator HANNAN:

– I am posing the problem in relation to what the honorable senator would think. I cannot help but feel that in this case his legal training and his political background are having a tug of war with one another and for the moment the political background appears to have won. Before we leave that aspect I want to say that if the Government had taken action against the All Union Centre of Sport and Machinery or the Trades Hall Benevolent Fund under section 86 of the legislation, we would have heard a scream right around Australia. Probably there would have been a protest meeting at the Richmond Town Hall with 2,000 assembled and all sorts of violent outbursts would have been made against this reactionary, Fascist, Nazi, dictatorial government. I know that, the honorable senator is not serious and that he has only put this up as a sort of humorous gesture. A man of his training and knowledge could not possibly be serious about it. However, I think that the problem of control of mass media of communication is of such significance and importance that the Senate should devote considerable time and attention to it. Unfortunately because of the time element it is not possible to subject this legislation to the analysis it deserves.

Senator Dittmer:

– Because of the Government’s complete disregard of the rights of the people and of the nation.

Senator HANNAN:

– We will come to Senator Dittmer later. I want to deal with the Bill.

Senator Dittmer:

– I will deal with you after 1st July. You will not deal with me at all.

Senator HANNAN:

– You should not be so happy. You know what General MacArthur said - “ I shall return.” I want to refer briefly to a report of great significance to those who believe that the control of television in Australia is important. This is a report of the Senate of the United States of America on television programmes submitted in 1964. I refer to this because control of television stations is tremendously important having regard to the type of programme matter which is transmitted. It is true that under the present setup in Australia, a licensee has complete and absolute control of transmitted material. Not only does he have the right to select what material is transmitted at any time but corollaratively, of course, he must bear responsibility for the material which is transmitted at any time and in any circumstances.

I shall refer to this Committee at soma length, but at the outset I want to point out that some of the people who control commercial television stations in Australia suggest, first, that they are only giving the people what they want - and I shall deal with that later - and, secondly, that they are only transmitting the best of imported American programmes. I propose to say something about these imported programmes in relation to American criticisms of them. The United States Senate inquiry initiated in 1964 led to an analysis of the impact of television on juvenile delinquency. The committee went through two of the major reformatories in the United States and found that there was a certain common factor in the viewing habits of many inmates. There were six programmes - and nearly all of them are being shown in Australia now - which, in the opinion of the committee, had contributed to the delinquency of the people in the reformatories at the time.

  1. shall mention some of these programmes because I think it only right and proper to do so. One of them is “The Untouchables “ in which brute force and violence are shown - in such a way as to appeal to the sadist. Another is “ Bus Stop”. A third is “Route 66” and that, Mr. Deputy President, it distresses me to say is shown by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and not by one of the commercial stations. I agree that the A.B.C. is not infallible, but one looks for higher things from the Commission. Another of the programmes referred to by the United States Senate committee was “ Gunsmoke “. Another for obvious reasons was the Hitchcock Hour and the last was “ Thriller “. It is all very well for people who have what Senator Cohen calls a vested interest in television licences-

Sena M Cohen. - 1 did not coin the phrase.

Senator HANNAN:

– The honorable senator used the phrase during the course of his remarks. It is all very well for people with vested interests in television licences to say that this type of violence has no effect on juvenile deliquency or young people. If that argument were true, it would also be (rue to say that good books, good television programmes and good literature have no good effect. I feel that we have to look at some of the programme matter which our allies and friends in the United States of America - who have had so much more experience of television than we have - are producing and also that we have to look at some of the findings of the American Senate Committee which inquired into television matters. I refer now to a report issued in the second session of the 88th Congress. It is the report of the Television and Juvenile Delinquency Committee. On page 2 the report states -

A fourth reason for the investigation was the development of new findings by qualified media research scholars which supported the thesis that televised crime and violence had adverse effects on the attitudes and behaviour of many young viewers. While some people, particularly those who spoke for the broadcasting industry, maintained that there was no relationship between televised crime and delinquency, it seemed clear to the sub-committee that the research evidence to the contrary was very substantial.

In support of that Committee’s findings we have an article on May 20th in the “ Daily Mirror “, where, under the heading “ Crime and TV linked “ the following appears -

London, Wednesday. - A dossier on suspected links between TV crime and real life crime has been sent to the Home Office by a police chief. Mr. John Barnett, Chief Constable of Lincolnshire, who next week becomes Chairman of the New National Viewers and Listeners Association, said thai 14 cases had been recorded last year where TV programmes had some adverse effect on the young persons’ responsibility.

He said the cases, some involving housebreaking, bodily harm and arson, followed closely the pattern of crimes shown on TV.

The article concludes -

One object would be to get Parliament to set up a Viewers and Listeners’ Council to act like the Press Council for newspapers.

For reasons beyond my control, I cannot do much about that, but I commend it to the inquiry of the Senate at a future date.

Senator Wright:

– Does not the Broadcasting Control Board discharge some such function?

Senator HANNAN:

– Yes, but I do not feel that this Parliament should abdicate all responsibility in this matter.

Senator Wright:

– I thought the honorable senator was shattering the responsibility that the Broadcasting Control Board had.

Senator HANNAN:

– Not at all. I will refer again to the American Senate Committee’s interim report on television and juvenile delinquency. I think it is only fair to indicate that the impact of televised programmes is not wholly bad. It would be grossly unfair to give the impression that all crimes of violence, sex orgies and the like were a direct result of people viewing the little idiot box. That would be both to exaggerate its importance and to criticise it unfairly. At page 5 of its report the American Senate Committee says -

Television’s impact on all aspects of American life has been a very significant one and its influence is likely to grow. This new medium has contributed much of lasting value to the well-being of the nation and will continue to do so. Its function in the field of public affairs programming has been particularly noteworthy and its use as an educational tool in the public schools and universities has been steadily expanding.

I have quoted that section of the report merely to be fair to the industry, because I am not one of those who believe that things are either entirely black or entirely white; there are obviously shades of grey.

Looking at the type of television programme material which is imported into this country at a cost of precious dollars, we find that much of the material comes from the American Broadcasting Corporation, one of the three big networks in the United States of America. One of the top executive producers of that Corporation is a man called Munn, who is known in the television industry as “ Blood and Guts Producer Munn “. He has a reputation for regarding violence for the sake of violence as an essential ingredient of dramatic television programmes. He brought this out in a direction to one of his producers, who refused to follow the blood and guts formula. In one of his letters to this producer he said -

I wish we could come up with a different device than running a man down with a car. We have done this now in three different shows. I like the idea of sadism, but I hope we can come up with another approach to it.

Programme material produced by that man is being purchased for precious dollars and screened in this country.

Senator Wright:

– Is that due to monopoly control of Australian companies?

Senator HANNAN:

– I think the monopolies say they are giving us what we want. I have grave doubt as to whether the community as a whole wants tripe of that nature. We then come to material from the Columbia broadcasting system, which has a reputation in the United States of America for producing material that is less violent and has a lower blood and guts content than has that of other networks. At page 30 of the report of the Committee of the American Senate the following appears -

The evolution of “ Route 66 “ is particularly relevont both because of its focus on violence and sex and because of the network’s role in developing that focus. Shortly before the series’ inception, network officials became concerned because it was not “ pulling “ as effectively as it should. Mr. James T. Aubrey. Junior, C.B.S. network President, is reported to have issued what became known among producers as the Aubrey dictum of “ broad, bosoms and fun “.

Senator Cormack:

– Has he not been fired since then?

Senator HANNAN:

– He is no longer in that position, but much of the material he produced is still being shown in this country. The report of the Senate Committee continues -

In testimony in 1962, Mr. Aubrey admits to asking for more “ glamor “ and more “ romantic interest “ but denies authorship of the dictum in the specific sense.

At page 32 of the report there is criticism of material from the National Broadcasting Company. This is the third of the great networks whose programme material is flooding this country, and whose dramatic material makes up about 90 per cent, of the total dramatic television material on our screens. Dealing with National Broadcasting Company programmes the report says -

Insofar as “ Whispering Smith “ was concerned, an independent testing organisation conducted an advance audience reaction of what was known as the “ Hemp Reeger “ episode. The testing organisation exposed 262 men, women, and children to the episode in a home environment and then questioned them about it. Among the findings were the follow ing: The sexual implications of the show were disliked by men and children as well as by women. Nearly all (97 per cent.) of the people felt there was too much emphasis on sex. . . Threequarters of the people (men, women and children) felt that this show was unsuitable for children.

Despite this finding, the “ Hemp Reeger “ episode was televised. When asked about the network’s decision to release the episode, Mr. Walter Scott, the N.B.C. TV network executive vice president, told the Subcommittee that the test had been “ experimental “ and that his staff had concluded that it was invalid. In the absence of any evidence of a second test under network auspices, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the network was simply disregarding survey findings which it had no desire to accept.

In other words these nabobs use ratings to confound us when it means putting over material which they are able to buy at a cheap price or which is in free supply, but they are prepared to disregard that form of inquiry - disregard ratings - when they happen to run against their preconceived notions either of what we should have or what it is convenient for them to provide. Further, regarding the N.B.C. programme, the Committee discussed the evidence of one of the witnesses who referred to an edict that there should be more sex and violence injected into the show “ or we could not get the Saturday 8.30 time period “. In short, if the edict were disobeyed by the independent producers their show would not be in a choice time period geared to a substantial children’s audience.

I have been referring at some length to these matters not because they are particularly germain to the question of shares in television companies but because they are particularly germane to the type of programme material which the ensconced television authorities in this country are giving to Australian viewers.

Senator Ormonde:

– What should we do about it?

Senator HANNAN:

– We may have time to get around to that later. At page 36 the Committee summarised some of its conclusions and found -

On the basis of expert testimony and impressive research evidence a relationship has been conclusively established between televised crime and violence and anti-social attitudes and behaviour among juvenile viewers. Television programs which feature excessive violence can and do adversely influence children. Further, such adverse effects may be experienced by normal as well as by emotionally disturbed viewers.

Finally, we come to the concluding recommendations of the Committee in America which, at page 45, said -

If and when we recommend specific legislation

The Committee was delivering an interim report - we will do so in full awareness of the fact that no Government agency has the right to control the content of specific programs and that freedom of speech and press are basic constitutional guarantees which must not be violated. However, we will also continue to bear in mind that the broadcasting industry operates over channels which belong to the people and which must, we insist, be used to serve the public interest.

One matter too frequently overlooked is that the people operating broadcasting licences either in radio or in television are, in truth, operating upon national frequencies which are as much part of the nation’s resources as its resources of oil, gold, uranium or any other form of mineral wealth. In its conclusions the Committee quoted from the “ Scientific American “ of February 1964 as follows -

Experiments suggest that aggression depicted in television and motion picture dramas, or observed in actuality, can arouse certain members of the audience to violent action. 1 do not wish to take this matter any further at this time. I feel that Senator Webster has put the problem very forcibly and well. A strong responsibility rests upon the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which controls commercial channels that have - I should not say a monopoly of viewers, but by and large an audience of about 87 to 88 per cent, of viewers.

In these circumstances I am glad that the Government is to this extent rearming the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in order to prevent in the future this form of concentration of ownership of mass media. I express my personal hope that the Board will be vigilant in watching for this type of takeover, merger or quasimonopolistic control of mass media. Although I do not believe that the Bill is the last piece of legislation which the Government will find necessary to introduce in order to control these matters, I give this step in the right direction my blessing and hope that it has a speedy passage in the Senate.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

. in reply - The motion before the Senate is -

That the Bill be read a second time, to which the Opposition has moved an amendment which states -

That the following words be added to the motion - but the Senate is of opinion that a Senate Select Committee should be appointed . . .

When one first looks at the amendment, one can say that the Opposition is supporting the Government in the passage of the Bill. When one looks at it again and has regard to the subsequent debate which has stemmed from the Opposition, one can say that the Opposition is opposing the Bill. Finally, after it is all washed up, one comes to the conclusion that the Opposition is rather like Clancy - it does not know where it is. If I read the motion and the amendment in the form -

That the Bill be read a second lime . . . but the Senate is of opinion that a Senate Select Committee should be appointed . . .

I am prepared to accept the view that the Opposition supports the Bill.

While it is true that an amendment has been foreshadowed in the Committee stage in relation to retrospectivity, I do not want to discuss that matter now. When the amendment is moved in the Committee stage 1 can speak against it and give the reasons for not supporting it. Senator McClelland, who led for the Opposition, seemed to be in a great plight because the word “ monopoly “ had been lost between the second reading speech in another place and the second reading speech in this place and the word “ cornering “ had been substituted. Also, Senator Cohen, who is a legal man of great stature seemed to build an argument about the change in the wording. It made one feel that the speeches of honorable senators opposite had been predetermined on the basis of the use of the word “ monopoly When they found that the word was not used in the second reading speech in this place they were left literally without a case to support their argument.

It seemed to me that Senator McClelland rather overplayed the question of time. He made a point of the time that had elapsed between the end of the second reading speech and the beginning of the debate. He missed the point that the Bill was introduced in another place last week, by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme), that a debate ensued, and that honorable senators had the weekend in which to consider the speeches which were made in the debate in another place. In any case, on 17th December 1964, the Minister spelled out the intention of the Government in this regard, and it takes form in the legislation which we have before us this evening. So the argument that this is something that has been sprung on the Senate does not carry the strength that it might otherwise carry.

Senator McClelland referred also to the matter of networks. He said that both the Postmaster-General and 1 had pointed out that there was some difficulty about the definition of a network. The honorable senator referred also to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s report of 1960. But 1960 is not 1965. It is the very experience of what has happened between 1960 and 1965 that has made this legislation so important. There is a vast difference between the interpretation of a network in the broad sense and the interpretation of a network in the legal sense. I am no lawyer, but it is the legal interpretation of a network which was one of the problems that arose in relation to programming. It is far easier to define networks when talking about broadcasting, because there you have a physical thing - a physical network which is linked by line communication. But the definition of networks in the legal sense is one of the things that arose in this legislation and has become the subject of variations in the Bill.

Senator Webster referred to the prescribed date. If the prescribed date is to be the subject of a later presentation by the Opposition, it may be far better to deal with it and the matter of retrospective provisions during the Committee stage than now. It is sufficient to say that in December last the Postmaster-General did indicate very effectively the Government’s intention, because it had some considerable bearing on what happened after that date. Prior to that date we were dealing with a law as it stood. On 17tb December 1964 the PostmasterGeneral made a statement of the intention of the Government. Because of that, 17th December 1964 has become the prescribed date in this Bill.

Senator Webster:

– That does not hold good for re-organisations.

Senator ANDERSON:

– It holds good for the provisions of the Bill, and that is all we are talking about in this context. Senator Webster referred to the transfer of shares overseas. We know that under the existing Act the Postmaster-General has no good reason, as was pointed out by Senator Cohen, to disapprove or to refuse to give consent to the transfer of shares. But under this Bill, having regard to the public benefit, the Minister could refuse. So this Bill covers the situation that Senator Webster raised in that regard. Senator McClelland and Senator Cohen also referred to the transfer of shares. By interjection the question was posed: “ Why could the Minister not have done something about this matter prior to this legislation? “ Senator Cohen pointed out that under proposed section 92f the Minister has no valid justification for refusing a transfer of shares if it is within the law. That is a lay interpretation of the meaning of the section. The Minister must have some good reason within the framework of the legislation to refuse a transfer of shares. Senator Cohen went on to say, “ Oh, but the Minister could have used section 86 of the existing Act “. This is a nice exercise, coming as it does from a man of great legal standing, because what Senator Cohen puts to the Senate is that the Minister should use a form of duress on the transfer of shares by saying: “ I cannot refuse the transfer of snares but, if you do transfer the shares, I am going to catch you under section 86 “.

Senator Cohen:

– The Postmaster-General should have said: “ Because I am going to enforce the Government’s policy”.

Senator ANDERSON:

– So, Senator Cohen puts himself-

Senator Hannan:

– Senator Cohen is joking.

Senator Cohen:

– The law entitles the Minister to do that.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Let me make my own point on this matter because although 1 am not a lawyer I can tell Senator Cohen a couple of things he did not mention. Under section 86, any decision of the Minister is subject to appeal to the Commonwealth Industrial Court for a start. Before the matter goes before the Court, it is subject to a public inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Senator Wright:

– What is subject to appeal to the Industrial Court?

Senator ANDERSON:

– A decision made under section 86 is subject to appeal where the Minister has used it to disallow the transfer of a share interest. Here is an interesting point. How Gilbertian can you get? Fancy going along to the Court and saying: “ The Minister refuses the tranfer of the shares, but the Minister has already granted the transfer of the shares under the Act.” Let me put it another way. Is not the purpose of proposed section 92f (1.) (a) (ii) to refuse the transfer of the shares? So, as 1 said earlier, you get yourself into the position where you are like Clancy - you do not know where you are I am suggesting that it is quite clear in the provisions of this Bill that this position can be met by the Minister using the provision “ in the public interest.” That was a provision which could not be used before. For that reason, this Bill has an advantage which should be commended by both sides of the Senate.

Senator Cohen also made reference to the Ansett holdings. True it is he made the reference in response to an interjection. I want to say to the Senate that the Ansett organisation was never at any stage in contravention of the Act.

Senator Cohen:

– Who said it was?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Ansett organisation will not be in contravention of the new Act. Senator Cohen used the Ansett organisation as an argument in relation to monopoly interests.

Senator Cohen:

– I did, but I did not suggest-

Senator ANDERSON:

– If the honorable senator did not, that is that. But I will make the statement-

Senator Cohen:

– It is no good saying it in contradiction of something I did not say.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Tomorrow will reveal that.

Senator Cohen:

– The Minister is putting up a straw man.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The position is that Senator Cohen referred to the Ansett organisation in an argument in relation to monopoly control.

Senator Cohen:

– I did not say that the organisation was in breach of the law.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The honorable senator said it was a vested interest of the supporters of this Government. The point I want to make is that the Ansett interests were never in contravention of the law in respect of the 1960 Act and, indeed, they will not be in contravention of the new Act.

Senator McClelland:

– If it was not Ansett, who was it who was in contravention of the Act?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The honorable senator can make his own case.

Senator Cohen:

– The Ansett interests were refused a licence in competition with another applicant for that licence, and then acquired a controlling share in the company granted the licence.

Senator ANDERSON:

– That was not in contravention of the Act.

Senator Cohen:

– It is shameful if it was not.

Senator ANDERSON:

– What Senator Cohen is saying is that nobody has the right to buy shares.

Senator Cohen:

– I am saying that the Government should put its policy into legislation.

Senator ANDERSON:

– That is what the honorable senator is saying. The situation is - I should think that this is quite clear and that the Senate agrees with this - that the law stands. Anybody who transacts business within the law cannot earn all the evil things that have been said about investors in television companies and which I heard here tonight. The argument will no doubt be developed when the question of retrospectivity is being considered. Meanwhile, 1 just want to say that the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. I will be very surprised if the Opposition votes against the second reading of the Bill.

I want to refer to the speech of Senator Hannan, so that he will not feel that I have disregarded his remarks. He mentioned many matters relating to programmes. Senator Webster also referred to the Australian content of programmes. This matter is not dealt with by the Bill, and at 10 minutes to 12 at night I will not go off into a discourse on the points that were raised. I think it is sufficient to say that the Postmaster-General has said that, after he has made an examination of the problems that arise in relation to the Australian content of programmes, he will be in a position to make a recommendation to the Government. No doubt in due course he will make a statement in relation to this aspect.

Mr. Deputy President, the Government does not accept the amendment. Since this piece of legislation will have the effect of carrying out the spirit and the intention of the 1960 Act, which the Opposition did not oppose, and as it conforms with the outline of the Government’s policy intentions, which was made by the Postmaster-General in December 1964, I suggest that the Bill should be allowed to pass through the second reading.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator McClelland’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

page 1158

PROCESSED MILK PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In 1962 Parliament passed the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act providing for payment of a bounty on exports in 1962- 63 of milk products not eligible for assistance under the Dairying Industry Act 1962, which provides for the payment of bounty on the production of butter, cheese and related butter fat products. The bounty was made available in 1962 in order to help the Australian processors to compete with subsidised exports of processed milk products from other countries and, in addition, to divert butter fat away from the manufacture of butter which was experiencing a serious surplus position at that time. The legislation was amended in 1963 and again in 1964 to enable the bounty to be continued in each case for a period of 12 months. In the three years in which the assistance has been available, the bounty has been provided at maximum levels of £350,000 in 1962-63, £500,000 in 1963-64 and £400,000 in the current year 1964-65.

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the bounty for a further two years and to provide a maximum amount of £400,000 for this purpose for each of the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The principal Act provides that the final rate of bounty is to be no greater than the final rate of bounty payable on butter under the Dairying Industry Act 1962, the actual rate being dependent on the amount of bounty available and the quantity of butter fat contained in the products exported in any year. In 1.963-64 when an amount of £500,000 was available, a bounty rate of 7.96d. per lb. butter fat was paid for processed milk products. This equalled the final rate for butter and approximately £60,000 of the total bounty available for milk products was unexpended. In 1962-63 and 1964-65 however, the bounty rate on processed milk products will amount to about 80 per cent, of that received by the butter producers and all of the total amounts allocated will, of course, have been expended. The benefits derived from the bounty assistance on exports of processed milk products since its inception in 1962 have been well in excess of expectation. For example, exports of butter fat in the milk products in 1962-63 amounted to 5,566 tons compared with 3,850 tons in 1961-62. the year before the bounty was introduced.

In 1963-64 exports rose to 6,465 tons of butter fat - a gain of nearly 68 per cent, since 1961-62 - and figures in the current year indicate that the trend in exports is still rising. Tn the first six months of the year exports were already over 500 tons of butter fat above those of the same period of the previous year. Export income from processed milk products increased by 38 per cent, between 1961-62 and 1963-64 when it amounted to nearly £10 million. It is expected to be in excess of this figure in the current year.

There are eighteen Australian manufacturers, half of whom are co-operative companies, now sharing the bounty. The larger manufacturers are, of course, receiving the greater share, but on the other hand it must be remembered that they are the major contributors to the success of the scheme because of their more extensive overseas market outlets.

The extension of the bounty is strongly supported by the Australian Dairy Industry Council, which represents the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation, the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalisation Committee Limited, and the Australian Dairy Produce Board, and also by the Processed Milk Manufacturers’ Association of Australia Limited. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Bill (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1159

BUTTER FAT LEVY BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I move1 -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of the Senate, I propose to make one second reading speech to cover the Butter Fat Levy Bill 1965, the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill 1965, the Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Bill 1965, the Dairy Produce Export Charge Repeal Bill 1965 and the Dairy Produce Levy Repeal Bill 1965.

There are two statutory levies currently operating, under separate Commonwealth Acts, which provide the Australian Dairy Produce Board with the funds for overseas market development on the one hand and for research and sales promotion activities in Australia on the other. The levy for overseas marketing development which is applied to exports of butter and cheese was imposed by Commonwealth legislation when the Board was originally established in 1925. The levy for research into dairy industry problems and for sales promotion of dairy products in Australia was imposed by legislation enacted in 1958 on the production by Australian factories of butter and cheese.

Some time ago the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) advised the Australian Dairy Industry Council that the collection of the increasing number of primary industry levies is creating administrative problems for his Department and that he would like the Council to consider, in the interests of departmental efficiency and economy, a proposal that the two levies currently operating be fused into one levy to cover all the Board’s requirements. The matter was considered by the Council, which has recommended that the current levies should be consolidated into one production levy to be based upon the butter fat content of the dairy products coming under the control of the Board.

The Council also supported a recommendation from the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation that the income of the Board should be increased to enable it to intensify its promotion and market development activities. Five Bills are necessary to implement the proposals and I feel they can logically be discussed concurrently. The Butter Fat Levy Bill 1965, which is the main Bill, provides for a maximum rate of levy of 6s. per cwt. of butter fat to be apportioned between the three primary functions of the Australian Dairy Produce Board in the following ratio: Overseas marketing, two parts, 2s. 4id.; local promotion, two parts, 2s. 43d.; and research, one part, ls. 2id.

It has been estimated that this rate of levy would give the Board an assured income of approximately £1,100,000 if the maximum rate of levy were applied. The maximum rate of levy represents about li per cent, of the pay rate to producers by butter factories which is expected to be about 46d. per lb. commercial butter basis, equivalent to 55d. per lb. of butter fat, for each of the 1963-64 and 1964-65 seasons. The Board has considered its budget for 1965-66 and has recommended that the operative rate of levy to apply from 1st July 1965, should be 5s. per cwt. of butter fat, estimated to give an income of approximately £900,000 and representing less than 1 per cent, of the expected factory pay rates for butter for 1963-64 and 1964-65 when the pools for these two seasons are wound up.

The estimated income under the current legislation for 1964-65 is about £760,000 and the increase in the Board’s budget for 1965-66 reflects the recommendation of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation that more funds should be made available for promotion and market development. It is proposed by the Board that from the levy of 5s. per cwt., 2s. be allocated for overseas marketing, 2s. 2id. for local promotion and 9id. for research which should result in revenue for each purpose of £360,000, £398,000 and £1.42,000 respectively. This would give the Board an additional £20,000 to finance overseas market development and £118,000 more for sales promotion in Australia. The estimated revenue from the levy for research purposes in 1965-66 is £142,000 compared with £131,000 obtained in 1963-64. The increase in revenue of £11,000 is designed to bring levy payments up to the level of expenditure as small deficits in the past two years have been met from reserve funds.

The four other Bills are machinery measures and are consequential upon the Butter Fat Levy Bill 1965. The Dairy Produce Export Control Bill 1965 and the Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Bill 1965 provide for the proceeds of the levy to be credited to the respective accounts of the Australian Dairy Produce Board in the proportions I indicated earlier. The Dairy Produce Export Charge Repeal Bill 1965 and the Dairy Produce Levy Repeal Bill 1965 provide for the repeal of the current legislation which the new legislation will replace.

I believe that the Council and the Board are acting prudently in planning for increased activities in the field of promotion and export market development of butter fat products. There are already signs that the European dairy industries are recovering from two lean production years and it is strongly indicated that surpluses of butter fat will be re-appearing in world markets in the not too distant future. The Government therefore supports the industry’s proposal that the Australian Dairy Produce Board be provided with additional funds for this purpose and welcomes the agreement of the Australian Dairy Industry Council to the consolidation of the dairy levies. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Senator Cormack:

– I wish to raise a procedural matter in relation to the business which has just been discussed by the Senate. These Bills relate to a vast arena of recommendations of which there is no evidence, nor is there any information, available to the Senate. I ask the Minister whether he will make such information available before these Bills are debated.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I shall raise this matter with the appropriate Minister, if he is available, immediately the Senate rises. If not then, I shall certainly do it at first opportunity in the morning, and provide all the available information both to Government members and to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna).

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1161

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed -

That the Bill be now rend a second time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1161

DAIRY PRODUCE RESEARCH AND SALES PROMOTION BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1161

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CHARGE REPEAL BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1161

DAIRY PRODUCE LEVY REPEAL BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1161

SULPHURIC ACID BOUNTY BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is proposed to extend the operation of the present Sulphuric Acid Bounty Act 1954-60, under which bounty will cease to be payable after 30th June 1965, for a further maximum period of six months to 31st December 1965 unless an earlier date of cessation is specified by proclamation. The Pyrites Bounty Act 1960 is also due to expire on 30th June 1965 and I shall shortly introduce a similar measure to extend that Act for a further maximum period of six months. However, as honorable senators are aware, the two industries are very closely allied. Bounty is paid on iron pyrites received into a sulphuric acid manufacturer’s premises for the purpose of being used in that manufacture and is also paid on the sulphuric acid produced from the iron pyrites. In addition sulphuric acid bounty is paid on the acid produced from lead sinter gas. Because of this close alliance, I shall deal with the reason for the extension of both Acts in this speech.

Both industries are at present being reviewed by the Tariff Board which is examining the general questions of what assistance should be extended to the producers of sulphuric acid and iron pyrites in Australia. However, in view of the complexities of some of the considerations, it appears unlikely that the Board’s report will be received in time for the Government to study it and take appropriate action before the date of the expiry of both Acts on 30th June 1965. This Bill, therefore, extends the current sulphuric acid bounty legislation for a further period of six months to 3 1st December 1965, or an earlier proclaimed date, to allow sufficient time for the Board to present its report and the Government to consider and act upon it. The extension also allows the present level of assistance to the industry to be maintained meanwhile. 1 commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1162

PYRITES BOUNTY BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As indicated in my speech in introducing the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill 1965, it is proposed also to extend the operation of the Pyrites Bounty Act 1960, under which bounty will cease to be payable after 30th June 1965 for a further maximum period of six months to 3 1st December 1965 unless an earlier date of cessation is specified by proclamation. The Bill before the Senate is to implement this proposal. I have already outlined the reasons for the extension of the period of operation.

I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1162

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I present the seventh report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1162

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Recision of Motion

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) - by leave - agreed to -

That the order of the Senate fixing the time for meeting for tomorrow at 10 a.m. be rescinded.

Sitting suspended from 12.21. a.m. to 9.30 a.m. (Tuesday).

Tuesday, 25th May 1965 (continuation of sitting of 24th May 1965).

page 1163

PROCESSED MILK PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1159).

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- The Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill seeks to amend the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act 1962-64 to provide for the bounty to continue for a further two years. The first Bill relating to this matter was introduced in 1962 and for the year 1962-63 the amount of bounty paid was £350,000. The legislation was amended in 1963-64 and the bounty payment increased to £500,000. However, the bounty paid in 1964-65 fell to £400,000. The Act provides that the bounty payable on processed milk products will be no greater than that paid as a bounty on butter as provided in the Dairying Industry Act 1962. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the reason for the reduction of the bounty from £500,000 to £400,000 was that in the year when £500,000 was allocated as the bounty the sum of £60,000 was unexpended. The amount paid to the processors was 7.96d. per lb. which equalled the amount of bounty paid on butter fat.

I understand that the bounty was introduced so that we could help the processors of these milk products to compete with products from overseas which also receive a bounty. Therefore, it is interesting to note that the bounty has helped greatly in expanding exports of processed milk products. In his speech the Minister said that exports rose from 3,850 tons in 1961-62 to nearly 6,500 tons in 1964-65, an increase of 68 per cent. In addition, exports for the first six months of this year show a further increase. This, of course, is helping our balance of payments. It is expected that for this year the export income earned by these products will amount to £10 million.

The foods on which bounty is paid are sweetened and unsweetened condensed milk, full cream powdered milk and infants’ and invalids’ foods. The Bill provides for the payment of another bounty to the dairying industry so that the Australian industry can compete on overseas markets. The Opposition raises no objection to the passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1163

BU1TER FAT LEVY BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1160).

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– There are five Bills dealing with the dairying industry and four of them are consequential to the Butter Fat Levy Bill. I understand that the five Bills will be debated together. These five Bills replace Acts and provide for the imposition of levies. One levy is on butter which is exported overseas. The other is a levy on dairy commodities consumed in Australia. These levies will be devoted to sales promotion and to research in the dairying industry. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) stated in his second reading speech that the collection of two levies caused unnecessary administrative difficulties. To streamline procedure, it is proposed to collect only one levy although the proceeds will be applied to the same purposes for which two levies were collected previously. This proposal has the approval of the organisations which more or less control the dairying industry. It is true that the amount of money to be raised under the provisions of this Bill and the associated bills will be larger than the total represented by the previous two levies. However, this also has the support of the dairying organisations.

This is an important industry. It is subsidised in many ways probably to the extent of £15 million or £16 million a year. There are in the vicinity of 34,000 dairy farms in the whole of Australia, and I read some time ago in the McCarthy report that there are 13,000 in Victoria. This industry employs many people apart from those actually engaged on the farms. The farms are much more highly mechanised now than they were in years gone by, but even today there is a tremendous amount of work to be done on them. The smaller farms, in particular, depend upon the work not only of the farmer himself but also of his wife and children. The industry also provides employment for a large number of workers in various factories throughout the country areas. In many instances it provides the economic lifeblood of small towns in Victoria.

Butter production last year amounted to 203,000 tons, of which over 91,000 tons, or nearly 45 per cent., was exported. The Minister’s adviser was kind enough to tell me that the value of exports of butter is about £26 million per annum. If we add to that another £5 million or £6 million from the export of cheese, it is clear that this is an important industry.

The legislation gives the Board the right to strike a maximum levy of 6s. The only question 1 want to ask the Minister is: Has the Board the right to strike whatever levy it desires? The Minister has said that a 5s. levy will be collected this year, although the legislation sets a maximum of 6s. Is it the prerogative of the Board to say that the levy will be 5s. this year and 5s. 3d. next year, subject to a maximum of 6s.?

It is interesting to see how the levy is divided. Two-fifths of the proceeds have been devoted to overseas marketing, twofifths to the promotion of home consumption and one-fifth for expenditure on research. I have no doubt that that would be the division this year if the full levy were imposed. However, as the Minister has said, the levy this year will be only 5s. It is interesting to note that while two-fifths will still be used for the promotion of the sale of our butter overseas, the proportion devoted to promoting the consumption of butter in Australia has been raised. Instead of the levy of 5s. being allocated as 2s. for overseas marketing, 2s. for home consumption promotion and ls. for research in the industry, the Minister stated in his second reading speech that the Government intends to increase the amount for home consumption promotion. Instead of providing 2s. for home consumption promotion, the Government intends to provide 2s. 24d., the additional 2id. coming from the amount that formerly was allocated to research.

One matter that concerns me is the reason for the large fall in the home consumption of butter. I put it down to three things. First, price; secondly, the fact that different foods are being used to take the place of butter; and, thirdly, advertisements to the effect that we should keep our figures as they were when we were in our 20’s, and that if we continue to eat this commodity it will have a bad effect on our hearts. I do not know about that, but in the year 1959-60 the consumption of butter was 26.2 lb. per head and in 1963-64 it was 23.9 lb. per head. That constitutes a considerable drop in consumption. Possibly it is due partly to the fact that since our immigration programme really got under way, approximately 2 million people have come to this country. 1 do not want to be unkind when I say that they were not used to eating as much butter as we eat in this country. No doubt they have followed here the eating habits which they had in their own countries. They are not the large butter consumers that we are. 1 do not think that anyone can shut his eyes to the fact that the price of butter has a marked bearing on the drop in consumption. I am not saying for one moment that we should get cheap butter. Members of the Australian Labour Party have always said that the person who works, whether it be as a farmer or in any other vocation, is entitled to a decent standard of living. The industry has been given an annual subsidy of £13£ million. There has been a lot of argument as to whether that bounty which works out at 7id. per lb., is really a consumer bounty. It is quite likely that if this bounty were not provided the economic position of dairy farmers would be such that they would not be able to remain on the land. It is interesting to read in a statistical bulletin on the dairy industry that in 1959-60 the exports of butter were 78,000 tons, in round figures, and that the figure rose in the year 1963-64 to 91,000 tons.

In the second last paragraph of his second reading speech, the Minister gave me and, no doubt, others, some food for thought when he said -

There are already signs that the European dairy industries are recovering from two lean production years and it is strongly indicated that surpluses of butter-fat will be re-appearing in world markets in the not too distant future.

That statement must give those who are engaged in the industry and those who attend to the administration of it - I am speaking of the Department of Primary Industry - some food for thought. As I have said, we are discussing five complementary Bills. I remember that Senator Cormack asked last night whether reports and recommendations of bodies on which these measures are based are available for perusal, but his questions were not directed to me and I will leave the Minister to answer them. It is true that, when one reads these Bills, one finds they are consequential upon the principal measure. So, when this Bill is passed, there will be no need for any debate on the remaining Bills. I say that the Opposition raises no objection to the passage of the five Bills.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

.- Mr. Deputy President, I will not take more than four or five minutes to express my views and I do not expect the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) to reply to the points I raise. First of all, I think that, in general, the plans that have been put into operation from 1962 onwards are beginning to have some effect inside the first element of the Australian dairy industry which is, of course, production. From the information that I have been able to obtain, and it has certainly not been obtained from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) or his representative in this place, it is obvious that quite a dramatic change has taken place in many aspects of the production of the derivatives of milk. I am informed, for example, that over 4,200 marginal dairy farmers in New South Wales have gone out of production in the last three years. That indicates some tightening up of efficiency in the first level of production of milk.

The second point I wish to make - Senator Kennelly made this point too - is that over 90 per cent, of the bounties and the improvements are going to the State of Victoria. I mention that fact in contradiction of the remark I made just now to the effect that production in New South Wales is maintaining its level but the number of operators, or farm units, has fallen in the rather dramatic way I mentioned.

I now turn my attention to a matter which is beginning to cause me the greatest concern and which I have mentioned in this place on other occasions. This is the bland assumption by Ministers of State in relation to the administration of their departments - this relates primarily to the administration of primary production - and the powers that Parliament has granted them to impose levies. No information is given to the Parliament, as I think it should be, with these Bills to illustrate in fact whether these levies have been wisely expended. To add point to my argument, I remind honorable senators that we are living in a period in which vast sums of money are being diverted from many aspects of industry - not only primary industry but also the distributing industries - to undertake promotion schemes, advertising and so forth in order to increase the volume of consumption. Whether the producers are operating on a protected market or not, it is important that the managers of these schemes should at least equate the amount of money they spend on promotion with their success or otherwise in achieving the desired end. It is not only a question of volume; it is a question of volume as related to price. I have not seen any evidence that members of the various commodity boards realise the need to take account of this aspect of the matter.

Again I remind honorable senators that we have entered upon a period in which many commodity boards are being set up - I think they are necessary - to ensure reasonable direction in the disposal of primary products that are surplus to the needs of the domestic market. We should pay the strictest attention to ensuring that the taxpayer, who ultimately must shoulder this burden, is getting his money’s worth from the arbitrary levies that have been imposed from time to time. I say no more.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I thank honorable senators for their comments on the Bills. With the cooperation of honorable senators, they are to be given a speedy passage. Senator Kennelly asked a question about the levy. He asked in effect, who determines whether the amount charged will be the maximum amount or something less than the maximum. I point out in reply to him that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) has the benefit of the advice of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. He has not necessarily to accept that advice; he makes the ultimate decision.

A question was raised as to the differential that occurs as a result of the marrying of the two levies. I am advised that the increase will amount to approximately £140,000. The application of the two levies has been most complex. To give an idea of the difficulty involved, I point out that the export levy on butter is 9/ 28th of a penny per lb. and on ghee it is 45/112ths of a penny. The research levy on cheese is 3/32nds of a penny. As a result of the marrying of the two levies, it is proposed that the operative rate of levy will be 5s. per cwt. of butter fat, with a ceiling of 6s. As has been pointed out, that decision was taken by the Minister for Primary Industry.

Senator Kennelly raised a very interesting question as to the pattern of usage of the products of this industry. He said that there may be a number of reasons for the fall in the home consumption of these products. He referred to the possible effect of price, the availability of various other foods and also the health aspect. I should be inclined to agree with him in relation to the last two matters, but I am not so certain about the price factor. When all is said and done, ‘ price is related right across the board to our way of life and our standard of living. Australia’s tremendous immigration programme has brought about a change in the demand for foods. Margarine is used to a greater extent. A great number of people use fats other than butter fat because they have become used to them. We must accept that situation. The need exists for quite a vigorous promotion programme, which is inherent in the legislation before us. Part of the levy is to be spent on a promotion programme.

I do not wish to enter into a discussion on the effects of animal fats on heart conditions.It has not yet been proved that animal fats have a detrimental effect upon health. Some publicity has been given in that respect and the position must be looked in the eye. The industry is facing up to the situation and must be placed in a position where it can develop its promotion programme to keep pace with its competitors. I am sure that all honorable senators, including the Opposition, believe that this is good legislation and that the promotion of the industry will result.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1166

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1965

Second Reading

Consideration resumed (vide page 1161).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1166

DAIRY PRODUCE RESEARCH AND SALES PROMOTION BILL 1965

Second Reading

Consideration resumed (vide page 1161).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1166

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CHARGE REPEAL BILL 1965

Second Reading

Consideration resumed (vide page 1161) on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1166

DAIRY PRODUCE LEVY REPEAL BILL 1965

Second Reading

Consideration resumed (vide page 1161) on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1166

SULPHURIC ACID BOUNTY BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1162) on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The purposes of the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill and the Pyrites Bounty Bill are closely related and the few remarks that I shall make on the subject will apply to both

Bills.- They concern the extension of the bounty which was granted as a result of a Tariff Board recommendation in 1960. The matter is again under review. To have a look at the whole of this very important industry is perhaps beyond the ability of any individual member of a Parliament or any other individual, and the only instrumentality on which we have to rely is the Tariff Board. It is in the process of making an examination of this industry.

Since the bounty was introduced, many changes have taken place in the capital structure of the industry and some changes have taken place in the techniques of production of sulphuric acid and pyrites. They are the two ends of production. The pyrites is subsidised as it goes into the manufacture and the sulphuric acid, the end product of the pyrites, is subsidised also. Since the subsidy was introduced, legislation has been passed to provide for a subsidy on the superphosphate which is a further link in the chain from pyrites to pasture improvement.

We have just heard of levies and payments to assist the dairying industry. This Bill continues the limitation of the bounty to companies which are returning not more than 12-J- per cent, profit. The intention is - it is one of the most important aspects of this measure - to change the capital structure from one-eighth of the total capital employed by a company in this field to 124 per cent, return on capital. Considering the whole picture of the production of sulphuric acid and pyrites in relation to the changing capital structures of companies in these days of rapid alterations in shareholdings, the placement of shares and so on, it is obvious that a very heavy task is imposed on those responsible for administering a bounty such as this. They must know what proportion of the capital of an industry is utilised in the production of either pyrites or sulphuric acid. This is particularly difficult when that forms only one part of a company’s activities. The purpose of a subsidy is to encourage an industry to develop from our own natural resources something which is needed and is of high value in the community. But it should not be looked upon as merely a benefice from the Government.

These two Bills cover a period of only six months - from 30th June 1965 to 31st December 1965. I hope that before the legislation comes to us again, as it must, we will have received the Tariff Board’s report, giving us, in the Board’s usual style, a complete survey of the situation and the Board’s recommendations. We then will be in a better position to consider whether the subsidy is to continue, whether it is to cease or whether it is to be increased. At present, all that can be done is to support the extension of the bounty on sulphuric acid and pyrites for the six months requested in the Bill. The Opposition raises no objection to this.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I also support this Bill, which seeks to extend for six months the bounties at present being paid on sulphuric acid and pyrites, pending completion of the Tariff Board inquiry and the Government’s consideration of the Tariff Board’s report on that inquiry. I wish to stress to the chamber and to the Government the importance of this matter to South Australia. Ten or more years ago, at the behest of this Government, the mining of pyrites was commenced and carried on in that State. The various companies which were then making superphosphate re-arranged their plants to obtain sulphuric acid from pyrites and set aside a good deal of capital for that specific purpose. Now, with the free movement of sulphur and brimstone, the money that they invested in the mining and treatment of the pyrites could well he lost.

I have no doubt that the Tariff Board is making a full inquiry into the matter. I hope that it will come to a conclusion which will enable the Government to continue the bounty. Let us be thankful for small mercies at this stage. A decision has been delayed for six months pending the completion of the report by the Tariff Board. I commend the Government for the step it has taken. I trust that the final report will be available in the near future and that the Government’s decision will soon be known to the industry. If the Government favours the continuation of the bounty, the industry will be able to go ahead for at least five or seven years with the production of this most important commodity.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– I add my voice to support previous speakers and particularly Senator Laught. It is a matter of importance to

South Australia that the pyrites industry at Nairne and at Port Pirie should be able to carry on. In the past few years there has been great development in the use of superphosphate no doubt because a bounty has been granted on superphosphate to graziers and other primary producers who use this fertiliser. The companies engaged in the production of superphosphate in Adelaide have amalgamated to produce sulphuric acid from the Nairne pyrites field. A very big industry has been established. The companies are the Adelaide Chemical & Fertiliser Company Ltd. Wallaroo-Mount Lyell Fertilisers Ltd., Cresco Fertilisers Ltd. and Broken Hill Associated Smelters Pty. Ltd.

A fine township has been built at Nairne. Plant which has been established at considerable cost to the companies is in operation at Port Adelaide. Considerable expenditure has been undertaken by the companies and the industry in South Australia would suffer a severe setback if the bounty were terminated abruptly. It is pleasing that the Tariff Board is considering the question and I hope that ways and means will be found to extend the bounty so that continued treatment of Australian material will be possible for the production of a commodity which is essential to primary production. The Bill provides for an extension of the bounty for six months. This will give the Tariff Board time to examine the question. I hope the payment of the bounty will be continued so that Australian production of sulphuric acid which is essential in the production of superphosphate will be preserved.

The companies concerned have stepped up production in South Australia from 65,825 tons to an estimated output this year of 100,000 tons. This reflects the increase in the use of superphosphate. So far as I can ascertain, this is an efficient industry. Although brimstone is more easily available now, in the long run the maintenance of this industry which uses indigenous materials will be to the benefit of Australia.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I thank honorable senators for their contributions to the debate and I thank the Senate generally, for its cooperation in bringing about the speedy passage of this legislation. Senator

O’Byrne, who led the debate for the Opposition, raised a number of points which, I agree with him, are more appropriately subjects for discussion when the Tariff Board has brought down its report on the industry and the Government has had time to consider it. Problems of percentage profit limits, quick payments, capital investment and things of that nature are daily problems of my Department in the administration of bounty legislation. The thing to remember about bounties as far as departmental administration is concerned is that speed of payment is the essence of the contract. For that reason, certain provisions and safeguards which the Government wants are written into the Bill, but they are more subjects for discussion on a later occasion. 1 thank the Senate again for its co-operation in the passing of this legislation.

Question resolved m the affirmative.

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

page 1168

PYRITES BOUNTY BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1162) on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– As I intimated during my remarks on the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill, that measure and this one are complementary. The same remarks apply to this measure as to the other one. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I want to say a few words on this measure, which is related to the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill. The Government decided to adopt the recommendations contained in the Tariff Board’s report of 1959. That report recommended that the bounty should be split up between the producers of sulphuric acid and the producers of pyrites, whereas,- under the previous legislation, the bounty was always paid on the production of sulphuric acid, whatever the ingredients from which it was produced. It is interesting to note that the Government has decided to adopt the recommendations contained in the Tariff Board’s report, which left it to tha

Government to decide whether to pay a bounty of £3 or a bounty of £7 a ton on sulphur, whichever it thought more appropriate having regard to its interpretation of its obligation in respect of the average cost or the highest cost of Australian produced pyrites - with certain provisions.

This has been a controversial subject for many years. It dates back to 1951 or 1962, when the Government said to the producers of sulphuric acid: “ We expect you, within the next three or four years, to increase your production to an amount which will cater for at least 60 per cent, of Australia’s requirements, and to enable you to do this we will pay you an adequate bounty.” The producers did this. Then because of the ready availability of brimstone from America, the Government changed its policy. It recognised that it had some obligations to the producers. I want to know whether we think we are doing the right thing by the producers of pyrites in taking the lower figure, as mentioned in the Tariff Board’s report. The report, which was made on 20th June 1960, states specifically that the higher cost producers are those who have installed plant ot a more recent date, they are the people who require the additional amount of £7 per ton of 100 per cent, sulphuric acid.

I mention this matter because I hope that the Government, having decided to alter its policy in respect of the production of sulphuric acid, will have regard to the people who recently have spent large sums of money on equipment that has cost considerably more than it would have cost in 1951 or 1952. I hope that the Government will consider this matter when a further Bill dealing with this industry is introduced into this chamber in approximately six months time.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - Again I am grateful to the Senate for its co-operation in ensuring the speedy passage of this legislation. In answer to the questions raised by Senator Scott, I point out that this is merely a Bill to extend the period of the bounty for six months. The matters which he raised may well be under consideration by the Tariff Board. When the Board makes its report it will, of course, be tabled in the Senate. The

Government will consider any recommendations that the Board may make. I would not presume to make any comment on the substance of the matters raised by Senator Scott. We agree that, pending the decision of the Tariff Board, this worthwhile bounty should be continued for the benefit of the industry and for the ultimate benefit of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1169

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1965

In Committee.

Consideration resumed (vide page 1 1 58). The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I spared the Senate a contribution to the second reading debate last evening because contrary to what the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson), for whom we have a great affection, said in his reply the submission of a complicated measure of this sort to us with so little opportunity to discuss it is an affront to one’s intelligence. It is a complete debasement of Parliament. It does complete injustice to the purpose of the policy of improving, 1 believe on a proper basis, our television industry. It does complete injustice to those who are prepared to put their enterprise and capital into the proper development of that policy. All those considerations ought to be taken into account after honorable senators have had a proper opportunity of studying this very complicated Bill and its provisions and then, as an act of judgment, expressed a viewpoint as to their wisdom.

I wish the Minister would explain to me where we get a basis of differential in clause 7, proposed new section 91 (2.) where “ prescribed interest in a licence “ is defined. Then, paragraph (c) of subsection (2.) mentions control of 5 per centum of the maximum number of votes that could be cast at a poll of a general meeting of a company holding the licence. The differential is between that 5 per cent, as the criterion of what I call monopoly control and the 15 per cent, that is referred to in subsequent provisions of the Bill.

I now refer to proposed new section 92b. Tempers will be tested before we tease this one out. Nobody understands it. I say with great politeness whilst refusing to pay compliments to anyone that nobody in this chamber has the faintest idea of what we are being asked to pass. We should put up the best test we can to see whether the Minister and his advisers can explain these provisions. Proposed new section 91 proposes a rigid definition of the words “prescribed interest “. AsI understand it, with certain loopholes to whichI will come to, proposed new section 92 makes it an offence punishable by a penalty of £1,000 and £100 for every day on which the contravention continues, if any person has a prescribed interest in each of three or more licences; or one or two or more licences for stations in a Territory; or one of two or more licences for stations in a capital city.

I want to get my point established. Proposed new section 91 (2.) creates a new rigid definition of what is a “ prescrbed interest “. One of the criteria for that prescribed interest is a 5 per cent, control. But, coming to proposed new section 92b (l.)(a) which deals with the meaning of control of a company, we find that it is provided - (1.) For the purposes of this Division, a person who -

  1. is in a position to exercise control of more than fifteen per centum of the maximum number of votes that could be cast at a poll . . . shall be deemed . . . to be in a position to exercise control of that company . . .

What I want to know is: What is the justfication for the differential between the criterion of 5 per cent, in proposed new section 91 (2.) (c) and the criterion of 15 per cent, in proposed new section 92b (l.)(a)?

Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I agree with the submissions that have been put by Senator Wright. I expressed my views in my speech in the second reading debate last night, when I said that the manner in which this important legislation is hurriedly presented to this Parliament at the death of the sessional period is most unsatisfactory. I am pleased that Senator Wright has drawn the attention of the Minister and the relevant Department to this very provision, because I had intended during the course of the debate in Committee to do likewise. At this stage, on behalf of the Opposition I refer to clause 7, which reads in part -

Division 3 of Part IV. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division inserted in its stead: -

” (6.) In this section, ‘ the prescribed date ‘ means the seventeenth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-four. and I move -

In sub-section (6.) of proposed section 92, leave out “ seventeenth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-four”, insert “ eighth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixty “.

Before I address my remarks to the amendment-

Senator Anderson:

– Is the amendment circulated?

Senator McKenna:

– It is available.

Senator Anderson:

– I want the amendment to be available to honorable senators.

Senator McCLELLAND:

– While the amendment is being circulated, might I say, in addressing myself to the matter that I raised in my speech on the second reading of this Bill and to which Senator Wright has just adverted, that the Minister used as an excuse last night in regard to this matter that, in any event, a statement by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) was presented outside this Parliament on 17th December last and that this legislation was introduced in another chamber a week ago. Nonetheless, despite these matters, the members of the Committee have not been able to direct their complete attention to the complex nature of these provisions. Indeed, after the legislation had been introduced into another place, some five amendments were moved by the Postmaster-General, thereby indicating that, after he had introduced the legislation, he and his advisers had had a second look at thematter. Certainly, this is the type of bill to the consideration of which a day could well be devoted in Committee. I say in all fairness that the Postmaster-General obviously has tried to cover every conceivable situation that might arise. I ask the Minister for

Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson), who is in charge of the Bill in this chamber, why the Government has found it necessary completely to rewrite Division 3 of Part IV of the principal Act as set out in clause 7 of the Bill. The Minister said last night in reply to Senator Cohen that the acquisition of shares in United Telecasters Sydney Ltd. by the Ansett company, Austarama Television Pty. Ltd., was not responsible for the introduction of these amendments. If that is so, I should like the Minister to tell us who has been involved in a breach of the Government’s policy. The PostmasterGeneral said in his second reading speech -

The 1960 amendments represented a sincere endeavour on the part of the Government to ensure that its policy in respect of the ownership and control df television stations would not be frustrated.

Being frank, he said - 1 must, however, be frank and say that our expectations in this regard have not been completely realised.

I now ask the Minister for Customs and Excise to be a little more frank than the Postmaster-General has been and to tell us the real facts by naming those who are considered to be the real culprits in this matter.

Last night Senator Webster said that the Ansett company misses out under this legislation because the company, as it exists at present, has not the facilities of a network with which to compete against the Packer, Murdoch, Fairfax and Williams networks. No doubt that is so at this stage. Certainly all the benefits that have been won by the newspaper magnates who control this monopoly will be retained under this legislation. In any event, Ansett’s problems regarding networks can certainly be corrected by amendments to the regulations.

Senator Wright:

– In what respect is the honorable senator referring to the regulations? The provisions of the bill cover the regulation of programmes, do they not?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Yes. As the Minister has admitted, there has been a monopolisation of programmes in recent times and it has been brought about principally by the operation of networks.

Senator Wright:

– What is this monopolisation of programmes? A man buys a programme and he expects to control it.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Yes. These programmes are distributed throughout a network. They can be purchased at a cheaper price by reason of the fact that the cost of the purchase can be spread throughout all the stations operated by the network. If a man owns only one station, then he has to bear the whole cost of the programme. This is one matter in relation to which those who come into the industry in the future will be at a disadvantage in competing against those who at present control the industry.

Senator Hannan:

– Is not the price charged related to the viewing audiences, regardless of whether the material is being distributed throughout the network?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– That may be so.

Senator Hannan:

– I am merely asking the question; I am not arguing.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– That may be so, but the fact remains that the cost of a programme can be distributed throughout the whole of the network involved. However, I refer particularly to the amendment which I have moved and which is designed to make the provisions of the Bill retrospective. The Postmaster-General has taken action to close the loopholes that have existed in the 1960 legislation, but he has closed them only as from 17th December 1964. As I said at the second reading stage and as my colleague Senator Cohen pointed out last night, many companies and many people seem to have got away with a great number of things which, as the Minister rightly pointed out, although they were not in breach of the law, because it was bad law, certainly were in breach of the Government’s policy. As I said, that has been admitted by the Minister and by his advisers - that is, the members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board - in their reports.

We contend that the 1960 legislation was designed to curb practices that this Bill has been designed to curb and that therefore it should be made to operate retrospectively to rope in everybody who has operated in this important industry in the past and who will continue to operate in it or who will have acquired a licence after 17th December 1964 and have established a business for the first time in competition with the various networks. The Postmaster-General himself gave some consideration to retrospectivity, as he indicated in his second reading speech. He said that the provisions of the legislation were fairly complex and could best be dealt with at the Committee stage. He then went on to outline the broad import of those provisions and pointed out that he had come to the conclusion that there would be serious difficulties in certain cases in making them retrospective. This is a pertinent question to ask: With whom would those serious difficulties arise? Would they arise in the administration of the Act? Would they arise in relation to the members of the general public? Would they arise in relation to the monopoly controllers of this industry, for want of a better term? The Postmaster-General said in his second reading speech -

Apart from being required to divest themselves of interests held directly in licensee companies, the persons and companies involved would, in many instances, be required to divest themselves of shareholdings in companies other than licensee companies. The acquisition of these interests may have come about in the normal course of business and involve indirect interests in television companies which, although not significent in terms of the existing legislation, might well become significant under the new provisions. For this reason, as indicated in my statement of 17th December 1964, it is proposed that no shareholding arrangement existing as at that date will be invalidated by the new provisions or will constitute an offence against the Act as amended. However, if a person or company who has acquired excess interests prior to 17th December 1964 subsequently divests himself or itself of such interests, he or it will not thereafter be entitled to recapture those excess holdings, although he or it will be able to participate in any new issues of shares which may be made.

There seems to be some inconsistency there, because the Minister stated that, if a man had excess interests in a company prior to 1 7th December and has disposed of those interests, under the terms of this legislation he will not be entitled to recover them. But if by the holding of his shares in the company he obtains a new issue of shares which may be made in the future, he is entitled to take that issue.

The Opposition believes that this Bill is designed to curb undesirable activities that have occurred in the past, but we also believe that the undesirable activities in breach of Government policy that have occurred in the past should be caught up in a general roping in provision. Difficulties may be involved in the inclusion of such a pro vision, but as Senator Cohen suggested last evening - and I think Senator Webster also made the suggestion - a phasing out clause could well be included in the Bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

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

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Senator McClelland has taken the debate a further stage as to the future operations of this measure. I suggest that his purpose and mine are one and that the doubt as to the probable efficacy of the measure for its proper purpose stems from the approach of the Parliamentary Draftsman. He seems to have taken a rigid and obsessional interest in the structure of companies rather than in the subject matter of this Bill - television licences. Licences to operate commercial television stations are granted by a body in the nature of a governmental monopoly. As the Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television pointed out, a television licence is a peculiar kind of properly. It is not like a farm that is worked and improved for 20 years. It is not like a motor car that anybody can purchase or like a loaf of bread that anybody can buy from a shop. It is a governmental licence.

For the Government to induce applicants to takeout licences and maintain improving businesses - improving from the point of view of their profitability and improving correspondingly from the point of view of the standard of service they give the listening public - it should impose very strict conditions upon their issue. As the Select Committee pointed out, we constituted the Australian Broadcasting Control Board with that very function and legislated against a licence being issued except on the recommendation of the Board after a public inquiry. The Board has power to make rules that are binding on every applicant and which can be written as conditions on a licence. The Board has never imposed a condition on a licence, but that is the only just way in which to control capital investment in these Government licences.

Television licences are not interminable. To give proper security for foundation and establishment Parliament wisely provided that the first grant should be for five years and that thereafter licences should be annual. The Select Committee recomended that renewals should be at three year intervals and that each renewal should be subject to a public inquiry if any section of the listening public objected to renewal or if the Government of the day through the Postmaster-General raised any question as to renewal. The proposed new section 91 (8.) of the Act states -

For the purposes of this Division, a licence granted by way of renewal of a licence shall be deemed to be a continuation of the firstmentioned licence.

My mind is prompted to absorb from that section the meaning that any licence that had its origin before a prescribed date should enjoy all the immunity that originated in a licence before that prescribed date and it should be ignored that after the expiration of a five year period a renewal is a renewal, lt is very difficult to understand. The gods alone will divine what interpretation will be placed upon this section by the High Court. A licence granted by way of renewal shall be deemed to be a continuation of the first licence.

Senator Cormack:

– The first mentioned licence.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, the firstmentioned licence. The licence is mentioned previously in the clause. Section 80, of the Act which makes mystery even more mysterious, provides -

A reference in this Part to the renewal of a licence in respect of a commercial broadcasting station or a commerical television station shall be read as a reference to the grant of a licence in respect of that station to commence on the day after the date of expiration of the first-mentioned licence or on the day after the expiration of the licence granted upon a previous renewal of the first-mentioned licence.

The time allowed by the Government, to which this Parliament is abjectly subservient, precludes anybody of respect pretending to form an opinion on a matter of this nature. The first impulse in my mind is to read section 80 as indicating that renewals are separate in their existence from licences which existed before the renewal.

Senator Cohen:

– And commencing after the previous licence has expired.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Quite so. The original section made it quite clear that, on renewal, the licensee had his rights but so also did the Postmaster-General, representing the public. The renewal was not auto matic in any sense. I want to know what sort of Government policy it is that thinks it essential to restrict the shareholding or voting interests in company licensees applying for renewal when, at the same time, the Government says: “ We yield in the enforcement of the conditions of a licence simply because before a prescribed date somebody defeated our legislation “. I do not know who the “ somebody “ is. I shall be probing that matter for greater particulars before the morning is out. What sort of Government policy is it that requires as an essential part of television control a restriction or limitation on particular persons in a plurality of licences? It is known that renewals of the licences must be granted from time to time. 1 would hope for renewal intervals of three years, because I recognise that a commercial interest in companies is the only means of properly developing the television industry.

This monkeying business by politicians in so called control of companies is abhorrent to me. That is why I want to know where the virtue is in 5 per cent, as a criterion of control and where the virtue is in 15 per cent, as a differential of control. What sort of Government policy is it that says we want 5 per cent, control or 15 per cent, control? Realising that in 1970, let us say, every company that now owns a licence will have to justify a renewal, the Government introduces a provision here that a licence granted by way of renewal shall be deemed to be a continuation of the first licence. Then, it seems to me, it is said that anybody who has a shareholding or a company structure that took shape before 17th December 1964 shall enjoy immunity from all of these restrictions. I hope that our stupidity will be not such as to increase the number of licences in any of the capital cities over and above the number already issued. I think that we have gone dangerously close to degrading the quality that we can expect by issuing more than two licences in any one capital city. But what future licences, to which the whole of this facade of restrictive apparatus can apply, are to come into existence? I see some significance in proposed sub-section (8.). I shall not go on at this stage of my remarks to consider proviso (ii) of proposed section 92 (3)(a), but if that is considered, I think it may be seen to viscerate the whole of the sub-section.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– Senator Wright has said that this is a very complicated and complex piece of legislation. We all agree with him on that point. Indeed, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) himself made that point in his second reading speech. We are taking the Bill as a whole. Having regard to the fact that I am handling a most complicated Bill for a Minister whom .1 represent, it is essential that we deal with it in an orderly way, otherwise we shall get ourselves into a most difficult situation. The situation will be difficult for the Minister, who has to rely, very obviously, on advice that is given to him in connection with particular matters that are raised. I suggest that we deal with the Bill in a progressive way. If any honorable senator has a particular point to raise on a clause, let us try to dispose of that before we proceed to consider other matters. 1 shall try to have the answer supplied. I am sure that we are at one in that respect.

Senator Wright raised a question in relation to proposed section 91 (2.) (c). The information I have is that this provision covers a person in a position to control more than 5 per cent, of the voting rights of a licensee company. In this test the voting rights in the licensee company are determined according to the provisions of the articles of association. This test is designed to be applied in respect of any question which might arise for determination by shareholders, whether a particular class of shareholder has full voting rights or can vote only on certain questions. If there are preference shareholders in the company who are entitled to vote only on certain matters, it will be necessary, in addition to applying the test to ordinary shareholders by themselves, to make a separate test on the basis that both ordinary and preference shareholders would be entitled to vote. Any person in a position to exercise more than 5 per cent, of the votes in a licensee company, after taking into account the voting rights exercisable with respect to each particular question which might arise, would be taken to have a prescribed interest within the meaning of proposed section 91 (2.) (c).

Senator Wright:

– I suggest that if the Minister wishes to take the Bill clause by clause, the Committee should resolve to consider the Bill clause by clause. The Bill is now being considered as a whole.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I think that there is a lot of good sense in that. The amendment proposed by Senator McClelland is to clause 7. We could let that lie.

Senator McClelland:

– We are quite happy to deal with the Bill clause by clause.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Otherwise it will be very difficult to have an orderly debate. If any matter arises in relation to any clause before clause 6, which is the one to which Senator Wright alluded, we might dispose of it first.

Senator Webster:

– Will the Minister concisely state his point on that?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN__ Apparently there is no way in which we can recommit the Bill now, because we are in Committee and there is an amendment before the Committee.

Senator Wright:

– A spirit of co-operation is prevailing in the chamber. I suggest that the difficulty will be overcome if each senator, when asking for the call, will indicate on what clause he wishes to speak. I should like to make some comments on what the Minister has said about the 5 per cent, provision, if he does not wish to expound further.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I have something further to say. I accept your ruling, Mr. Temporary Chairman. I think that with a little co-operation we can meet the situation. Senator Wright moved on to proposed section 91 (2.). 1 presume, therefore, that there are no provisions prior to that which excite the interest of any senator. For the purpose of getting forward movement, we shall work on that basis for a start. The Bill does not provide that a prescribed interest of 5 per cent, shareholding constitutes control. The policy is that a company may have any interest in two stations but may have only a minor interest up to 5 per cent, in a third. The 15 per cent, provision is quite separate and is a test for control through a chain of companies. This relates to the test for control where a company has an interest in another company. Thus, if company A has a 6 per cent, interest in a licensee company, that is, a prescribed interest, and company B has a 16’ per cent, interest in Company A, company B is deemed to control company A and, therefore, to have a prescribed interest in the licensee company. That is the information that I have been given in relation to that particular matter. I am afraid that there is not much more that I can say about it.

The proposed provisions go much further than the existing legislation. The basis of the existing provision is that a person is regarded as being in a position to control a company if he is in a position to exercise control of more than 15 per cent, of the voting rights of that company. In the proposed legislation the critical percentage is 5 per cent. This means that no person may have an interest in excess of 5 per cent, in more than two stations. The definition of “ interest “ will now extend to financial interest in the widest sense as well as to voting rights. That is the important thing. It does not refer only to share capital. A person or a company may still hold up to 100 per cent, interest in two stations. Interest in any additional station is restricted to 5 per cent. That is one point I want to make in relation to this clause.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Before we proceed any further, let me point out that we have before us a proposed amendment. I think the debate must be concentrated on that amendment. When that is disposed of, I think we can adopt Senator Wright’s suggestion. If any honorable senator wants to speak to any particular clause he should seek the call but if somebody wants to speak on an earlier clause he should stand up and say so. The amendment before the Committee is, in sub-section (6.) of proposed section 92, to leave out “ seventeenth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and sixty four “, and insert “ eighth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and sixty “. If we clear this amendment first, we then will be able to go ahead on the lines suggested by Senator Wright.

Senator McClelland:

– If it is the wish of the Committee and if it will facilitate the Committee’s deliberations, I am prepared to ask for leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage, on the understanding that I will move it at a later stage.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Amendment withdrawn.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- The way now being cleared for an orderly debate, I want to bring the Committee’s mind back to what the Minister has told us. He said that 5 per cent, of voting rights is one of the criteria for a prescribed interest. Let me relate that to proposed section 92. If anyone has a prescribed interest in three or more licences he is guilty of an offence punishable by a penalty of £1,000 and a daily continuing penalty of £100. Let us consider the 5 per cent, limit. Is this the Parliament’s indication of a monopoly control or, if you like, a control against the public interest, in a third company? What of it? That may be quite valid in respect of metropolitan and some country companies, but I believe that before ten years have passed 80 per cent, of the country television companies will be seeking capital and the great patriarch of the district, who will endow a university and who will be appealed to in the spirit of our erstwhile colleague, Senator Vincent, to induce a little drama, a little history, a little literature and a little education into television programmes, will then want the Goulburn station, the Ballarat station and other provincial stations to make his business pay. Of course he will. When we get proper licensees - it is the job of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to sort out proper licensees - we will want them to take interests in ten television companies and maintain a network which will show programmes of a proper standard.

What rabid nonsense is this talk of 5 per cent, control. To whom did the idea occur? On this Tuesday morning I appeal, perhaps in vain, to the clarity of the income tax legislation to remove the thicket surrounding the Bill now before us relating to television. It will be remembered that in the income tax legislation the legislature put forward a criterion for the continuity of a company whose losses entitle it to inclusion in the seven year bracket of losses for income tax deduction purposes. In the past, it was deemed fit to say that if you maintained a beneficial interest in shares carrying 15 per cent, of voting rights, that was all right. But this Government increased its information, if not its wisdom, last November and wrote in other criteria. Those were, first, the right to exercise not less than 40 per cent, of voting power; secondly, the right to at least 40 per cent, of the dividends of the company; thirdly, in the event of the company being wound up, a right to 40 per cent, of any distributions of capital; and fourthly, in the event of a reduction of capital of the company, a right to 40 per cent, of any distributions by way of capital.

When that legislation was harrowed through the Parliament no-one bothered to consider it. But that was the thinking of the Government of the day as to the proper criteria for the continuity of companies for the purposes of entitling them to deduct losses from income tax. What is wrong with that point of view when we are considering control? That is what we are considering when we have in mind the validity of deduction of losses for income tax purposes. Why do we not do that instead of spinning this cobweb of what we call prescribed interest, for which there is no precedent in any statute of any English speaking Parliament?

If we are not to go through the company structure with some pretence of trying to ascertain the rights, the voting power, the dividends, the distributions on winding up and the distributions of capital on the reduction of capital, why do we not prescribe the form of articles which must be adopted by every applicant company? The articles would set out the rights of any shareholder in the company. Who will say that any shareholder who has more than a 5 per cent, interest in any company, especially a metropolitan company, is the big bad wolf whose monopoly control should be excised after he has taken a larger interest than that in two companies?

I realise that the matter is most difficult for the Minister as well as for ourselves. I speak in this vein only because I think that the Parliament is a place where, at least at the present time, we should not abandon our right to criticism, because our criticism will develop opinion here and elsewhere. When the High Court finally decides that the whole of this apparatus is unconstitutional, which I think is probable, the legislation will come back to us again and these submissions might then be borne in mind. That is all I wish to say about this clause.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– Senator Wright has made a verbal assault on the provision that a person has a prescribed interest in a licence if, in various circumstances, he controls more that 5 per cent, of the interest in the company. The honorable senator questioned the substance of the Government’s intentions and in fact, directed his mind virtually to the foundation stone of the legislation. Therefore I cannot argue this matter with him nor would he wish me to do so. It is the Government’s view that this percentage is proper as it relates to the third company and it must be considered in that light. It is true that Senator Wright mentioned this but he based his argument as though this matter were in isolation. It is not in isolation. It merely acts as test one. As I said before he could have up to 100 per cent, of the holding in two licences.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) does not seek to hide anything in this connection; in fact he refers to it in his second reading speech. But in the light of experience since the 1960 legislation was passed, it has been decided that this procedure is necessary to get results so that no licensee will hold more than two licences. Senator Wright has put a forceful argument but actually he is arguing against the policy decision that is inherent in the Bill.

Senator Wright:

– The basis of it.

Senator ANDERSON:

– It is an argument which very properly could have been directed in the second reading stage. I do not object to having it put now but there is nothing 1 can add in the Committee stage in rebuttal of or in response to the honorable senator’s argument because this matter is fundamental to the proposal.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I notice that my restraint has caused all the difficulties in the Committee stage so far. I did not want to call on the Bill clause by clause lest that irritate members of the Committee. The last observation of the Minister for Customs and Excise was that my argument might well have been directed in the second reading stage. Again I hearken to the statement by the Minister in his second reading speech that this was a committee Bill and I shall proceed with restraint to raise a few matters in Committee.

I refer to proposed new section 91 (8.) and briefly recapitulate what I said before we decided on an orderly progress through this Bill. If one compares this provision with section 80 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, it seems to cut across the interpretation of a renewal or a separate licence. The proposed new sub-section states -

For the purposes of this Division, a licence granted by way of renewal of a licence shall be deemed to be a continuation of the first-mentioned licence.

The purpose of this Division is the application of these restrictive provisions - I will nol say “ retrospective application “ because that is an inappropriate term here - to transactions of a licensee company by virtue of transactions that ante-dated December 1964. lt seems to me that the effect of proposed new sub-section (8.) is to permit a licence that had its origin at some date before December 1964, whenever renewed, to enjoy the immunities that the Minister said lay in the weaknesses of the previous legislation and to escape the restrictive provisions that are being introduced in this Bill. If that is the position, it is terribly important from the point of view of efficacy of Government policy because most of me licences of any material consequence that could be affected by this legislation were issued before December 1964. It seems to me therefore that proposed new subsection (8.) requires explanation.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– My explanatory note is most uninformative. lt states that the proposed new sub-section replaces section 91 (4.) of the Broadcasting and Television Act. That does not help us nor does it help to answer the argument put by Senator Wright. I am told that the proposed new sub-section repeats section 91 (4.). This is a machinery provision for the purposes of section 92h. which refers to the currency of licences. Section 80 of the Act to which Senator Wright referred makes it clear that the renewal is effected by way of the granting of a new licence. That was the point to which I think Senator Wright directed his argument. This has always been done in that way under the existing Act. Section 80 makes it clear that the renewal is effected by way of the grant of a new licence. The proposed new section merely repeats what is contained in the existing section 91 (4.).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I pass by the submission by the Minister for Customs and Excise because it does not help me but I do not wish to enter into endless discussion. I have made my point. I turn now to proposed new section 92 (3.). In order to get the drift of the proposed new sub-section one has to turn to proposed new section 92 (1 .) which provides that -

Subject to this section, a person contravenes this section if, and so long as, he has a prescribed interest in -

each of three or more licences;

I do not need to read the whole of the proposed new section. Proposed new section 92 (2.) imposes a continuous penalty and under 92(3.) -

A person shall not be taken to be in contravention of this section in relation to any licences by reason only of one or more of the following: -

the holding by him of interests in any of the companies holding the licences, being interests of which he became the holder before the prescribed date, or other circumstances that came into existence before the prescribed date, where -

on or after the prescribed date action has been taken which, if it had been taken before the prescribed date, would have caused the holding of those interests or the existence of those other circumstances not to result in such a contravention.

Such a contravention, I believe, is in the preceding paragraph (i) which states -

  1. the holding of those interests or the existence of those circumstances did not, immediately before the prescribed date, result in a contravention by that person of section ninety-two of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942- 1964;

I shall call it the old Act. It seems to me that this escape provision in sub-section (3.) completely excludes from the operation of the penalties given in proposed new section 92(1.) and (2.) any person who has gained a prescribed interest if the holding of that interest had not before December 1964 constituted a contravention of the old Act. What is the purpose of the new provision if a company can continue to hold interests the acquisition of which before December 1964 contravened the Government’s purpose? Everybody seems to be agreed that hardly any more television licences will be issued in this country.

Senator Hannan:

– There will be more dealings in shares. Obviously the purpose is to prevent this position from arising in the future. If an interest was lawful when it was acquired, it will not be disturbed, but we will not tolerate that position in future in other cases.

Senator Cohen:

– 1 think sub-clause (3.) (a) suggests that the matter can be put right even after the prescribed date, if it would not have been unlawful to put it right before the prescribed date.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That is why I read sub-clause (2.) before sub-clause (1.), but I was pausing to give the thought that was due to Senator Hannan’s valuable interjection.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I have quite a lot of notes on this matter and, as Senator Wright has stated a case, I think that, for the record, they should be recorded in “ Hansard “. I might say that I am grateful for Senator Hannan’s interjection, also. Section 92 (3.) provides that a person shall not contravene Section 92 (1.) by reason of -

  1. the holding of interests in licensee companies which holdings were acquired prior to 17th December, 1964, if these holdings did not result in a contravention of the existing provisions of Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1964, or in respect of which holdings, action has been taken after that date which would not have resulted in a contravention of existing Section 92 if such action had been taken prior to that date. The sub-section also applies even if there is an increase in the proportion of the interests held by the paying off of loans or the redemption of a class of shares.
  2. the holding of interests acquired after 17th December, 1964, if the Minister has certified in writing that the acquisition of the interests has been approved by him for the purposes of this Act as part of a scheme of re-arrangement, consistent with the prohibitions that were contained in Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1964, of matters resulting through a transaction entered into before 17th December, 1964;
  3. an allotment or issue of shares or debentures to a person after 17th December, 1964, in accordance with rights enjoyed by him in common with the other holders of the particular type of shares or debentures, where the original holdings, to which the rights apply, were acquired before that date. This provision permits a person to accept a new issue of shares or debentures in respect of holdings which he acquired prior to 17th December, 1964. Such a new issue would not result normally in any increase in the percentage holdings of the person concerned but if it did, because of say, a class of shareholder or debenture holder not being entitled to participate in the new issue, this is permissible.

Here we come to the more direct provisions. My notes continue -

The provisions of section 92 (3.) have the effect that the new provisions of Division 3 of Part IV of the Act will not apply retrospectively to interests acquired in licensee companies prior to 17th December 1964, which were not in contravention of the existing provisions of the Act. There would bc serious difficulties in making the provisions of the Bill apply retrospectively, as apart from being required to divest themselves of interests held directly in licensee companies, the persons (including companies) involved would in many instances be required to divest themselves of shareholding interests in companies other than licensee companies where the acquisition of those interests had involved indirect interests in television companies which, though not significant in terms of the existing legislation, would become significant under the new provisions, and even though these interests were acquired in the normal course of business.

In all the circumstances, 1 think that the purpose of this provision, as Senator Hannan said, is simply to protect the position in future and, at the same time, to give some reasonable protection in regard to things done in good faith prior to the prescribed date.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I could understand that if, in proposed section 92 (3.) (a) (ii), instead of the words “ such a contravention “ - which means a contravention of the old Act - the draftsman had used the words “ would not result in a contravention of this Act”. Sub-paragraph (ii) seems to enable anybody to take action after the prescribed date which, if it had been taken before that date, would have caused the holding not to be in contravention of the old Act. It seems to me that what is intended is that it should not be in contravention of the new Act. What is contemplated is that after December 1964 a company which has taken action against the policy of the Government - but not the statute - before December 1964, can bring itself into conformity with the Act by making the transaction adjust itself to the requirements of the Act. If the action did not constitute a contravention of this Act, I think the intention is that it should thereby escape. But to me the provision - as I have read it and as I still read it, as printed - is most difficult. Let me go on to paragraph (b) for the sake of further illustration. Its effect is that a person shall not be taken to be in contravention of the section by reason of- the holding by him of interests in any nl’ the companies holding the licences, being interests of which he became the holder on or after the prescribed date, if the Minister has certified in writing that the acquisition of the interests has been approved by him for the purposes of this sub-section as part of the carrying out of a scheme for the re-arrangement, consistently with the prohibitions that were contained in section ninety-two of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1964, of matters resulting from a transaction entered into before the prescribed date;

Here we have the Minister, by writing under his hand, giving approval to a company rearrangement. I would have thought that to be territory which any prudent Minister would not touch with a 40-foot pole. Who is the Minister to be giving dispensation, by approval in writing, of a re-arrangement not in conformity with any law, but in accordance with his judgment? I simply content myself with saying that this is most undesirable.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– It is, of course, a very difficult clause which we are considering, and the circumstances under which we consider it make it even more difficult for honorable senators to be able properly to bring their minds to bear on it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is the honorable senator speaking to the proposed section 92 (3.)?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. It seems to me that the effect of proposed section 92 (3.) (a) is that it protects persons who otherwise would be in contravention of the new Act by holding an interest in excess of what is permitted. If those persons held such interest before the prescribed date, they would not be in contravention of the Act as it now stands. But it goes further than that. It seems to protect persons who were actually in contravention of the Act. It protects them if on or after the prescribed date action has been taken which, if it had been taken before the prescribed date, would have caused the holding of those interests or the existence of those other circumstances not to result in such a contravention. If a person held interests in contravention of the existing Act and if, after the prescribed date - and this may be in the future - he takes action which, had it been taken previously, would have brought him within the limits, does this mean there would be no contravention? Could he still hold those interests under the new Act?

This provision seems to protect not only those who were acting consistently with the existing Act, but also those who were acting in contravention of it. If that is a proper reading of it, it is a fantastic position. What proper justification can there be for extending protection to persons who were in contravention of the present Act? The provision in the Bill is in terms which allow them to take action on or after the prescribed date.

Senator Wright:

– Does not the provision refer to those who were not in contravention of the present Act?

Senator MURPHY:

– That is what is prescribed in proposed section 92 (3.) (i). But sub-paragraph (ii) states -

On or after the prescribed date action has been taken which, if it had been taken before the prescribed date, would have caused the holding of those interests or the existence of those other circumstances not to result in such a contravention;

Senator Wright:

– That refers to the present Act.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, but does that not imply that there was a contravention and that action, if it is taken after the prescribed date, renders it not a contravention? The provision seems to protect those who were actually in contravention.

Senator Cohen:

– Apart from the remedial action.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. It seems to protect even those who did not take remedial action before the prescribed date. They were clearly, as at the prescribed date, in contravention of the existing Act. It is enough for them to say, in effect, that they will take action at some time in the future, provided that action is such that had it been taken before the prescribed date they would not have been in contravention.

Senator Wright:

– It brings them into conformity with the present Act, not with the new Act.

Senator MURPHY:

– Of course. I am subject to correction by the Minister, but it seems to protect not only persons who are acting in accordance with the present Act, but also those who were acting in breach of the present Act by holding interests in excess of what was permitted. It is enough for them to say: “ Well, we will now take action which will bring us within the limits of the present Act.” In other words, it is protecting not only those observing the present law, but also those who are breaking the present law. They can take action at any time in the future, on or after the prescribed date.

Senator Wright:

– Yes.

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator Wright seems to agree with what I am suggesting. If it is correct - as I have said, it is a complicated Bill and we have not been given much opportunity to look at it carefully - it is an extraordinary proposition. Further, I think it would be wrong to describe this Bill as being retrospective if it were not for the existence of the protective clauses. It is not a true retrospective Bill when it applies to future circumstances. It provides for protection of the public interests because it says that in the future persons should not hold more than certain interests in licences. Because the conditions for holding licences are changed, that does not mean that the Bill is retrospective. An old instance of this was when the law was changed and it was provided that a convicted felon could not be the licensee of a hotel. It was said that that was not a case of retrospectivity at all. The law was being applied to the future situation.

It is unfortunate for persons who might not conform to the new policy of the law, but it is not retrospective. It is not making illegal what has been done before. In effect, the legislature is saying: “ In the future, this is to be the law.” It is extraordinary that here, over almost the whole field, the private interest of persons who have these holdings is to prevail against the public interest. The object of this measure is to protect the public interest by putting a limitation upon the interests of private persons and companies.

Senator Wright:

– It would not be so bad except for the provisions of proposed section 91 (8.). If you were assured that the authority regarding unrestricted renewals brought the provisions into conformity with the present law, it would be a different matter.

Senator MURPHY:

– That would be so. Obviously what ought to exist instead of this provision is a provision that persons shall be given a period of time in which to divest themselves of interests which they might have. The holding of interests during that period of divesting would not be ah offence. In this way private persons would be able to dispose of their interests and the public welfare would be served. As it is, the plain object of this enactment is being defeated by the protection which is being extended to private persons and corporations.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- I refer to proposed section 92 (3.) (a) (ii). I must confess that the wording of this subparagraph is such as to cause great difficulty in understanding it. In view of what has been said by Senator Murphy and Senator Wright, I must concede that I am confused as to what is the precise meaning of the provision. Despite what Senator Murphy said, it is true that the legislation is retrospective to 17th December of last year. On that date the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) issued a statement which was intended to warn people who might, perhaps, be gathering up these shares that the Government intended to take action. I think it is true to say that to some extent it is retrospective.

As I understand it the purpose of this provision - and I would like the Minister to explain to me whether this is in fact so - would appear to be to allow people to put their house in order; to rearrange their shareholdings so that they will not be in breach of the new legislation. But in view of the strange use of words in proposed new section 92 (3.) (a), it is very difficult to see how that is in fact brought about. It may very well be that it is giving these people the licence, permission or approval to come back and put their house in order in the terms existing prior to this legislation. That is the difficulty which I have, and I would Like the Minister to explain that particular point to the Committee.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- I would like to follow the same theme as Senator Hannan and briefly put this argument to the Minister before he replies and ask him to direct his attention to it: If proposed new section 92(3.)(a)(ii) has the meaning that has now been suggested, what would the need for this sub-paragraph have been if it had not been intended that it should apply to people who would otherwise be in contravention of the old Act? In other words, as Senator Murphy said, there are people, not only those who may have been in conflict with Government policy but also people to whom this sub-paragraph would apply if they had not put the matter right before the prescribed date, who would have been in contravention of the Act.

Senator Mattner:

– They may have been.

Senator COHEN:

– They may have been. This provision is clearly meant to cover the case of people who may have been in contravention of the Act. What this section says to these people is: “Well, you have the opportunity to put your house in order by making legal under the new Act that which would have been illegal under the old Act. You have the chance to take the steps that you might have taken before the prescribed date to put your house in order “. If this particular provision does not deal with people who were in contravention or may have been in contravention of the old Act, what is the purpose of it?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER (New South Wales) [11.53]. - I relate my remarks to proposed new section 92 (3.) (a) (ii) also. I have listened to the remarks made by Senator Wright, Senator Cohen, Senator Murphy and Senator Hannan. I must say I am irresistibly reminded of the story, wilh which Senator Wright is familiar, of Winnie the Pooh. As Winnie the Pooh walked in the forest, with the sun shining on the snow, he was singing a little song to himself. All of a sudden, in the snow in front of him, he saw the footprints of some strange animal. He started, but he said: “ This is an occasion that calls for courage. I will follow this strange animal and see what happens “. So, he kept on walking. Then, to his complete astonishment, there were two sets of footprints. He said: “ Two strange animals “. Winnie the Pooh kept on walking. After he had walked a little further, there were three sets of footprints. He said: “Three strange animals”. Christopher Robin came out from under a tree and said: “ Winnie, Winnie. They are your own footprints.” Then Winnie the Pooh said: “I am a bear of very little brain “.

Mr. Temporary Chairman, do you think the lawyers might be doing that to us in this debate? Do you think that they might be walking around the tree and meeting up with their own arguments?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman, I want to tell the Committee a story about footprints in the snow also. A client of mine in a very backward valley in the country was to be charged with an offence. He had been waiting in trepidation, as we country folk do, not giving very much trust to the lawyers - the draftsmen of this House, anyhow. Eventually, he was put at rest when the detective came up, braced him and said: “You are Jim Smith?” He said: “Yes”. The detective said: “ I am Detective X “. The man said: “ Oh, are you? My word, I am pleased to meet you, Detective X.” The detective asked: “ Why are you pleased to meet me? I thought you would be in fear of me? “ The man replied: “ No, Detective X. Your reputation in this district is that you could not trace so-and-so elephant footprints in the snow.” If Senator Sir William Spooner does not mind, he is Detective X for the purposes of this story.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I am very grateful to Senator Sir William Spooner and to Senator Wright for the diversion. I feel that this shows that we have not lost our sense of proportion in all the hurley and burley of the consideration of technical clauses. I cannot add very much to what I have already said in relation to the provision referred to. This is not my Bill. It is the Bill of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) whom I represent in the Senate. It provides fundamentally what the PostmasterGeneral wants to do in this regard, and I think that this has been fairly clearly stated. Proposed new section 92 (3.) (a) (ii) covers, not interests acquired after the prescribed date, but only such matters as the completion of alteration of Articles of Association. That comment, together with the information I have already given in support of that section, is just about as far as I feel I am competent to go in this matter.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- Do I understand that the interpretation which the Government places upon the Bill is the one outlined by Senator Wright, Senator Murphy and Senator Cohen, and the one which I feel appears to be unarguable on the wording of the proposed new section? Do I understand that to be the case?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I feel like a person in a witness box who is having legal questions put to him. All I have said is that, as I indicated when I referred previously to this provision, the Minister is given power under this provision to have corrections made to articles of association of companies. I am not going to say any more than that. The interpretation that I gave of the particular paragraph made it quite clear, I thought. It permits a scheme of rearrangement. I think it is quite clear that it does so. There is no secrecy in that. The honorable senator is perfectly competent to interpret the action in that way. It permits the Minister, in circumstances which he considers valid, to allow the alteration of the articles of association of a company.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I do not seek to detain the Committee unnecessarily. But it occurs to me that this matter could be clarified if the Minister would select two short instances of companies which were in contravention of policy but not of the statute by any transaction that has come to notice before December 1964. We would then know what adjustment was necessary to bring them into conformity with the new Act and then be able better to apply the section to which we are addressing ourselves. As I said, I do not seek to create difficulty, and I recognise the unusual position of the Minister, who faces unique difficulties.

It is all very well for the Minister to say what the Postmaster-General wishes. A House of Parliament is getting into a very poor state indeed when, even though it thinks that legislation is misconceived, it is prepared to trundle that legislation through because of what a Minister wishes. I do not seek to raise any issue that will disturb the present atmosphere, but I. suggest that as we are dealing with complicated legislation it would be appropriate to report progress and to allow the Bill to stand over until the August sitting, as is being done with the restrictive trade practices legislation. If that were done, the Minister would have the support of everybody in this chamber in trying to mould the legislation into proper form. I venture to say that, if the functions of the Postmaster-General and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in relation to renewals were grasped, the purpose of this legislation could be achieved by introducing a very much simplified Bill.

I am watching Senator McClelland’s amendment with great interest, and not yet with the thought of rejection, unless subsection (8.) of proposed new section 91 goes out. I suggest to the Minister that, in view of the position we have reached, this Bill could well be stood over with great advantage to everybody until after the recess. I see in proposed section 91 (8.) provision for continuous life for a licence that was granted before December 1964 and therefore, perhaps, continuous immunity from these restrictive provisions. I am not altogether in favour of the basic concept of a 5 per cent, interest in more than two licensee companies as being the criterion. Therein lies my dilemma. When we consider the matter that has been raised by Senator McClelland, there will be need for quite considerable argument. If my view is correct, in proposed new section 92 (3.) (a) (ii) we are writing in a loophole for evasion. Surely it would be better to report progress and allow the bill to lie on the table until after the recess.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- In view of Senator Wright’s request for an example of contravention of the legislation, I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that only one transaction is in view - that is, the ATV transaction referred to by the Postmaster-General on 17th December last and which in fact was in breach of the existing legislation. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that for me.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I cannot acept Senator Wright’s proposal that we should report progress and that consideration of the measure should be stood over. As a matter of interest, I shall move in a moment or two that we report progress, but that will be only to enable us to introduce another bill. As Senator Hannan has said, there was a breach of the Act by John Fairfax in relation to the ATV transaction. That was before the prescribed date. Completion of the transaction would have resulted in John Fairfax being in a position to control four licensed companies, which would have been in breach of the existing law. The proposed new sub-section will enable the Postmaster-General to enter into an arrangement with the company to correct the articles of association to conform with the requirements of this legislation. That is the only instance that I know of.

Progress reported.

page 1183

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

. -I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to effect the changes in the defence forces retirement benefits scheme that were announced in the Senate on 27th April 1965. These changes are designed to alleviate the position of those pre-1959 Act entrants who have found some difficulty in meeting their contributions to the Fund, particularly when nearing the point of retirement. As the Act now stands, an increase in pension entitlement shortly before retirement, resulting from a promotion or increase in pay, may mean a high rate of fortnightly contribution for these servicemen because of the short period within which they must meet the additional cost of their share of the higher pension entitlement. The impact of such high fortnightly contributions upon pre-1959 entrants was alleviated by the provisions under which in certain circumstances, contributions may be deferred and paid in a lump sum on retirement. Nevertheless, some members have continued to experience difficulty in the latter stages of their service. Those who have joined the forces since the 1959 Act was passed do not face this difficulty because their contributions are expressed as a uniform percentage of pay throughout service.

The basis of the proposed changes is that, in future, pre-1959 Act contributors whose pension entitlements are increased will have the option of deciding not to pay additional contributions and of receiving the Commonwealth’s share of the increase in pension entitlement without making a matching contribution. Such an election will be final and, once made, the Commonwealth’s share of any further increases in pension entitlement will be granted on a non-contributory basis without, of course, the portion of the additional pension entitlement normally provided by the member’s own contributions. The amount of the non-contributory element of pension provided by the Commonwealth will represent, on the average, 77½ per cent of the increase in pension that would be available if contributions were paid by the member, the actual percentages ranging from 80 per cent, at the earlier retiring ages to 71.4 per cent, for those retiring at 60 years of age.

A pre-1959 contributor who elects not to increase his contributions and who has previously rejected portion of his total pension entitlement will retain his existing right, upon a subsequent promotion, to elect to take up some or all of that previously rejected entitlement, subject to medical examination, but it follows that in these circumstances no additional contributions will be required and that the additional benefit will be confined to the Commonwealth’s share of the previously rejected entitlement.

When deciding upon these changes, the Government recognised that for some servicemen the June 1964 pay increases had resulted in substantial increases in contributions. The Bill therefore provides that the option of electing to receive the Commonwealth’s share of an increase in pension entitlement, without making a matching contribution, will initially be available, with effect from the date immediately prior to the increase in contributions resulting from the June 1964 pay increases, for a period of three months from the commencement of the amending legislation.

In addition to this major change in the scheme, the Bill includes the following minor amendments -

  1. While there has never been a case in which an other rank invalid pensioner with 20 years’ service has had his pension suspended by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board, nevertheless, suspension is possible under the law, and the Bill provides for an amendment that will exempt the pension of such a member from the suspension provision.
  2. The Bill provides for a member who is reduced to a lower rank or mustering which places him in a lower pension entitlement category to have the same option as contributors under the Superannuation Act of continuing the higher contribution for the higher benefit or of reducing contributions to the new lower level with a refund of excess contributions in the event of an election to reduce.
  3. Upon re-engagement for a further six years’ service after an initial engagement of six years, a member other than an officer may receive an amount of £300 which is an advance payment of benefit as incentive to re-engagement. The amount is recoverable from the benefits that later become payable, except where the benefit is an invalidity pension or a widow’s pension. The Bill provides that recovery will also be waived upon the involuntary termination of service of a single member who dies in the Service or where a member is retired due to invalidity but with a degree of incapacity that is insufficient to attract a pension benefit.
  4. In order to obviate the possibility of hardship being imposed on a pensioner who is required to repay such an advance payment, the Bill amends the period prescribed for repayment from 4 months to 12 months.
  5. The Act provides for the suspension of an invalidity pension where the recipient is in employment and earning at a rate not less than two-thirds of his rate of pay at retirement. Because of changes in money values the Board has applied the provision on the basis of two-thirds of the current equivalent of pay at the date of retirement and the Bill includes a provision to validate this practice.
  6. In the event of the re-entry to the Fund of a contributor who has received a refund of contributions, the Act presently provides that he shall not be entitled to claim any further benefit in respect of his previous service. The Bill provides that this restriction shall not apply where a member is retired for medical reasons, provided the period of absence from employment is less than 12 months, and he repays the amount of the refund of contributions and any gratuity received on the earlier termination of service.

Several other proposals of the Services and the Government Members Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Committee are being considered by the Government and a further amending Bill will be introduced in the Budget session.

The Government has also decided that the existing Defence Forces Retirement Benefits legislation should be simplified by replacing the present legislation with two separate acts. One will deal solely with the scheme as it applies to the post-1959 Act entrants. The other, which will apply to pre- 1959 Act entrants, will contain much of the existing complexities in the legislation. These arise primarily because of the need to apply to those contributors both the pre-1959 provisions, in respect of the pre-1959 Act element of their total entitlement, and separate provisions in respect of subsequent entitlements. Their subsequent entitlements are based on similar principles to those in the scheme as it applies to new entrants, with modifications to take account of the different contribution’ bases. However, the necessary re-drafting will take a considerable time.

The Government is aware that the introduction of the Bill at this stage of the current sittings leaves little time for debate but it decided to proceed with the Bill after considering the effects of delaying the introduction of the amendments. The proposed changes are for the benefit of servicemen and it is clearly in their best interests that the Bill be introduced now rather than that it should be deferred until the Budget session.

As the information will be of interest to all honorable senators in connection with this Bill, I am having circulated a statement setting out the retirement benefit provisions that apply to members of the armed forces in Britain, the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, together with examples of rates of pay in the various countries. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 1185

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1965

In Committee.

Consideration resumed (vide page 1183). The Bill.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

. - 1 think the Committee is now in a position to deal with the amendment proposed by Senator McClelland. With the concurrence of the Committee, 1 ask that the honorable senator now proceed.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I have already indicated that I propose an amendment in the following terms -

In sub-section (6.) of proposed section 92, leave om “ seventeenth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-four”, insert “eighth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixty “.

Senator Wright:

– Should it be changed to 1960 or 1961?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– It is 1960, which is the date of assent to the original amendment. I have previously stated the reasons why the Opposition proposes its amendment. In short, it is intended to include a roping in provision to include all interests in the industry prior to 17th December 1964. It is obvious from the discussion that has ensued since I last spoke in this debate that quite a number of ambiguities exist in this very complex legislation. Some honorable senators have agreed that these aspects could well receive more detailed consideration.

I suggest that most, if not all, of the complex provisions of this Bill will be made more simple if the legislation is made retrospective to the original amendment in 1960. Difficulties might arise for some interests, as was pointed out by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) in his second reading speech in another place. He said that he had given consideration to making this legislation retrospective. Overall, the difficulties involved in making the prescribed date 8th June 1960 will not be as many or as great as the difficulties that obviously will be created by the legislation as it now stands.

The Opposition believes that the 1960 legislation was designed to control practices that this Bill endeavours to curb and that the present provision should apply retrospectively to rope in everyone in the industry in the past, present and future. By that means everyone concerned in the industry will be operating on an equal basis.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment proposed by Senator McClelland on behalf of the Opposition. The broad principles of the Bill have received a fairly wide coverage. The prescribed date of 17th December 1964 is a fundamental part of the legislation. It is true to say that on that date the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) stated publicly and clearly what were the intentions of the Government in this legislation. Nothing has happened since that date to alter the intentions of the Government. The Postmaster-General very properly has provided the prescribed date as 17th December 1964. I do not think one can argue that in that sense this is retrospectivity. The Postmaster-General said quite clearly in his Press statement, which had the widest possible publicity, that the Government would not permit control of more than two television stations and would bring down legislation to ensure that the intention of the 1960 legislation would be given effect. That is one proposition. The other proposition put by the Opposition in this amendment is that because the 1960 legislation did not do all of the things that it was hoped it would do, we should simply apply retrospectivity to the time when we passed the Bill in 1960. The Opposition did not oppose the 1960 legislation by voting against it in a substantive way. If the principle were applied to legislative procedure, I could think of some extraordinary consequences to the statute book over the years.

It is argued that every time we have an amendment to a substantive piece of legislation, we should go back to catch up with all the people who have been not breaking the law but acting in accordance with it as they were legally permitted to do. To argue this in the broadest possible way, we could never live with a situation in which, by an arbitrary decision of the Parliament, we went right back to 1960 to cover a position which we hoped would have been met by legislation in 1960 but which unfortunately was not. I do not think that honorable senators opposite in their hearts believe that there are equity, justice, logic and common sense in that proposition. If we are to live under a system of law and government, we can never countenance that broad principle. The practical implications of that proposition are matters upon which I could dwell. I instance the movements of shares which may have taken place and the damage that could be done, not only to the people who, it is hoped, this amendment will draw into its net, but also to the industry and to the thousands of people who have invested their savings in it. They could be affected by a tremendous movement in the shareholdings of the various television companies.

That is one argument, but I do not believe that it is the most potent and powerful argument. I believe that the strongest argument against the proposition is that the Parliament is being asked to make a provision retrospective to affect the actions of persons and companies who were in fact within the law as we enacted it. For that reason I do not think that in all conscience we could support such a proposition. In the limited time that one has in these matters, I have covered the substance of the proposed amendment. The Government is not prepared to accept it.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- I support the amendment because without it this Bill has no teeth. It is an academic exercise. It will not operate adversely to any group which has acquired controlling interests in commercial television licences, even where those interests have been acquired by flouting the Government’s policy. This Bill will do nothing to disturb the present control of the newspaper monopolies which, broadly speaking, substantially own the television stations and operate them. It will proceed on the assumption that what is done cannot be undone. In other words, we will all be left with the uncomfortable feeling that the Government’s supporters have put it over the Government, thumbed their noses at the stated Government policy and got away with it. All that this Bill does is to put the seal of approval on what has been done in the past. It leaves the controlling interests entirely unaffected and deals only with the future.

Unless the Government is prepared to face up to that central problem, this legislation, interesting and all as it is, compli cated as it is - perhaps too complicated for what it sets out to do, as Senator Wright observes - will achieve nothing without teeth, particularly in view of the revelation we have had during the debate this morning that the Bill covers not only certain persons who were in contravention of the spirit of the law before the prescribed date but also those who may have been in contravention of the letter of the law before the prescribed date. They are the people who are contemplated in proposed section 92 (3.) (a) (ii), and whom the Committee discussed not half an hour ago. Unless we recognise this reality we shall have to pass a meaningless piece of legislation, because the consolidated and entrenched interests are not going to disgorge their shareholdings. The only people therefore, who can be in contemplation under this legislation now and in the future are those who already hold substantial interests and might come into breach of the new Act by acquiring a prescribed interest in a third station, people who have two stations and are thinking of a third, or people who are not yet in the field of having substantial interests in or having substantial control over television stations. Those people who are not yet in the field in the present situation are going to be out of the field for an awfully long time. There is just not going to be any way of breaking in.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- 1 want to make only one or two comments. First, the principle that the Minister has enunciated is thoroughly sound. I hope that we shall see a more uniform observance of it by the Government. The thing that disquiets one in matters of this sort is that the Minister is to take into his ken individual dealings with re-arrangements of companies and we know that companies are probably involved in this day of big financial interests. I think that the purpose of the amendment would be better met by a small amendment to proposed section 92e. If, after the words “ a licence shall not be granted “ there were inserted the words “ or renewed “, that would eliminate all the disquiet. It would ensure that all these provisions, if they are proper provisions, would be properly applied when a renewal date arrived. Then we could act on the principle that transactions which were lawful when made would remain lawful, notwithstanding subsequent amendments, so long as they were brought into proper conformity with the new Act by the time the renewal of the licence was due for consideration.

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– Are these annual licences?

Senator WRIGHT:

– They are issued for five years in the first place and annually subsequently. However, the Select Committee recommended that subsequent renewals should be for three years. Therefore, each three years it would be practicable to consider conformity with the spirit of the Act.

I cannot forebear to say that this principle did not receive endorsement from the Government in the income tax measure in relation to little family trusts. Even though a trust was in favour of an invalid sister, if she was not immediately entitled to the income, and even if the income was only £200 a year, a confiscatory rate of 10s. in the £1 was imposed. There, as here, subversive inroads were made into the principle enunciated by the Minister by giving the Commissioner of Taxation discretion to exempt from the penalty. In the legislation now before us the Minister is taking to himself the power to exempt a company from the operation of the law if he approves any re-arrangement in accordance with proposed section 92 (3.) (b).

For those reasons I oppose the Opposition’s amendment and invite honorable senators opposite to support the proposal which I intend to advance in relation to proposed section 92e.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McClelland’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I wish to direct the Committee’s attention to an amendment to section 92c which was introduced in another place. It now stands as sub-section (2.) of proposed section 92c. To put the matter in its context I shall read the whole of the section. It provides - 92c - (1.) A person shall not be a director of two or more companies that are, between them, in a position to exercise control of three or more licences. Penalty: One hundred pounds, and Ten pounds for every day on which the offence continues. (2.) Where-

  1. a person has a prescribed interest in each of three or more licences; and
  2. by virtue of sub-section (3.) of section ninety-two of this Act, that person is not to be taken to be in contravention of that section in relation to those licences, this section does not operate to prohibit that person, or a nominee of that person, from being a director of two or more companies by reason only of the fact that those companies are, between them, in a position to exercise control of all or any of those licences. (3.) For the purposes of this section, a director shall be deemed to be a nominee of a person if that person has certified in writing that that director is a nominee of that person.

I direct attention to proposed sub-section (3.), which seems to me to be abstruse in a special degree, particularly when one bears in mind that sub-section (1.) creates an offence which is punishable by a penalty of £100 and £10 for every day on which it continues. Then you write into the same section a sub-section under which a director can be pooled on the written certification of XY. The provision is that a person shall not be a director of two or more companies. Proposed new sub-section (2.)refers to nominees. As I understand it, this is an extension of proposed new section 92c (1.). I can see that the purpose of the proposed new sub-section (3.) is to enable a person to say: “ He is my nominee “. But does not the proposed new sub-section provide that a director defendant shall be deemed to be a nominee if XY certifies in writing that he is a nominee? Does that put a director in the jaws of a very strict penalty on the written say-so of somebody who is a third party?

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Customs and Excise) [12.411. - I can offer the honorable senator this information. Proposed new sub-sections (2.) (a) and (2.) (b) of proposed new section 92c were inserted by way of amendment in another place. Proposed new subsection (3.) provides that a person shall not contravene proposed new section 92c (1.) by reason of interests held prior to 17th December 1964. The amendment ensures that the freezing provisions shall also extend to directors associated with other companies affected.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– There is a matter on which I want some information as I have not been able to resolve it in my own mind. Proposed new section 92 (3.) permits a director to be designated as a nominee. Is this exculpatory in all circumstances or is it in some circumstances inculpatory?

Senator Anderson:

– It is exculpatory.

Senator WRIGHT:

– In all circumstances?

Senator Anderson:

– Yes.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I turn now to proposed new section 92e which states -

A licence shall not be granted to a company where the circumstances are such that, upon the grant of that licence to that company, a person would be contravening section ninety-two or ninety-two c of this Act or the condition specified in the last preceding section would be contravened.

I move as an amendment -

Thai after the word “ granted “ there be inserted the words “ or renewed “.

I cannot think that this will contravene the policy of the Government in any way. I would think it was axiomatic that this was included in the policy. The proposed new section would then provide -

A licence shall not be granted or renewed to a company . . .

And then it continues as printed in the Bill. The last preceding section mentioned in the proposed new section 92e refers to nonresident shareholding. The amendment would remove any possible untoward consequences that might arise from the introduction of sub-section (8.) of proposed new section 91 which states -

For the purposes of this Division, a licence granted by way of renewal of a licence shall be deemed to be a continuation of the first-mentioned licence.

My amendment would ensure that every time a licence was granted the Australian Broadcasting Control Board would see that the licensee complied with the then existing legislation. By the same token, every time a licence was renewed, the then existing law would be automatically applied to the company seeking renewal of its licence. My amendment seeks to achieve that purpose.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. The advice I have is that proposed new section 92e already applies to granting of a licence by way of renewal pursuant to section 80. That was the point I made earlier in the debate. Proposed new section 91 (8.) does not affect that conclusion as that sub-section applies only after the grant by way of renewal and does not enable a person to get a grant contrary to section 92e. There is no point in making the proposed amendment. If the amendment were adopted, the Bill would have to go back to the House of Representatives.

Senator Wright:

– On that assurance I rest content and ask for leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I direct the Committee’s attention to clause 8 of the Bill which sets out to repeal section 105a of the principal Act relating to monopolising of television programmes. The clause provides for these provisions to be made in future by way of regulations under section 134 of the Act. In this connection I wish to raise the general question of programmes. In the Act, section 105a covers three or four pages. Under the provision of clause 8 control of the monopolising of television programmes which is now done by an Act is to be done by way of regulations. 1 hope the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Hulme) will not overlook the consideration given to this matter by the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Production for Television. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) might be able to indicate to the Committee what consideration the report of the Senate Select Committee is receiving not only by the Minister but also by the powers that be - his advisers in the industry.

I direct the attention of the Minister for Customs and Excise to an answer given by the Postmaster-General in another place on 27th April to a question that had been directed to him. That was about a fortnight before this measure was introduced in the House of Representatives. I referred to this matter in my second reading speech last night. The honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan) mentioned in another place that Channel 0 in Melbourne, an Ansett station, had given an undertaking to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board that it would provide 58 per cent, live content, and therefore 58 per cent. Australian content, in its programmes. Mr. Buchanan said that it was now barely achieving a figure of 1.5 per cent, and so was not living up to its obligations. In his reply, the Postmaster-General said - . . the matter is constantly under the inquiry and supervision of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board . . .

Might I interpolate that according to the annual reports of the Board there is certainly no supervision at all over the activities of the commercial television stations. The Postmaster-General went on to say in his reply -

  1. . and 1 hope that when other new stations in Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane come into operation . . . the new network facility will then enable the company referred to by the honorable member to carry out the obligations required of it by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

I want the Minister to tell me whether it is an expression of his opinion to say that, in order to provide a reasonable percentage of Australian content in programmes, it is absolutely essential for stations to become involved in a network of stations. Obviously that is what was implied by the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Hulme) in reply to a question asked by the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan). How are

Channel 0 and Channel 10 going to compete, in the public interest, with channels already operating under network provisions, namely, those of the Packer group, the Williams group and the Fairfax group? This is a matter that particularly concerns a family sitting before a television screen at night. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate to the Senate what the Government intends to do about carrying out the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Production for Television.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I have one specific question to ask the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson). Is section 105a the section by reason of which the High Court, in a case about 12 months ago, found the Minister’s instrument in writing, imposing conditions, to be invalid? I see that the Minister’s adviser is nodding his head, so the answer is: “ Yes “. I therefore remind the Committee of the way in which the Government is attempting to sneak this legislation through. Those who wrote the Minister’s speech for him should take some lessons in candour. In his second reading speech the Minister said -

When the 1960 legislation was introduced, it was explained that the provisions of section 105a were intended primarily to prevent the “ cornering “ of television programmes. The Government had hoped that these provisions would ensure that the ownership of programmes did not become concentrated in the hands of a few, who by means of their control over programmes, might effectively control the operations of a television station seeking to use such programmes. It was realised that unless some action was taken in this connection, the policy of the Government with respect to the control of commercial television stations might be frustrated by leaving an independent station in a position where it could not obtain, on just or reasonable terms, the television programmes required to maintain its service.

Experience has demonstrated that the provisions made in the Act in 1960 were inadequate to deal with the problems which subsequently developed.

If it is intended to be more explanatory in the next paragraph, perhaps the Minister will show where the meaning can be found. The High Court held that the effect of this provision was to give those who purchased programmes orderly marketing rights, defensible in a court of law, but subject to being controlled in the interests of the policy of the Government, so as not to become a monopoly. The Court denied that the

Minister could issue a letter to a company saying: “ You shall do this “, or “ You shall do that “. That is the kind of authoritarian edictism that erodes completely the rule of law to which the Minister properly asked us to have regard in dealing with the prescribed date. I will not sit here and describe it as honest for anyone to tell me that what I read in the Minister’s second reading speech was the reason for wanting to repeal section 105, when he knows full well that that section was the bulwark on which the High Court invalidated the principle of an edict from the Minister. I, for one, will vote for the excision of clause 8 on those grounds alone, unless it is better supported.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– Senator Wright referred to the decision of the High Court. Let us deal with the realities of the position. The Minister now proposes to meet the position by the use of regulatory power, and I point out that regulations are subject to disallowance by the Parliament. I was very interested in what Senator Wright said, but I would have thought that such a procedure would commend itself to him much more than would the procedures that were adopted . before. Senator Wright will recognise that I cannot enter into a discussion with him onwhat happened in relation to this business in the past. However, it is felt now that a more effective way to handle the situation is by use of the regulatory power. It does not at present appear that any licensee company is experiencing difficulty in obtaining programmes on reasonable terms, so that matter does not arise at the moment. We have all agreed that this is a complex piece of legislation and we know it is difficult to write into an Act of Parliament precise words to cover any situation which may arise in the future. The purpose of the proposal is to ensure that there will be no cornering or monopolising - if I may use the word - of programmes and in order to ensure that the Minister will, if necessary, issue regulations, which will be subject to disallowance by the Parliament.

Senator McClelland referred to the Senate Select Committee. I have had experience of sitting on Senate select committees and I know the very valuable work they do. We know that any government must look at the findings of such committees and weigh them in the light of its policy. The PostmasterGeneral has said that he will consider the problem of Australian content in programmes and other associated problems and that the matter will be the subject of careful scrutiny. That is about as far as I can take the point raised by Senator McClelland at the moment. In fairness to the PostmasterGeneral, let me say that he has brought forward a very comprehensive piece of legislation, designed to meet the circumstances of commercial television in Australia. I have every confidence in his ability to deal with the problem of how to ensure a greater Australian content in programmes in future. I cannot say anything other than that.

Senator Wright:

– Mr. Chairman, will you put to the Committee so much of the Bill as precedes Clause 8?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.There being no objection, that will be done.

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Monopolising of Television Programmes).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question is -

That the clause stand as printed.

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 20

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affimative.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Silting suspended from 1.5 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1191

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1185).

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– This Bill is designed to alleviate the position of persons who entered the Services before the operation of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act in 1959 and seeks to restore the proportion of pension to pay. This is understandable because of rising incomes and rising prices. No doubt this has application particularly to the increases in pay granted to members of the Defence Services in 1964. As this Bill aims to correct the position which has arisen in relation to the proportion of pension to pay, the Opposition, in this respect, does not oppose it. We see it, as the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) indicated in his second reading speech and as the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) explained in his ministerial statement in another place, as an improvement of the present position. The Minister also indicated that further legislation will be considered and that there are some recommendations in hand at the present time.

A matter which seems to me to be of importance and which will improve the present position is that the whole of the existing Act, which is very difficult to follow, will be replaced with two separate Acts. This simplification, in itself, will be very important. As I have said, Opposition members see this Bill as an improvement on the existing legislation. We see it against the background of criticism by members of the Services themselves and representations by honorable senators which have highlighted a number of anomalies in the present legislation. It has been argued in the past that this superannuation scheme cannot operate in the same way as other superannuation schemes because it provides for earlier retiring ages for its contributors than do other superannuation schemes, and because of this fact there are more complicated provisions to be set out. There is a limit to the increases and improvements in relation to entitlement to benefits which may obtain in ordinary superannuation schemes.

I come to the first consideration which I think is important. I believe that in the circumstances of the Services we should not be guided by the decision that this Act has to follow the pattern of superannuation Acts; that it should be worked on an actuarial basis; and that the scheme should in fact attempt to pay for itself. It seems to me that we should recognise that there is a special pattern of organisation of promotion and retirement in the Services and also a certain period when members might resign by reason of the nature of the Services. Because of these facts, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund ought to be redesigned and reshaped to avoid the sort of burdens that apply to contributors to ordinary superannuation schemes. We know, too, that in all States this situation has been imposed upon subscribers. It is the policy in the various States for the governments to assume responsibility for the payment of increasing amounts of subsidy to provide superannuation benefits. This has applied in my own State of South Australia, and in other States too.

While we do admit that this matter has its political side, we think there is need to take stock of the basis of the scheme and to have it examined. It might be worthwhile pointing out to the Government that a comprehensive inquiry into this scheme has not been held at any time although Sir John Allison did conduct an inquiry into it some years ago. His report was finally completed, I think, in 1959, but no member of this Parliament has been able to obtain a copy of it. I tried to get a copy, but I could not. Because there has not been a comprehensive inquiry, members of both Houses of this Parliament have not been able to analyse and decide the requirements of a bill which might be introduced to deal with this scheme. The Opposition says that this has an important side effect. Some examination or canvass ought to be made of the scope of a superannuation scheme to be applied to members of the Services.

As I said when I began my speech, this is a preliminary move towards easing burdens on those people who joined the Services before 1959 and who, in their later years in the Services, would have higher and continually increasing contributions to make to this superannuation fund. Because of this fact, the Government has provided some alleviation of the position. This action is understandable. It is a characteristic of all superannuation schemes in Australia that when wages rise the burden that is placed on the superannuation contributor becomes even greater.

One of the amendments which is proposed in this Bill is a good one. This provides that a pre-1959 entrant to the Services will have a final election or option of deciding not to pay additional contributions and of receiving the Commonwealth share of the increase in pension entitlement without making a matching contribution. This means that, if these entrants so desire, they themselves will be able to avoid making contributions towards their pension but they would not receive the additional pension which otherwise would be added upon the contribution by them of their share. As I have said, these people can elect not to pay additional contributions and they will receive an increased pension which would be equivalent to the Commonwealth’s share of the increase in contribution, but they would not have to pay a matching contribution. This would be a final election and, after they had so elected, they would have no further opportunities to decide to assume the whole of the unit value. They would have to be content to receive only the Commonwealth’s share of the increased contribution.

The Minister made the point in his second reading speech that the amount of the noncontributory element of pension provided by the Commonwealth will represent, on the average, 774 per cent, of the increase in pension that would be available if the member paid the contribution. The Minister also said that the actual percentages ranged from 80 per cent, at the earlier retiring ages to 71.4 per cent, for those retiring at 60 years of age. I make the same point about this factor as I made when I commenced my speech. I think that, in the very nature of this scheme, consideration might be given to an advance upon this amount for the purpose of improving the scheme overall. Reference has been made to the existing position of the pre-1959 subscriber who elected not to increase his contributions. The situation could arise that he receives a promotion or a rise in pay. In those circumstances, he can still take up the value of the existing units if he so desires. This was done in 1963.

Some of the minor amendments are worth mentioning. The first of these amendments provides for the case where, under the existing legislation, an other rank invalid pensioner might have his pension suspended. This has been prevented by a proposed amendment in this Bill. A serviceman who is demoted in rank or reduced to a lower mustering as a result of which he earns a lower income will be able to nominate to continue to pay the higher contribution or to reduce his contributions to his new and lower level. In other words, he can continue to pay the contributions he made before his demotion, or he can elect to contribute upon his lower income.

One of the matters which has always been a bone of contention in this legislation is the amount of gratuity which is paid after an ordinary ranker in the Services has served his six year term. This amount is recoverable from the benefits that become available later. Previous legislation provided that this amount might be recovered over a period of four months. An amendment in this Bill provides that the period prescribed for repayment of this amount will be increased to 12 months. The amount will be recoverable except in the case of invalid or widows’ pensions. The Bill also provides that recovery will be waived upon the involuntary termination of service of a single member who dies in the Service or where a member is retired due to invalidity or with a degree of incapacity that is insufficient to attract an invalid pension. Another amendment to the original Act which is important is that provision is made for the suspension of an invalidity pension where the earnings of the recipient, who is in employment, are not less than two-thirds of his rate of pay at the time of retirement. This has been a matter for complaint to this Parliament by ex-servicemen. This seems to me to impose a burden upon the person who is forced to retire and who finds that it is necessary to go and find employment so as to earn a living to supplement his pension. If he enters the Commonwealth service, he may have his pension suspended. Whilst this amendment is an advance, it still seems to me that the legislation should be further improved in this respect. At any rate, the situation has been affected by a change of money values, and the earning rate of twothirds will now be based on an amount equivalent to his pay at the time of retirement.

Another provision referred to by the Minister in his second reading speech relates to the re-entry to the Fund of a contributor who has retired on medical grounds and who receives a refund of contributions. In the event of the re-entry to the Fund of a contributor who has received a refund of contributions, the Act presently provides that he shall not be entitled to claim any further benefit in respect of his previous service. The Bill provides that this restriction shall not apply where a member is retired for medical reasons, provided the period of absence from employment is less than 12 months, and he repays the amount of the refund of contributions and any gratuity received on the earlier termination of service. This really is not a new provision; it is common to most other Acts of a similar kind.

We realise that it is intended to bring down improved legislation in the Budget session. That will give us an opportunity to examine the anomalies that have been mentioned and also to consider the comparison of benefits and pay in various other countries. That may enable us to persuade the Government to improve even the legislation that it will then introduce. Members of the Parliament have complained about not being able to understand the scheme in its present form. The same, of course, is true of ordinary superannuation legislation. One must be familiar with the principal legislation before one can follow the improvements that are being effected in amending legislation. But the difficulty is even greater in this particular case because of the segregation of particular items.

It is very difficult, even though we have before us the table of comparison that has been circulated, to make a sensible comparison of the Australian scheme with schemes that are operating in other countries. In each country there are certain provisions that are advantageous and others which are disadvantageous. 1 draw attention to the schemes in operation in Great Britain and the United States which offer fairly good benefits, and they are non-contributory. Canada has a non.actuarial scheme which offers very good benefits. One would expect schemes so based to be better than our scheme. Our scheme was introduced in 1948 as an urgent measure following the end of the last war. Improvements have been effected since then, but unfortunately they have been introduced at fairly short notice. Whilst it might be argued that, because we had notification of this legislation, it should be possible for us to understand fully all its provisions and allow for proper debate, I suggest that the time available prevents this being done. We have before us a bill which extends over 13 pages and which must be considered beside an Act which embraces the five sections I have mentioned. Many of those sections are related to one another; some of them are similar to provisions in the Commonwealth superannuation legislation and to some extent in State legislation. Nonetheless, that does not afford the Senate an opportunity to examine to what extent the scheme might well be revised. In any case, the table of comparison that has been circulated probably will enable -us to examine the Bills that are to be introduced later in the year and to see whether they will effect the improvements that we believe should be effected.

The anomalies that exist will not be removed merely by our following the trend that has been followed in the past, with amending legislation being introduced as wage scales change in order to relieve the burden that rests on the older contributor who is faced with the need to elect whether he will take out additional units and pay additional contributions. When such contingencies arise the Government makes further attempts to alleviate the position of such contributors. So we find ourselves in the position where we are forced to accept legislation which the Government introduces as a matter of urgency merely because it effects some improvement of the existing state of affairs.

On previous occasions when amending legislation has been introduced very little time has been available to consider the amendments. Amendments to the 1948 legislation were introduced on 5th December 1950. They were debated on 7th December, and the Parliament rose on 8th December, the next day. In 1957 an amending bill was introduced on 4th December, it was debated on the same day, and the Parliament rose on 5th December. In 1962 amending legislation was debated on 6th November, but the Parliament did not rise until 6th December. That case was an exception. Legislation which was introduced in 1963 to relieve the burden on contributors was introduced on 28th October and debated on 29th October, and the House rose on 30th October. I suggest that we should put an end to this routine method of examining the benefits that are paid to members of the Services.

We must have regard to the fact that the defence Services are unique, that they are separate from other Commonwealth or State organisations. If the requirements of the Services are different from those of the ordinary Commonwealth and State activities and if servicemen are exposed to a complexity of disabilities to which the ordinary public servant is not exposed, the basis of the defence forces retirement benefits scheme ought to be different. The scheme ought to be more advantageous and should impose a lighter burden on the contributor. The basis of our scheme should be more like those of the United States and the United Kingdom.

I have outlined our attitude to the legislation. I do not propose to develop an argument about anomalies; probably they will be the subject of discussion when we are considering further legislation a little later in the year. May I mention, however, that there is an urgent need to amend and improve section 42, which provides for gratuity payments to servicemen who are retired on the ground of incapacity, and also sections 51 to 53 and section 73. 1 refer to other ranks who do not receive a pension but who receive a gratuity which is based upon their length of service. A young man may have been in one of the Services for not more than three or four years, and he may get not more than £200. That is not right. There seems to be a defect in the legislation in this respect. I know that this is related to the early retiring age and the general form of the scheme. I refer to the method of assessing a percentage of incapacity. A man’s incapacity is rated as A, B, or C, according to a percentage. In all other superannuation Acts contributors who are incapacitated and cannot perform their ordinary duties receive the standard pension.

As I have indicated already, the Opposition does not oppose the measure. It is important legislation which has become necessary because of increased pay standards in the services and the effects on persons who cannot afford to take up the burden of increased contributions to the Fund. The legislation provides that persons so affected can contribute under certain conditions.

The provisions on the question of recovery also need further improvement. To the Opposition it does not seem to be a solution to the problem to say “ If you are discharged after six years service, re-engaged for service and accept payment of £300, you can repay that amount out of the lump sum to be paid in lieu of long service leave, if you wish “. I believe that the scheme should be considered in a new light and that an inquiry should be conducted within this Parliament to determine whether the scheme might operate more effectively on an actuarial basis or on similar lines to the schemes in operation in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

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

page 1194

NATIONAL AIRPORTS PROGRAMME

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed (vide page 1138).

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland) [2.38]. - Yesterday, 1 asked leave to continue my remarks in this debate because of business before the Senate. I have been very interested in the points raised by previous speakers in this debate on the statement by the Minister for Civil

Aviation (Senator Henty). I believe it is a very valuable statement which should be of interest to all Australians, not only from a State point of view but as an outline of what is happening in all States. If air travel is of paramount importance in any country, it is in Australia. Queensland, my home State, covers a vast area in which more and more private and commercial aircraft are operating. Good airstrips have been laid in recent years to cope with the needs of modern aircraft. Privately owned small aircraft have linked together the widespread areas of Australia. As a result, a better and happier life has come to people, wherever they may live. Families have a much greater opportunity to visit metropolitan centres and the time spent in travelling by children attending school has been greatly reduced. Medical and hospital facilities have been brought closer to people by a great network of airlines. Aircraft now land in many outback areas. Because of Queensland’s strategic position in World War II, airstrips were built for Australian and American air bases. Since that time those airstrips have played a significant part in our commercial flying programme. But with the development of the country, the increase in population, the growth of intrastate, interstate and international services, it is proper that the Government should plan ahead. The Minister’s statement shows clearly that the Government has planned ahead. It is also very important that Australia should have the best possible air terminals and airstrips and as many as are satisfactory to the population’s needs. The most important factor, of course, is safe travel.

As the Minister has told us, the Government is currently engaged on a five year airports programme, the purpose of which is to improve and extend technical and passenger facilities at a large number of airports throughout the Commonwealth. The Minister has also pointed out that since the Sydney and Melbourne projects were first suggested to the Government, more and more demands have been made on the Government because of the increase in both international and domestic air traffic. I believe that the Minister’s figures are worth repeating because the tremendous growth in air travel is a reflection of the great development in this part of the Pacific area. This is a matter of importance to all Australians. In domestic aviation the rate of annual in crease in the 10 years to 1962 averaged 4 per cent.’ In 1963 it rose to 11 per cent, and last year to 17.5 per cent. In the international field, the average annual increase in the 10 years to 1962 was 17.5 per cent. However, since 1962 passenger traffic has risen by 21.5 per cent., and in 1963 it rose by 23.5 per cent, last year. The recent trends in international aviation indicate that we must plan for large and continuing increases as new sources of traffic are tapped.

I would like, as a Queenslander, once again to draw the Minister’s attention - as several of my colleagues also have done - to the fact that a much better international air terminal is required at Brisbane. Air traffic has increased greatly at Brisbane, one reason being an increase in the number of tourists for whom Brisbane is the first point of contact with Australia. Honorable senators who have travelled overseas will appreciate that it is one’s first contact with a country that leaves the strongest impression. Therefore it is most important that overseas visitors to Queensland should be received at a first class international terminal containing all the facilities and amenities it is possible to provide. I am sure that the Minister will do all he possibly can to ensure that Queensland has for its international visitors an air terminal worthy of the great development that has taken place in that State. I say to the Minister once more that we appreciate his interest in this matter. We appreciate that he is aware of the problems that face us and that he will do all that he possibly can do. I say as a Queenslander that the sooner we have an international terminal of a standard which we regard as suitable for our State the happier we will all be.

But, Sir, in a State as vast as Queensland, the capital city is, of course, not the only point of importance. In so vast a State, however important is the capital centre air terminal, every other terminal, every airstrip and every safety device is important. The State has great problems in regard to monsoonal wet seasons. Everything that this Government has done, is doing, and proposes to do in accordance with its programme is of paramount importance to every Queenslander. I should like to mention what has been done and what is being done in the programme of civil aviation benefits throughout the State. I am going to talk about all weather airstrips. In doing so I adopt the principle that only a fully sealed runway can be reliably regarded as an all weather airstrip. I mention this because in listing a number of country aerodromes I may not mention some under the local ownership plan, and honorable senators may wonder about it. This is because councils have developed gravelled airstrips with sealed ends. Only sustained heavy rain would put these out of operation, and then only for a short period. We have a very fine example of this kind of aerodrome at Condamine, which has what is virtually an all weather runway, but which will not be amongst those that I shall enumerate.

Let us look back, Sir, at the history of our airstrips in Queensland. In 1959 there were 20 centres which had aerodromes with at least one fully sealed runway. Of these, 18 were owned by the Commonwealth Government and two, those at Proserpine and Isisford, were council owned. The Government aerodromes were located at Brisbane, Bundaberg, Charleville, Longreach, Oakey, Rockhampton, Coolangatta, Maryborough, Cairns, Cloncurry, Mackay, Mount Isa, Townsville, Camooweal, Charters Towers, Iron Range, Thursday Island and Cooktown. The majority of these aerodromes, I am informed, were of wartime construction, but major construction projects have, of necessity, been carried out at some of the Government aerodromes to cope with the demands of larger and heavier aircraft than those for which the runways were designed when they were constructed. But by far the greatest progress has been made in Queensland under the local ownership plan in the provision of all weather aerodromes throughout country areas.

Since 1959, Sir, 15 councils, with financial assistance from the Commonwealth under the aerodrome local ownership plan, together with the State Government subsidy, have built fully sealed runways at a number of centres. These centres cover a vast area. I should like to take the time of the Senate to mention the names of these places, because I think it is important to mention them when we are considering the work being done by the Government in the field of civil aviation. Amongst these places are Aramac, Barcaldine, Cunnamulla, Dally, Gayndah, Maroochydore, Mitchell,

Taroom, Thangool, Windorah, Hughenden, Boulia, Julia Creek, Richmond and Winton

Only last Saturday I had the great privilege of being in Winton when the Minister performed the official ceremony to open the Winton terminal. Winton is in a very important sheep raising area in the central west of Queensland. As my friend, Senator Wood, reminds me, it is the area in which Senator Sir Walter Cooper was a grazier for many years. His name is well remembered there. I remind honorable senators that Winton is also the birthplace of Qantas Empire Airways Ltd., this great airline that encircles the world and makes every Australian truly proud. It was in Winton that it first saw the light of day. If I may tell honorable senators a little more about Winton, it is the birthplace of “ Waltzing Matilda “, so it has a great variety of interest, as my Deputy Leader, the Minister, discovered when he visited there last week.

A further six runways are being sealed by by councils at Clermont, Emerald, Quilpie, Ayr, Ingham and Stanthorpe. Let me also remind the Senate of something which the Minister himself told us and which he mentioned in a reply to a question asked by me. I refer to the tremendous work that is proceeding in Queensland. The Government is providing £540,000 for a long range radar system; £185,000 for communications facilities to serve air traffic at Brisbane airport; a further £200,000 for the new operations centre; £50,000 to provide power for the operations centre; and £40,000 for roads and parking areas for the road traffic which is increasing at Brisbane airport. One could go on and on telling of the progressive work that is going on throughout the State. This is something for which we can indeed be deeply appreciative to the Minister and to his predecessor, Senator Paltridge. I should also like to remind the Senate of something that is of tremendous importance to Queenslanders. We have nine airports capable of handling Viscount aircraft, which is a greater number than in any other State. I feel certain that all honorable senators must agree that very important progress has been made in my own State.

What does this all mean? The story of the progress that has been made in the field of civil aviation in the whole Commonwealth - 1 have spoken today only of the State of Queensland - is part of the great story of development and growth of this country under the present Liberal and Country Party Government. If we want people to go into distant areas - I know my friend Senator Morris will support this - and if we want their families to enjoy all the benefits that wc can give them, we must provide the best kind of rapid transportation. We must ensure that people are not weatherbound for long periods. They must be able to go to their metropolitan or rural city centres. They must be able to ensure that their children have transportation to school, so that they do not miss part of a term because of monsoonal rains making transportation impossible. Illness and the need for hospitalisation are always a great worry to mothers. What makes for a greater feeling of security in a family than the knowledge that there is an all weather airstrip available which will take the type of aircraft required for an air service or for charter purposes?

The work that has been done and the programme proposed by the Government are indeed of the greatest importance to all Australians and particularly are they of great importance to all Queenslanders. Of course, we are not satisfied with everything. Of course, we want much more. The Minister will never be left wondering when we do want something. I am quite certain that we shall never be shy or diffident about telling him that we want something bigger or better or greater in number. In this way we shall ensure that the best possible standard of service is provided. So whilst congratulating him and his predecessor on what has been done and paying tribute for what is being done, may I remind him that we believe that Brisbane still needs an international terminal which will be worthy of the great State of Queensland which I have the privilege to represent.

Senator MORRIS:
Queensland

.- I am delighted to have the privilege of following in this debate my very highly knowledgeable and most respected colleague from Queensland, Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. Everyone in Queensland, and I think almost everyone in Australia, knows that very few people in that State have a better knowledge of its needs than does the honorable senator. Although she may be of the gentler sex, she puts some of us to shame - I must confess that I am included in this - in the amount of travelling that she does throughout the State.

I most strongly support her. I take great pleasure in noting that she paid a compliment to the Department of Civil Aviation for the excellent work that it has done in Queensland. There is no doubt that it has done splendid work. From the New South Wales border to the point of Cape York we have very large and important cities and towns, each of which has its own airport - remarkably good ones too, thanks to the Department of Civil Aviation. As Senator Wood has told the Senate on many occasions, Queensland is very proud - I say this humbly - of being one of the leaders, probably the leader in Australia, in the field of tourism. We have been endowed by nature with many wonderful tourist facilities. To use these to advantage we need good airports and facilities for our aviation services. I believe we are getting these rapidly, but I do not think that is any reason for us to lose our sense of proportion when considering the problems associated with our capital city airport. While we recognise that the Department has done much for Queensland, and probably in the aggregate has spent more there than anywhere else, this has been not only by virtue of the interest of the Department - I say this in all friendliness - but also largely by virtue of the fact that the kind of development which has taken place in Queensland has required a continuous improving of our facilities.

There is no doubt that Brisbane airport suffers badly by comparison with other international airports. I emphasise that there are only five international airports in Australia. In order of size they are Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Darwin. Darwin becomes even less important when we remember that it is not an initiating international airport; it is merely a staging international airport. This does not downgrade the importance of Darwin’s runways and terminal buildings, but it places a heavier emphasis on those airports from which passenger traffic originates.

The Minister’s statement caused a great deal of controversy, especially in Queensland. I was interested to see another reference to it in today’s newspaper. It has been mentioned in the Press for the last two or three weeks. Much interest attaches to the Department’s future activities in relation to Brisbane Airport. In this morning’s “ Courier Mail “ there is an article headed “ Another Critic of the Terminals “. It goes on to say that Brisbane’s air terminal came under fire yesterday from a New Zealand airline official. Amongst other things he said that the terminal in Christchurch, New Zealand, where he lived, was only six years old. It was one of the most modern in the southern hemisphere but the population of Christchurch was less than one-half that of Brisbane. He went on to say that Brisbane, and the airlines, deserve better than this. We should not forget the remark that the airlines deserve a better deal. The article then goes on to speak of the work to be done in Queensland on behalf of New Zealand.

I return to the point I made a moment ago about the relative importance of the various terminals and should like to refer to statistics prepared by the Department of Civil Aviation relating to passenger, freight and aircraft movement at principal Australian airports. I think that the figures for the years ended 30th June 1963 and 30th June 1964 should be recorded. The airport from which the greatest number of services emanate and from which the highest number of passengers travel is Sydney. For the year ended June 1963 there were 1,566,778 travellers on domestic airlines and 249,959 on international airlines. By the 30th June 1964 that number had increased from., I think, 1,800,000 on domestic services - that figure is not very clear on my photostat copy - and 299,823 on international services.

The second largest airport is Melbourne. In 1963 there were 1,210,093 travellers on domestic services and 26,231 on international. For the following year the numbers had increased to 1,393,227 on domestic services and 33,788 on international. The third most important airport is Brisbane. To 30th June 1963 there were 548,044 travellers on domestic services and 9,238 on international. The numbers increased to 635,468 on domestic airlines and 15,320

On international airlines for the year ended 30th June 1964.

I have cited those figures to indicate the way in which the activities at international airports have increased. Let us not forge! that the reason why such large sums have been appropriated and expended on Sydney and Melbourne airports is the tremendous growth in the use of air services. If you examine these services carefully, you find that the growth of air services to and from Brisbane as an international airport has been greater proportionately than the growth of services to either Sydney or Melbourne. One must remember that Sydney - not so much Melbourne - is fed as an international airport by all other places to the south and to a great extent by Brisbane. Relatively, there are not many services that call at Brisbane. When you realise how Sydney is fed from all other parts of Australia, you see that the increase in Sydney’s international traffic is not as great as it would appear to be. Even on those figures, the growth of international services from Brisbane is greater.

Senator Hannan:

– Most of the passengers are on their way to Melbourne.

Senator MORRIS:

– A great number of them are. We people in Queensland do not adopt a dog in the manger attitude because the Government is planning to spend so much money on Sydney and Melbourne. We know that this will improve the quality of terminal facilities. However, we do have one reservation on a matter which also appears in the statement made by the Minister for Civil Aviation on 1st April. Senator Laught quoted the final paragraph of the Minister’s statement. In this paragraph, the Minister stated that the Government was considering a number of other airport projects in its review. He said -

These include terminal and runway extensions at Adelaide, strengthening of the runway at Brisbane to handle the heavier type of international jets, extension of the Perth runway, major extensions to the terminal at Canberra, some further runway works at Coolangatta and Mackay, a new terminal at Port Moresby and also some temporary extensions to the existing international terminal at Sydney.

Then the Minister concluded -

The Government has decided that this group of projects, which also involve a further large sum of public money, should be referred to a special interdepartmental committee for further investigation for possible Budget consideration in the next few months.

I realise that, as the Minister said at the beginning of his statement, this applied mostly to Sydney and Melbourne. But I do feel a little uneasiness that it is still necessary to refer these proposals to a special committee. I cannot understand that and this ls the aspect of the proposals that troubles me. The reason for this uneasiness may be illustrated by a statement which was issued by the Minister for Civil Aviation last Friday under the heading “Sydney Operations “. The Minister stated -

The existing runways at Sydney and operations from them are quite safe. There are certain limitations imposed on the operation of certain heavier jet airliners at Sydney but these limitations are economic and involve a reduction in aircraft pay load.

I might interpose here that all I have seen of the operations of the Department of Civil Aviation and the administration of the Minister gives me complete confidence that the safety of the passengers is safeguarded. Passengers travelling inside Australia and those travelling to and from Australia are travelling under the safest conditions that may be found anywhere in the world. This is terribly important. It is much more important than almost any other aspect of air travel. The Minister continued in his statement -

The north-south runway at Sydney is being extended to 8,000 feet with a 500 feet stopway. The runways now being built at Tullamarine will be 8,500 feet long and 7,500 feet long.

The point I am making is that Brisbane is an international airport. I am not an expert but I believe we probably have the potential to make better runways at Eagle Farm. I believe we have the potential to build runways in Brisbane of greater length than those at either Sydney or Melbourne. As I see it, the extension of our runways to carry a maximum payload while ensuring maximum safety would be very much easier than it is in Sydney. I do not know the cost of extension in Melbourne. I make a plea to the Department of Civil Aviation to do what it can to direct the attention of the airlines to the Brisbane airport so that it can gain greater status as an international airport more rapidly than it would in normal circumstances.

I recall that five years ago no international aircraft used Brisbane as a terminal. After a great deal of persuasion, we in Queensland convinced the New Zealand Government that it would be desirable to use Brisbane as a terminal for services from New Zealand for an experimental period. We were able to get Tasman Empire Airways Ltd. as it was then - now Air New Zealand - to use Brisbane as its Australian terminal once a week for an experi mental period. The airline did this with a great deal of reserve and doubt as to whether it would prove economically satisfactory. However, the experiment was a glorious success. In the following year instead of operating for less than half a year, the airline extended the period of use. As a result, trade between New Zealand and Queensland grew. The Brisbane airport grew in importance as an international terminal. We attained something only because of our persistence in pestering the airline to give this service a trial.

If we study a map of the world we realise that Brisbane with a coastline full of tourist attractions can become an extremely important terminal. Traffic coming down from the north - I do not say necessarily from the United States - and from European and Asian countries could pass through New Guinea and make Brisbane the Australian terminal. This would not only be advantageous to Queensland; it would also be helpful to those who want to travel through New Guinea to and from the east. It is only through persistence that we have got where we are as far as international air travel is concerned. If we are given an even break, the international airport and terminal at Brisbane will leap ahead in comparison with those in Sydney and Melbourne. To achieve this only a little encouragement is needed. It would seem that the required length of runway cannot be provided in Sydney without a great deal of expense and that only 8,500 feet of runway can be made available. It would seem also that only 8,500 feet of runway can be provided at the Melbourne airport, although the newer jets require a 10,000-foot runway and heavier tarmac, if that is the right word. For heaven’s sake, let Queensland have its jet airport. Give us stronger runways and an airport and a terminal of which we can be proud.

I have not seen an occasion when the Brisbane terminal has not been able to handle the number of people it has been called upon to handle. This is because we have only one call each week by the aircraft of two overseas services. I think Brisbane is a natural for an international airport, if only it is given the opportunity. I have asked for a long time for these facilities to be made available and have pleaded with Qantas Empire Airways Ltd. - the airline born in Queensland - to make Brisbane one of its more important terminals, and it is doing so. Brisbane can get more and more overseas air traffic if given the facilities. Having said that, I repeat that all Queenslanders are very grateful to the Department of Civil Aviation for the work it has done on a huge number of aerodromes in that State.

The Department is called upon to spend some £16 million more as a result of the growth of air traffic throughout Australia, and we plead with it to remember that the growth of traffic at the Brisbane airport is greater in proportion than that in some other places. While we recognise the justification for what the Department is doing at other airports, we ask it to realise that, although we do not make a great deal of fuss about our requirements, Queensland really needs assistance. I think the Minister, who has already done so much in this field - he is already helping us with regard to runways in the northern part of the State - will recognise the justice of our claim and help us to make our capital city terminal one of which we can be very proud.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I believe that the Queensland senators who have spoken so vigorously in the debate have made out a very strong case for the development of facilities at the Brisbane airport. Looking around the capital cities of Australia, I .think I can say without fear of contradiction that the Brisbane airport terminal can be classed as a barn, compared with the palaces existing at other capital city airports. I believe that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) will be sympathetic to the case put to him by Senator Rankin and Senator Morris and to their pleas for notice to be taken of the need for additional airport facilities at Brisbane.

I wish to speak on only a couple of other matters. Under the dual system of rationalised airline services that we have developed in Australia, the aircraft of Ansett-A.N.A. and Trans-Australia Airlines - the two major airlines operating interstate - arrive at ‘ and depart from airports within minutes of each other. This creates a need for far greater facilities than would be required if the arrivals or departures of aircraft belonging to the two companies were spaced at half hourly intervals. Let us take, as an instance, Adelaide airport, where jet aircraft of the two airlines arrive in the morning on their way to Western Australia within a few minutes of each other. This means that 100 passengers from each Boeing 727 alight from the aircraft and enter the terminal buildings together, where they mingle with 200 or 300 visitors who have come to meet some of them. The airport facilities are immediately overcrowded. In addition to this, because both aircraft are due to depart for Western Australia within half an hour of their arrival at the airport, there are a further 200 or 300 people who bring to the airport friends intending to travel to Western Australia. On top of this, there are frequently planes leaving the airport for Sydney and Melbourne while all these other people are congregated there.

I believe we could get far better results from our airport terminals if we could devise a scheme under which the aircraft of one company arrived half an hour before the aircraft of the other company. I know that this proposition has been considered by the Minister, but I place it before him again in the hope that some notice will be taken of it. An argument which may be used against this scheme is that if the arrivals of aircraft are spaced a half-hour apart, one airline will have an advantage over the other. If this was found to be so, it could be arranged that each airline should have the early arrival for one month, so that there would be no real advantage to either over a period of two months.

Over the last 10 years in Australia there has been not only a vast development of airport facilities but also a vast development of the services provided by the major operating companies. Years ago, when I first came into this Parliament, it sometimes took 18 or 20 hours to fly from Canberra to Perth, particularly when there were strong headwinds between Adelaide and Perth. With the advent of the new jets, we can now travel from Canberra to Perth in a total time of 6£ hours.

The other matter I wish to raise is the development of airport facilities in the outback. There are two instances in particular that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. One is the aerodrome or landing strip at Shaw River in Western Australia and the other is that at Esperance. The airstrip at Shaw River is used by several mining companies which operate in the vicinity. It is one of their main supply routes. The other supply route is by road over a distance of 180 miles from Port Hedland or 1,000 miles from Perth. I believe that these mining companies receive an air service twice a week and they do not want it interrupted.

The Department of Civil Aviation inspected the landing strip and without any notice, condemned it out of hand. It said that no aircraft would be allowed to land on the strip until it was repaired. I would like the Minister to make an inquiry to see whether that statement of the position is correct. I believe it is correct. I have been informed of it but, of course, there is the other side of the question. I would like the Minister to find out whether that action was taken off hand by the people concerned. If that is so, I ask him to find out why the Department could not have given some warning to the people that if they did not improve the condition of the airstrip the service would be stopped, instead of stopping the service and saying: “You will not get another service until it is done up “. It took them a few days to do the work on the strip.

The other matter that I wish to bring before the notice of the Minister concerns the landing strip at Esperance which, I understand is now the centre of a fast developing area. If Esperance receives half an inch of rain overnight the airline service is stopped and could be out of action for a week. Because the population of the area is increasing rapidly, something should be done to give the people an all-weather airstrip so that they may have the kind of air service which they so urgently need. Having raised those two matters. I congratulate the Government on the work it has done in the rapid development of airport services and facilities throughout our nation.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - I thank the Senate for the interest it has shown in this ministerial statement and for the suggestions that various honorable senators have put forward during the course of the debate. It is only natural that when a subject such as airports comes before us the Senate becomes a States House. The representatives of the States press the claims of the States they represent. They have done so in this debate, both forcibly and well. On the other hand, the Department of Civil Aviation and the Government are concerned with this matter from the national point of view. We have to assess the priorities of importance which we can give to the various areas, and this is not an easy task. No doubt, we may make a mistake or two at times, but by and large the priorities are well examined before a decision is made.

I want to thank Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin and Senator Morris who dealt with the position in Queensland. Last weekend I flew to Winton, which is a town in western Queensland. I was very pleased to find in that area that a number of local government bodies have adopted the airport ownership scheme, which has contributed towards the great development that has taken place in the area. I was interested to note - and perhaps this may be of interest to Senator Sir Walter Cooper - that Winton was the birth place of Qantas Empire Airways Ltd. In 1921 the local council made land available for a landing strip at Winton. I do not know whether it was Senator Sir Walter Cooper or a relative of his, but I noted that a Councillor Cooper had moved that Qantas be granted a piece of land for a landing strip at Winton. I thought I would mention that fact because I know that Senator Sir Walter Cooper comes from that area.

I thank Senator Morris for pointing out the interest that the Department of Civil Aviation has in the question of safety. That is its prime consideration. Whilst I shall certainly have a look at the Shaw River airstrip, which was referred to by Senator Scott, I am certain that if an officer of my Department said that operations must cease there because something had to be done, it was because he was worried about the immediate safety of passengers and crew of aircraft using the airstrip. He would not have allowed an aircraft to land there if the risk of an accident existed. I have no first hand knowledge of the matter, but I should say that that was probably the reason why the officer demanded that an alteration be made to the airstrip. Safety is our prime interest.

Senator Morris said he feels confident that because safety is the first concern of civil aviation in Australia, our domestic airports and our international airports are safe. I was very pleased to see in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ of 22nd May a letter written by Captain R. J. Ritchie, the Deputy Chief Executive of Qantas. Apparently, there has been doubt in the minds of some people, particularly in Sydney, as to the position at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Captain Ritchie said -

Qantas is quite satisfied that the runways at Sydney Airport are long enough for the operations it conducts there.

The Department has satisfied me that, with the loads which can be taken off and landed at Sydney, there is no question about safety. If there was, I do not think that the Department would wait for somebody else to raise it. It would at once bring the matter to my attention.

In the statement which I presented to the Senate perhaps I did not make clear enough the purpose of the statement. I had inherited from my predecessor a very comprehensive programme of development over a period of five years. The examination of that programme started in 1960. The development from 1960 on was planned on the statistics available over the previous 10 years. The programme which was evolved was expected to entail the expenditure of £30 million on various projects throughout the Commonwealth. It was built upon a statistical basis which was sound as it applied over the previous 1 0 years. But as I said in the statement, the development in the last two or three years has shown such an enormous increase in both international and domestic traffic that those statistics were no longer tenable. 1 had to re-examine the £30 million programme and the projects within it. The first thing that was obvious was that the domestic airport at Melbourne and the international airport at Sydney had to be doubled in size if they were to deal with the projected traffic, which was based on statistics for the last few years. I had to re-examine the whole programme and again submit it to the Government. The expected expenditure has increased from £30 million to £474 million.

In its examination of the programme the Government said that the immediate urgency of Sydney and Tullamarine was obvious; Sydney because of its international importance and Tullamarine because of its domestic importance. This is the point which, apparently, I have never yet been able to make clear. The urgent problem at Tullamarine relates to its domestic use. Essendon is no longer available for proper use by the jet aircraft which will be used for domestic purposes. Therefore, it is Tullamarine which has a domestic problem and, in dealing with that, we are also developing its international requirements at the same time. But Mascot’s great problem is in relation to its international facilities. The Government has said that work on both of these projects, costing in the region of £16 million each, should proceed and it has authorised the spending of the total of £32 million. The rest of the programme has not been developed. It has been submitted to an inter-departmental committee, on which the Department of Civil Aviation has a member, for a close and methodical examination. That committee is to advise the Government as to the priorities of the other aspects of this programme which will run into an expenditure of £15.5 million.

I mentioned in my statement some of the areas which are referred to in this programme. Senator Laught rightly underlined the fact that Adelaide is included. The interdepartmental committee will submit its report to the Government in time for inclusion in the next Budget of the proposals that it recommends and the Government accepts. Apparently I have not made this point clear in my statement and in anything I have said on this matter. The programme of works totalling £30 million which I inherited had to be reviewed because of increased passenger traffic. I have reviewed this programme and it will now cost £47.5 million. Two of the projects have been adopted by the Government for immediate development and continuance. The rest of the programme has been submitted to this inter-departmental committee which will make a close, a meticulous examination of it - I repeat again that my Department has a member on this Committee - so that the Government will have a proper idea of priorities for inclusion in the coming Budget.

I would not like honorable senators to think that this programme has been abandoned. The balance of this programme will come. But at this stage I am not able to say when that will be. These recommendations have to come before the Government. The Government will examine the position and will decide what priority will be given to the balance of this programme. I am unable at this stage to give any specific reply to any member of the Senate who has spoken in this debate, but I thank Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin and Senator Morris for what they have said and how they have underlined the aviation development in Queensland. Queensland is one of the most decentralised States in the Commonwealth. Throughout Queensland, there are many great cities which have airports.

I do not try to hide the fact that we have not a suitable international airport at Brisbane. I do not think anybody could say that Brisbane has a suitable international airport. The difficulty is that we have had to spread throughout Queensland the amount of cream, so to speak, what we have had available for that State.

Queensland is an immense State with a large aviation development. It is only when one goes outback as I did last weekend that one appreciates this fact. I went into the drought areas last weekend and saw what the development of all weather airstrips means to those areas. When the rains come there, the roads are closed for some time and it is then that the operators of charter aircraft are able to provide for the needs of the outlying properties. People can go to them by aircraft. I was greatly interested to see the enormous increase in the light aircraft industry, particularly at Winton. I think there were some 20-odd light aircraft lined up at that airport for the opening of the new terminal. It is only when one sees this that one appreciates the tremendous importance of light aircraft to the outback areas. These are the areas which must never be forgotten. Although we have great capital cities and large congregations of people in them, I do not think anyone would say that the airports and terminals in all those areas have not received reasonable recognition. We must bear in mind that there are

I I million people in Australia and we have, as Senator Morris pointed out, five international airports to look after. Most countries have only one or two international airports. But the Department of Civil Aviation has the responsibility for five international airports because of the immensity of this country. This is not an easy problem.

In regard to funds for these developments, the penny is dropped in the slot in competition with the requirements for defence and all the other great expenditures which the Commonwealth has. I will never cease to press, because it is my duty to do so, for every penny I can get to develop every airport within Australia. But, at the same time, we must always remember that the priorities are peculiarly for the judgment of the departments of the Commonwealth. In saying that, I finish where I began. Each State, and the representative of each State in this Parliament, will be fighting, naturally enough, to have more and more money spent in their areas. The Commonwealth has the predominant duty to look at the overall picture.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1203

VIETNAM

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 6th May (vide page 675), on the following paper presented by Senator Paltridge -

Vietnam - Ministerial Statement, 29th April 1965.

And on the motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin -

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Rising as I do at this stage of the parliamentary programme when, for the last half hour, the only representative of the Opposition present has been Senator Aylett - he has just been joined by Senator O’Byrne - and knowing that the Senate realises my intense disapproval of the bungling presentation of legislation by the Government, I am nevertheless filled with satisfaction that the proceedings of the aimless feet to which reference has been made have provided me with the opportunity today, almost at the close of this sessional period, to speak on the ever increasingly important matter of Vietnam. I believe that this country has to find leadership that will not merely announce a programme of sending 800 troops to a maudlin battlefield to assist an American army but which will explain to the Australian people for their understanding the vital significance of this action. As I have said before, unless people understand the importance of what is going on in Vietnam we risk failure. Failure there or at any line external to Australia increases the risk of our having to defend a line within Australia. 1 engage in this discussion because 1 believe that this matter is of great national importance, lt involves a local national conflict, the possibility of expansion into a wider conflict, and the possibility of a conflict nearer to Australia and possibly within Australia. That all seems to be so unreal when we note the Opposition benches are now completely vacated and the Government benches are not overfull, and that the country outside is showing little concern. Everybody should be reminded that on 3rd September 1939, when Chamberlain was forced to announce the decision of the British Government to face up to the aggression of Hitler in Poland, that announcement was made to the accompaniment of a desultory playing of tunes and commercial advertisements over the radio network. The people of Britain, who rather would have enjoyed the comforts of peace and the ease of pastime, were alerted to the fact that their country had drifted into a war that threatened the very security of the British Isles at the hands of a nation that was about as far away as Sydney is from Hobart.

When people talk about distance in a generation that has developed intercontinental missiles, nuclear arms and bombers that develop a speed greater than the speed of sound, let them realise that we have citizens as far north as Darwin and Cape York and in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, of which we are the custodian, and that an assault upon the integrity of any one of those places would immediately involve the whole of Australia. Therefore, we ought to take stock of the position in a national sense. But I believe that we will never develop a proper national attitude to this danger unless we pay ever increasing regard to the individual.

The announcement about the sending of troops to Vietnam followed very soon after the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the landing at Anzac Cove. I do not regard that anniversary, which was marked by the presence in Australia of a Royal visitor, as being the kind of occasion that would generate a spirit of chivalry and respect for the Anzacs who made such a great sacrifice. The celebrations were not fitting to the occasion, particularly when we should be challenging modern youth to emulate their fathers. During another debate I had occasion to remind the Senate that in the Parlia ment we have four Anzacs who I regret to say have received no recognition from the Parliament. I hope they will. I refer to Senator Sandford, who was present at the Anzac landing, Senator Sir William Spooner, Senator Sir Walter Cooper and the Honorable Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes. I mention them as individuals who on a former occasion accepted a challenge such as that which has led the Government to commit our troops in Vietnam. Such events should not engender embittered discussion as between political parties but should engender the most soul searching scrutiny on the part of every man who accepts his share of public responsibility. It is as true today as it has been during the last one hundred years that any man who accepts responsibility in parliamentary life should have as his first concern the security, peace and integrity of his own countrymen.

It is for those reasons, Mr. Deputy President, that I believe it is helpful to suggest that in relation to Vietnam there are four matters which must be clearly kept in mind and dealt with purposefully in the interests of national security. First, there is the military situation. Then there is the matter of diplomatic approaches for peace. “ Approaches “ is not the right word to use. Rather should I refer to it as diplomatic work for peace. Thirdly, there is the question as to economic aid which is designed not merely to defend the military security of South Vietnam but to assist actively in promoting economic prosperity in that area. Fourthly, there is the all pervading and dynamic challenge to reconstruct the United Nations so that it will be a focal point of all nations of goodwill for discussions, and in order to discourage belligerents who are disposed to use armaments, in an effort to find means other than war to settle international disputes. I want to address myself to each of those matters, if I have the time.

I shall deal first with the military situation. As I understand the position, the Australian Government adopts the viewpoint that there has been aggression in South Vietnam on the part of Communist elements of the North Vietnamese forces. That aggression has been supplemented by an assembly of supplies in support of the Communists. Custodian of the Geneva Agreement - I think the proper term is the International Control Commission - have placed on record their findings. Two representatives of the Commission clearly reported a massing of military strength in such form as to disturb the peace of South Vietnam.

I recall a speech by Senator Cavanagh, to whom I always listen with respect because I believe he speaks earnestly. He challenged, I think, the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge), by saying that the Minister had not produced facts and figures to show aggression. I took note of that challenge. As a lawyer, on some occasions I am very much impressed by facts and figures. In this case, I would be indeed impressed by such information. But I have read all the documents and it would be altogether out of proportion to the scope of what I have to say on this occasion to examine the detail of that evidence. Suffice to say that it convinced me that the organised Vietcong forces who have infiltrated south of the 17th parallel and the strength of their supporting supplies are such as to prove a military threat to the South Vietnamese people.

I address myself in this way to the matter because it is a national issue and one upon which the Australian Labour Party has taken the responsibility of announcing a policy, as a party. Anything that I say in criticism of this decision is offered not in a captious or political spirit, but as an invitation to the Opposition to join me in an objective discussion so that we shall establish, so far as is possible in this Parliament, a measure of understanding of a problem on which there should be no division. I make that appeal in a discussion of a military situation and remind myself of what was said by Mr. Beazley, one of the thoughtful members of the Labour Party in another place. He said that in debates on foreign affairs we are inclined to engender within the Parliament the same bitterness that characterises the contestants in international disputes. That is to be avoided. I have referred to the point of view of the Labour Party because I believe it holds a position of great responsibility. It is not a question of showing the people any error for political purposes. It is a question of attempting by genuine debate to bring about a more unified outlook by Australia on a matter that threatens our security.

I believe that a speech made by Mr. Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Wilson Government in Great Britain, may influence our thinking. I refer to a speech printed in the London “ Times “ of 2nd April 1965 following an important statement by the British Prime Minister on foreign affairs in December of last year. Mr. Stewart spoke for the United Kingdom Labour Government, which has great opportunities for service and which, according to what it has said up to date, will be second to none in its defence of the security of the United Kingdom and Us world interests through its peace keeping purposes. Mr. Wilson has claimed that even now Great Britain is discharging greater responsibilities for peace keeping purposes east of Suez than any other nation, despite the unfavorable comparison between the strengths of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It might be worth reminding honorable senators that at present Great Britain has between 40,000 and 50,000 young men from the British Isles in Borneo.

Senator Scott:

– In Malaysia.

Senator WRIGHT:

– In the MalaysiaBorneo area. They are there, not in any imperial interest but to prevent a conflagration which might offer the opportunity of war on a wide scale. I believe that Mr. Stewart’s speech might be hearkened to by Australia and I shall refer to some of his comments about Vietnam as reported on 2nd April 1965. The report states -

This possibility remained open until, in 1959, there was a call by the Government of North Vietnam for the intensification of Vietcong activities in the south and for full-scale guerilla warfare against the Government of South Vietnam. Faced with that situation, South Vietnam appealed to the United States for help and they responded. It was important to notice that in 1959, when pressure from the north began, and even as late as 1961, there were still only 700 members of the United States Armed Forces in South Vietnam. It cannot be claimed that the action taken by the north was the result of the considerable United States military presence in the south. The action from the north preceded the arrival of United States forces in any considerable degree in the south. It was not until 1964, after United States vessels had been attacked, that the United States struck back. In 1965 came incidents where United States forces were attacked, and since then the House knew the passage of events.

Mr. Stewart was referring, of course, to the intensification of American raids that began in February of this year. The report continued -

In that situation it might be argued, and in Communist quarters it was argued, that the problem could be solved if the United States simply withdrew its forces and left North Vietnam and the

Vietcong to deal with the situation, lt might be said that that solution had the merit of simplicity, since it would leave nothing to negotiate and confer about. But for the United States to do that, he continued, would be in the first place a breach of its clear undertaking to South Vietnam, lt would leave the problem of what would happen to the many Vietnamese who do not wish to live under a Communist government. When the de facto division between the North and South occurred, one million people moved down from the North to live in the South.

I am quoting more than is my wont, because I do not feel restricted by any demands in competition with me for debating time. If I misjudge the feeling of the Senate, the Minister in charge need only indicate by a nod and I shall readdress my mood to this debate. The Foreign Secretary of Great Britain also said -

It would further be an admission that what is in fact the aggression from the North had succeeded. I do assure the House that it would be an event which would be regarded with profound alarm by all the non Communist countries in that part of the world.

If they rejected that solution, as he thought they should, they must then ask what was the position if the United States forces remained in South Vietnam and were continually struck at, and these strikes were aided and directed from the North, and often carried out by people sent down from the North for that purpose. It did not seem possible to ask the United States to say that their forces were to be struck at in that manner, and that they were to be bound by the condition .that they could never in any circumstances strike at the Territory of North Vietnam. . .

Surely the British Labour Foreign Secretary on 2nd April analysed in simple language the sequence of events and identified himself completely in support of the interpretation of events that was adopted by the Americans. At a later stage of his speech, he said -

On the evidence and the record it would be quite wrong to argue that the action of the United States was the action of a country engaged in a reckless escalation of the conflict.

He then went on to speak of matters that he had actively taken up - alternatives to military operations - which I shall deal with in another part of my address.

With regard to the American attitude, the President of the United States has never evinced a reckless desire to engage that country in war. In every statement that I have been able to read that he has made on this subject, he has been most careful to say to the thought compelling nation over which he presides that he accompanies every resolution to fight with an equal de termination to fight for peace. What does he say with regard to this matter? I read from his speech, which was reported in the “ Canberra Times “ of 9th April, and made, I think, at the Johns Hopkins University the day before. He said -

The first reality is that North Vietnam has attacked the independent nation of South Vietnam. Its object is total conquest. Of course, some of the people of South Vietnam are participating in attack on their own Government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from north to south. This support is the heartbeat of the war.

At a later stage, he said -

The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old; enemy. It is an attack by one country upon another and the object of that attack is a friend to which we are pledged. Over this war - and all Asia - is another reality: the deepening shadow of Communist China. The rulers in Hanoi are urged on by Peking. This is a regime which has destroyed freedom in Tibet, attacked India, and been condemned by the United Nations for aggression in Korea. It is a nation which is helping the forces of violence in almost every continent. The con:esl in Vietnam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purpose.

Well, Americans and even presidents are capable of making mistakes, but a well thought out statement such as that, made with a sense of responsibility such as the President of the United States carries, is a statement to which we ought to give searching attention.

It seemed to me that I should not simply refer to the conclusions of the Australian Labour Party in this place, but that I should refer to one or two passages from the speech of the Leader of the Australian Labour Party, Mr. Calwell, on this subject in the House of Representatives on 4th May, because I myself think that the logical conclusion that these passages convey should be adopted by the Australian Labour Party, but to me the conclusion that was drawn by the Australian Labour Party was sadly divergent from the sense of these arguments. I refer to “ Hansard “ at page 1 1 03, where Mr. Calwell is reported to have said -

That there has long been, and still is, aggression from the North and subversion inspired from the North, I do not for one moment deny.

At page 1104 he is reported to have said -

I agree that the pace of North Vietnamese aggression - and that is the only term for it - has increased, though estimates as to its extent vary considerably.

Faced with that situation, as announced by Mr. Stewart in the House of Commons, the President of the United Stales in his Johns Hopkins speech, and Mr. Calwell here, surely one is brought face to face with a consideration of the proper conclusion to make. 1 am old enough !o remind myself of the drift that took place in an era when Winston Churchill desired governments of erstwhile days to be resolute when they were irresolute and determined on drift. When the Saar was attacked, as history has since revealed from the internal records of the German nation, the armies that entered the Saar were equipped with orders to retire if the ground were contested, and France had forces which were overwhelming at that time. The success there fed the invasion of Austria. The complete capitulation of Austria fed the rape of Czechoslovakia and that despicable episode in history led to aggression against Poland.

Anyone who thinks that every ally you espouse should be impeccable should be reminded that Poland herself had taken part in the plunder of Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, the issue of international peace and territorial integrity was such that the Governments of France and Great Britain decided that the invasion of Poland was a breach of their treaty alliance of such importance as to compel them to take the action which eventually engulfed the whole world in a war, the severity of which will be exceeded only by any succeeding world war.

I commend to all honorable senators the book entitled “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich “, which pinpoints the enormous debasement of government in Germany. One can imagine the state of the world if Germany had achieved not only dominance of Europe but dominance even further afield. History now shows that the Third Reich would have advanced all over Europe and to part of North Africa. Plans were even made for India, and it is on record that the United States was to be included in the second chapter of Germany’s aggression. But even if German power had been confined to Europe, the position would have been bad. The concentration and extermination camps have revealed the horror that existed. As Churchill said, it was worse than anything ever perpetrated in the darkest catalogues of human crime.

As Senator Gorton asked during a recent debate, would anyone say that, whatever the sacrifices of the Second World War, we made a mistake in deciding that Hitler had to be arrested? If the aggression from North Vietnam has been correctly characterised by Mr. Stewart, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Calwell and if it is as expounded by the Australian Government, surely there are people in Australia who would prefer to fight, despite the outrageous absurdities which that involves in view of the scientific armaments of today, in the defence of this country rather than to allow its institutions to be debased and its security to be invaded. Anyone who claims that the cause of the integrity of a little country on the periphery of the Communist world, such as South Vietnam, is a typical instance of the cause of Australia in another context, is right. By God, I hate the idea of any sensible man contemplating war in the modern context, but if force is to be employed and exerted with the aid of monstrous modern machines of war by someone from the north, will we succumb? I would say, in the spirit of Anzac or El Alamein: “ Certainly not “. If any honorable senator says that he does not like that, and that Vietnam is an ill chosen field for this conflict, let him consider what would happen if we abandoned the 17th parallel. He can be sure that the next line upon which the aggressive force - I repeat, force - of Communism would be exerted would be the southern boundary of South Vietnam. When that line was pierced, force would be exerted on Malaysia and could gradually creep nearer to our own country.

I thought that Mr. Beazley, in one of his recent speeches on international affairs, made an observation of tremendous pregnancy when he reminded the House that a line was established through Berlin which has been a cause of rancorous disagreement ever since as a result of the exertion of force by Communism. So too the line in Korea; now the line in Vietnam. Anyone who would abandon this line would have the satisfaction within a very short time of having to face the same challenge, fed with the idea of success and therefore made over confident, on a line a little closer to our own territory. I would have thought that all of this was underscored when Mr. Calwell, in closing his speech in the debate in the other House with what seemed to me to be a very tortuous line of logic, said -

We believe that America must not be humiliated and must not be forced to withdraw.

There are those who say that by joining America we have violated the purpose of the United Nations and are not acting in accordance with the provisions of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation pact. I wish that the Australian Government had been a little more revealing and had taken the Australian people a little more into its confidence. It would not be beneath the Government’s dignity for the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) or the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) to try to remove the difficulties that sections of our people, obviously justifiably, have in this matter. They could create a public opinion with explanations of the day to day situations. In his speech in another place on 4th May the Prime Minister explained how we came to be engaged. He ls reported on page 1108 of “Hansard” in this way -

I had some exchanges with President Johnson towards the end of last year in which the possibility of increased military activity was envisaged and in the course of which we agreed that there should be, at a suitable time, discussions on the military level. These took place, in fact, in March and the result of the talks was available to us early in April. We made our formal decision in principle on 7th April, that decision being that we would be willing to provide a battalion, should it be requested and should all the circumstances render its employment useful, fitting in with the general pattern of what was being done.

The Prime Minister is accustomed to using every word with a precise meaning, and he expects people to read that statement intensively. It will bear repeating and may be put into a different form. Discussions envisaging military co-operation were held between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States at the end of last year; these were followed by military talks between American and Australian representatives, culminating in a decision on 7th April which was announced on 4th May or a little earlier. In these circumstances it appears to me that aggression has forced military retaliation upon the United States of America. Australia had to respond, having proclaimed its faith in AustralianAmerican peace in the Pacific. It is no acceptance of the challenge in April of 1965 to say that the campaign is in difficulties and that the prospects of success are blacker than ever. That is not the sort of ally we want if Sydney is attacked and we seek aid from San Francisco. That is not the sort of ally Australia wants to present to the world.

We do not want the world to think that if our ally is in difficulty, that is the time we funk out.

So we must ask ourselves whether proper calculations have been made by the Government in reaching its decision to co-operate with the United States in the acceptance of this challenge. You read on from the statement by the Prime Minister and you are assured by the head of the Government in Australia that our military advisers have taken into account the result of any subtraction of strength from our armed forces here. We find also that they have taken into account military priorities. Having regard to that situation and to the fact that internationally you are justified, it seems that Australia had this decision forced upon it.

When I say internationally justified, my own view is that America’s viewpoint on this is the only sound one. The United States abstained from being a partner to the Geneva Agreements of 1 954 and announced to the world that it would regard an assault on either part of Vietnam as a challenge to international peace. The United States had no military or economic interest whatever in that area from which it could profit. But America had learned the lesson of delaying engagement in two world wars by its experience from 1914 to 1917 and again from 1939 to 1941. America accepted the challenge that Churchill gave it in another context. When he foresaw that the new world might be called upon to rescue the old, he was not thinking of the transformation of world affairs that took place at the end of the Second World War. But we all know that the military strength of the United States might be estimated at five or six times that of any possible contestant and dwarfs the United Kingdom’s military strength almost by the same dimensions.

In those circumstances, if the United States takes the initiative in espousing the defence of international peace, it sets in motion a force in the world for which we should be terrifically thankful. But in another sense it seems to me inevitable from the recent meeting of the Council of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation in London that our involvement in this conflict is not merely based on that viewpoint but is properly based on an interpretation of the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty as being in conformity with it. I have here the full text of the communique that was issued by the S.E.A.T.O. Council on 6th May 1965. It states -

The Council noted that the Communists themselves have proclaimed their assault on the Republic of Vietnam to be a critical test of the tactic of infiltrating arms and trained men across national frontiers. It agreed that history shows that the tolerance of aggression increases the danger to free societies everywhere.

The Council reaffirmed its conclusion at Manila a year ago that the defeat of this Communist campaign is essential not only to the security of the Republic of Vietnam but to that of South East Asia, and would provide convincing proof Unit Communist expansion by such tactics will not be permitted. Member governments recognised that the state of affairs in Vietnam, as described above, constitutes a flagrant challenge to the essential purpose for which they had associated together under the Treaty: to resist aggression.

The Council recalled that its members also agreed at Manila that they should remain prepared if necessary, to take further concrete steps within their respective capabilities in fulfilment of their obligations under the Treaty. Pursuant thereto, substantial assistance and reinforcement have been given during the past year by certain member governments in order to assist South Vietnam in resisting aggression from the North. The member governments agreed to continue and, consistent wilh their commitments elsewhere -

No doubt having an eye to the recognition of the United Kingdom’s preoccupation with engagements in Malaysia and elsewhere - to increase their assistance to South Vietnam.

At the same time it was agreed that every effort should be made to promote a satisfactory and lasting settlement of the conflict that would ensure the right of the South Vietnamese people to pursue their future in peace and complete freedom from external interference.

The Council welcomed and expressed warm support for the policy of the United States Government as outlined by President Johnson on 7th April 1965, when he affirmed the determination of the United States to provide assistance to South Vietnam to defend its independence, stated the readiness of the United States for unconditional discussion with the Governments concerned in the search for a peaceful settlement, and offered the prospect of enriching the hopes and existence of more than 100 million people by a programme of economic and social assistance in South East Asia.

The Council stated that peace could be restored to South Vietnam if the Communist aggressors would honour the agreements of 1954 and 1962. lt declared it to be self-evident that, if the aggression were ended, the Governments and peoples of both South and North Vietnam could live in peace and devote their energies to economic and social progress.

The Council agreed that, until the Communist aggression is brought to an end, resolute defensive action must be continued.

Then there is a reservation, on behalf of Pakistan, with which the Senate is quite familiar. Addressing myself to the question of military engagement, I say it is justified on the basis of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. It is justified on the basis of the defence of international peace. It is inevitable in view of Communist aggression from the north, and it is inevitable on the basis of the spirit of the alliance that exists between America and Australia.

The South East Asia Treaty Organisation Council says it agrees that until Communist aggression is brought to an end resolute defensive action must be continued. I want to know why the Government of Australia, instead of publishing silly military recruiting advertisements in which it pictures military service as an opportunity for adventure in wonderland, does not put the 1 0 or 1 2 words that I have quoted in a half page advertisement, as the opinion of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation Council, so that the Australian people could really get to know them. If that were done, we would see this matter in its proper perspective and realise that the Government’s decision was inevitable. This course should be taken by the Australian Government only if it is going to take the proper steps to see that the force it sends to South Vietnam is properly supplied with the weapons of war and with what it requires for its existence; and also that the country will compensate these men appropriately for their service and for their sacrifice.

A lot of work has to be done. As I said last Thursday when speaking to another Bill, there may be some people in this country who think that a £40 gratuity for two years’ service in the Regular Army Supplement is sufficient. I think it is contemptible. Until the day comes when this matter is dealt with in the next session of the Parliament, every opportunity to support this view should be taken by every member of the Parliament who has defence really at heart. At this time we think that national security requires a change from the traditional voluntary basis of enlistment to compulsory service. We ought to prevent those people who go in to the armed services, by reason of the call of the country through law, from being subjected to insults by references to them as conscripts or the use of any other such opprobious term. There is nothing more calculated to excite their resentment. A soldier, discharging one of the highest duties of life, should not be made the butt of insults. As I said the other day, the Returned Servicemen’s League would lose an opportunity properly to envelop these men in a united and properly integrated defence force if it failed to recognise that they are an adjunct to national defence and should participate’ in the glorious honour which comes from membership of the league.

I said I would deal first with military aggression and then with economic aid. It is not necessary for me to recite what President Johnson said. He challenged anyone who would join him to help in creating a billion dollar fund to give economic aid to this area, and said that America would weigh in with her share. Therefore, there is no basis for the argument, coming from outside quarters, that those who decide upon military defence to hold the line neglect the purposes of economic aid. I said that I would deal, thirdly, with peace negotiations. I do not, at this stage, understand the argument of our opponents. Is it that they say that none of our allies is actively negotiating for peace, of do they complain of the Menzies Government because it does not make itself vocal as an individual channel for seeking peace? On the basis that the first of these complaints is the one they make, I remind them of what the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Mr. Stewart, said when speaking in the debate to which I referred previously. “ The Times “ of 2nd April 1965 quoted him as follows -

Great Britain had a special responsibility (he said) as one of the two co-chairmen of the Geneva Conference on Vietnam in 1954. As far back as February 20 we addressed to the Soviet Government, the other co-chairman, a proposal that we should jointly invite all the powers concerned to state their views in the hope that something like a basis for a settlement could be secured.

We had the Soviet reply after about three weeks. It was simply the suggestion that we should issue a statement that was entirely condemnatory of the United States and a demand for a withdrawal of their forces.

It seems to me that, apart from other considerations, for us to have done that would have been a complete misunderstanding of the role of cochairman. It is not for them to engage in propagandist statements, but to reach a statement on which they can agree to help promote a settlement. The Soviet attitude was similar in tone and substance to the other comments from the communist powers concerned in the conflict.

When Mr. Gromyko was in Britain the Prime Minister and I pressed him most earnestly on the question of what possible basis he saw for a conference, negotiation, talks - call it what you will. He stuck to the position that the first and the only essential was an unconditional withdrawal by the United States.

In addition to what the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain said, I remind the Senate of what President Johnson said, as far back as 23rd March. It was -

As I have said in every part of the Union, I am ready to go anywhere at any time and meet with anyone whenever there is promise of progress towards honorable peace.

In his speech at Johns Hopkins University on 7th April, he gave expression to the same sort of views. His speech was seized on by the Labour Party in the House of Representatives the following night, with a view to trying to make political capital out of it. The President said -

We will never be second in the search for such a peaceful settlement in Vietnam.

Later he said -

And we remain ready - with this purpose - for unconditional discussions. (Extension of time granted.) Would it not be the essence of unwisdom for Australia to intervene on a definite errand of its own when negotiators so powerful as Mr. Harold Wilson and Mr. Michael Stewart representing the United Kingdom, which was cochairman of the Commission on Vietnam, President Johnson and representatives of other well disposed nations, have been feeling out the possibility of peace? The United Kingdom sent Mr. Gordon Walker on a special mission, only to be told by the Communist countries that they would not even give him audience.

As the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ said in an article this morning, some of the people who assemble outside Parliament House have perfectly genuine motives, but unfortunately some of them have not. But avoiding any discussion of ill motives and honouring those whose motives are for peace, can such people not be persuaded that President Johnson and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, aided by every contact that they can engage, have accepted the responsibility to seek a peaceful solution? They are as eager for peace as are any other men in the world, and having regard to their responsibilities, do we not think that their eagerness is intensified a thousandfold? The people of Australia have a legitimate interest in knowing that the Government is working hard for peace. The defence effort in modern days is fraught with risk of failure unless the Government, when committing combat troops to an area, also convinces the people that every possible alternative has been explored and that every possible means of securing peace has been utilised.

That brings me to the fourth issue. I have trespassed on the patience of the Senate for too long. Nevertheless a speech of this kind is ill-conceived and ill-balanced unless it demonstrates that, as well as negotiating for peace in particular instances we are also determined to use every effort of ingenuity and skill and to call on the experience of jurisprudence and international diplomacy, to reconstruct the United Nations so that it can become a focal point for people’s hopes. We have to see that men engage in a reasoned settlement of their disputes on an international scale instead of the absurd barbarity of committing more men to combat with the machinery of modern warfare.

President Johnson is one of seven Presidents of the United States of America who have declared American adherence to the cause of peace. One of the other Presidents was President Kennedy. I wish to refer to a remark that he made. I do not know where he made it, but I have no doubt that the quotation is one of integrity. It is set out in a pamphlet issued by the Australian Quaker Peace Committee, an organisation that deserves audience. President Kennedy is reported to have said -

Today every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when it may no longer be inhabitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, miscalculation or madness.

Let our armed forces gird themselves and hold the line. But the Government of this country must exert every effort it can muster to find a solution, by international machinery, that will really provide the means of a reasoned settlement of these international disputes. When the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) made his first speech on foreign affairs he, at all times a disciple of good causes, did not neglect to draw attention to the weakening trend of the United Nations, But he pointed out that it cannot be prevented simply by pious hopes or good wishes. He analysed all the machinery which creates the creaking edifice of the United Nations; first, the veto in the Security Council, and, secondly, the vexed problem of whether financial default of member countries should deprive them of votes in the General Assembly. It is only by such an unemotional analysis of the United Nations that you can perceive the proper approach to its reconstruction. There are lawyers in this chamber who sometimes share with me the disapprobation of the other unfortunate souls, in the sense of enlightenment. It will be a joy to all honorable senators to know that lawyers from all over the world, led by the American Bar Association, are to follow their conference which was held 18 months ago at Athens, by another conference, to be held somewhere in North America, to which every country, Communist or otherwise, is to send legal representatives. I hope that it will be a helpful adjunct to governments, but upon governments remains the inalienable duty to have the best brains constantly working on these problems.

Because there are so many new member countries of the General Assembly, and because there is this long continued dissidence in the Security Council, we have the imperative duty to try to find, through the experience of all these people, a means of improving the present position of the United Nations. In that way we will have a focal point for peace, and the enemies of the Western democracies will not gain a leadership point .by creating organisations which will inevitably attract attention and enable them to say that they are the real protagonists for peace and that we desire to emphasise war. On that basis, the only course for this Government to take was that of announcing participation in the combat and joining America. I think that the decision of the Australian Labour Party that this action should be opposed was wrong in the national interest. I regret this decision. But it is in no spirit of frantic boast or foolish word that I announce my adherence to the Government’s decision. It is after great difficulty.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1212

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Discharge of Motions

Motion (by Senator Gorton) agreed to -

That the following orders of the day, General business, be discharged -

No. 7 - Inter-Parliamentary Union - Copenhagen Conference, 1964 - Report of Australian Delegation - Motion to take note of the Report - Resumption of debate on motion, that the Senate take note of the Report.

No. 8 - Commonwealth Parliamentary Association - Tenth Conference - Report of Australian Delegation - Motion to take note of the Report - Resumption of debate on motion, that the Senate take note of the Report.

page 1212

ORD RIVER PROJECT

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 5th May (vide page 576), on the following paper presented by Senator Paltridge -

Ord River Project - Ministerial Statement, 5th May 1965.

And on the motion by Senator McKenna -

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– It was with some degree of concern, but with considerable understanding, that I learnt of the Government’s decision to postpone the help that it was to give to Western Australia in the development of the greater Ord River scheme. Application for financial assistance was made by Western Australia approximately 12 months ago. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) issued a statement on this subject in another place. That statement was read in the Senate on 5th May this year by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Paltridge). Three reasons were given by the Government for the deferment of its assistance. The first was that the Government wanted to have more information regarding the profitability of cotton growing in the area. The second reason was that the Government wanted to know the ability of farmers to control insect pests in the area. Thirdly, the Government wanted more information on the behaviour of tropical soils after intensive production had been carried on over a few years.

I propose briefly to look at the Ord River scheme as a whole and study it from its inception. It goes back to 1942 or 1943 when the Engineer for Public Works, employed by the Government of Western Australia, decided to visit the area and, following his visit, suggested that it was ideally suited for irrigation. The government of the day, following up this suggestion, decided to establish, with the help of the Commonwealth Government, the Kimberley Research Station at Ivanhoe on the Ord River in 1947. An intensive research programme has been carried out each year into the profitability and the possibility of growing various types of plants in that area. The latest information we have is that, under irrigation, the most profitable crop that can be grown is cotton. Other crops which were considered were sugar, rice, safflower and linseed. But the most profitable crop and the one on which the major case was built was cotton because of the large yields of seed cotton that could be procured each year on the Ord.

The Commonwealth Government came to the assistance of the State Government by providing some £5 million towards the cost of the diversion dam at Bandicoot Bar, so that the initial stage of the scheme could be commenced. This scheme provided sufficient water, I understand, to irrigate some 30,000 acres. A major scheme would be capable of irrigating some 200,000 acres in all. The Bandicoot Bar scheme, where the diversion dam was built, was commenced two or three years ago. The dam was completed and the irrigation channels were installed. The first five farms were allocated for the growing area in 1963-64. Each farmer on the five farms that were allocated grew approximately 300 acres of cotton.

It is interesting to note the return per “farmer. I find that the average cost of the five farms, taking into account all the items of production, was £16,777. This figure was made in part as follows - Spraying and defoliation, £4,415; fertiliser and seed, £2,806; water, £909; fuel and oil, £496; hired labour, £2,700; repairs and maintenance, £186; licences and insurance, £226; interest including interest owing, £650; and other items £92. Those items made a total cash cost of £12,480.

Senator Hannaford:

– That is part of the cost?

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes, that is part of the £16,777. I will give the Senate the balance.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Those are running costs?

Senator SCOTT:

– They are the average running costs per year of the five farms.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is over £3,000 a farm?

Senator SCOTT:

– No, the cost is £16,777 for each farm. Depreciation and repair allowances amounted to £2,882. So, cash costs plus depreciation etcetera comes to £15,362. We arrive at that figure by adding the depreciation and repair allowances of £2,882 to the total cash cost of £12,480. Then, we have to provide for interest on capital, balance to bring 6 per cent, of the total requirements - that is, 6 per cent, of £34,419, which was the average capital cost of each farm. It amounts to £1,415. That brings the total costs of each farm to £16,777.

The returns to the growers may be expressed in various ways; but if we allow for all costs, including £1,500 a year for each labour unit except the operator, depreciation, and interest on capital at the rate of 6 per cent., the average return to the operator was £2,826. A break down of the figures for the various farmers reveals that Arbuckle and Co. had a surplus of £10,000, J. Arbuckle and Sons a surplus of £9,581, Ord River Farmers Ltd. a surplus of £6,610, Revell Brothers a surplus of £7,109, and W. H. Dougall a surplus of £2,230. The average yield per acre for the first year of operation was 1,330 lb. The information that we have for this year reveals that instead of the average yield of seed cotton being 1,330 lb. per acre, the first three crops harvested will average 1,800 lb. They have been harvested early so that the crops may be ratooned. That means that the plants can be rewatered and another crop grown. It is expected that the yield from the ratoon

Crop on each of those farms will be 1,200 lb. That will make a total yield of 3,000 lb. of seed cotton per acre.

The result that I have just mentioned was not evident when the Government made its decision in relation to the Ord project. I must be fair, because the decision was made on 28th April. At least, that is when a letter was addressed by the Prime Minister to the honorable member for Kalgoolie (Mr. Collard) and the Premier of Western Australia. The Government did not know then what the subsequent yields would be, and it wanted to be sure about the position.

I point out here and now that the Prime Minister said that the proposition had been deferred. That proposition embodied an application by the State Government for financial assistance amounting in all to approximately £30 million. The cost of the scheme will be as follows: For the dam, £8,300,000; for channelling and drains, £11 million; for a diesel generating station, £700,000; and, at a later stage, for a hydroelectric station, £6 million. That makes a total of £26 million for that section of the work. In addition, housing for the area will cost £4 million, making an overall total of £30 million. That money was to have been spent from 1964-65 to 1977-78. Proposed expenditure in the initial stages was not to be very heavy. The State applied for a total sum of only £385,000 for the first year, almost £1 million for 1965-66, £1.8 million in the following year, a sum of £3.7 million in 1967-68, with a tailing off to 360,000 in 1976-77. The greatest amount to be expended in any one year was £3,720,000. Such expenditure over a long period on such a large development programme is not very great, particularly when we consider what could be achieved in this area of northern Australia.

There is little activity in the north of Australia apart from mining and the pastoral industry. The pastoral industry, which embraces beef cattle and sheep, has been almost static, particularly in the Kimberleys, since the beginning of this century. Stock numbers have increased by only 100 per cent, in the Northern Territory over the last 60 years. I cannot speak about Queensland, because I do not know the figures accurately. As I said, there has been virtually no development in the pastoral industry in the Kimberleys since the early 1900’s. Cattle numbers in that area in 1900 were reputed to be approximately 500,000. I doubt whether more than that number could be mustered at the present time. I have not the sheep numbers before me at the moment, but I believe that they have not increased either.

If we are to develop these areas, we must provide irrigation. When we note that the

Ord River project will provide approximately 3i million acre feet of water at a cost of £8 million for the dam, it will be seen that it will be the cheapest dam per acre foot of water to have been built since the end of the war. At one stage I had a list of the cost of the various dams. I recall that the cost of the Eucumbene Dam was £5 per acre foot, that being one of the cheapest dams to have been built. The cost of some of the larger dams in Victoria and New South Wales was £50 per acre foot. As I indicated, the cost of the Ord River dam will be less than half the cost of the Eucumbene Dam. The cost of water for the Ord project is cheaper than anywhere else in Australia. Apparently the dam site is ideal. But we have these problems. The information is now to hand that cotton can be grown quite successfully in the area. Some knockers in Australia have opposed the Ord River scheme. I have here a book entitled “ The Northern Myth “ written by a Mr. Davidson.

Senator Branson:

– Do not quote him, for goodness sake.

Senator SCOTT:

– I said that he was the greatest knocker of the project we have in Australia outside this Parliament. I believe there are a few inside this Parliament. I do not blame them for being critical. It is reasonable that there should be criticism, but we must be practical about this scheme. I shall cite some of the figures Mr. Davidson has used in his book. He writes that other areas of the Commonwealth are much more likely to produce better quality seed cotton than the Ord River area. He states that taking into consideration a differential of about one-third between research station and farming results, the area will produce from a first crop and a return crop an annual production of about 1,900 lb. an acre. He is roughly 100 per cent. out. He is at least 80 per cent, out in his estimate and that is where the gentleman has gone so completely wrong. Figures can always be produced to make a case, but if the figures are wrong, there is no case.

Senator Gorton:

– What are the correct figures?

Senator SCOTT:

– In the first year, Mr. Arbuckle, a farmer in the area, produced a crop returning 1,800 lb. an acre from the first crop and 1,200 lb. an acre from the return crop, making a total of 3,000 lb. an acre in that year. It is believed that the three farms which have just finished harvesting will average 1,800 lb. an acre from the first crop and will produce over 1,200 lb. an acre from the return crop if the percentage obtained last year is maintained. But Mr. Davidson writes that the area can be expected to produce only 1,900 lb. of seed cotton an acre annually, taking into consideration the original planting and the return crop in the same year. No doubt when Mr. Davidson wrote his book he expected every thinking person in the community to take notice of it. No doubt notice has been taken of it.

Senator Cormack:

– The honorable senator is citing the weight of seed, and not the results in money.

Senator SCOTT:

– I was citing the yield in pounds weight of the crop an acre.

Senator Gorton:

– Mr. Davidson is 50 per cent, out, not 1 00 per cent. out.

Senator SCOTT:

– I shall qualify my statement and say that he is out to a considerable extent. He is out by the difference between 1,900 lb. and 3,000 lb. I think he will be proved to have made a 100 per cent, error when a year or two has passed. People belonging to families in Arizona who have grown cotton for generations are coming to Australia. There were four Americans who visited many areas which had a potential for growing cotton. They visited Western Australia and the Department of Agriculture informed them of the possibilities of the Ord River area. The Americans visited the Ord, inspected the area and returned to Perth where they said that if they were granted farms in that area they would sell their properties in America and settle in Australia.

When they were in Perth, prior to returning to the United States of America and before they were allocated farms, they issued a Press statement to the effect that if they were granted blocks in the Ord River area, they expected that within a few years they would obtain an annual return in excess of 3,000 lb. an acre. They hoped to obtain a return of 4,000 lb. an acre annually. They specifically stated their belief that after a trial period of a few years they would be so successful in the growing of cotton in the area that they would not need a subsidy. The Americans returned to Arizona having been allocated their farms in the Ord River area. They are now farming in that area. ] believe that in a very few years, with the benefit of the knowledge they are gaining each year, they will be producing annually between 3,000 lb. and 4,000 lb. of seed cotton an acre. What an investment it is for an individual to obtain a farm on the Ord.

Senator Morris:

– The quality of the cotton is good, is it not?

Senator SCOTT:

– lt is excellent. The annual returns show that 67 per cent, of the cotton produced on all the farms has qualified for the premium price. I believe that was for li-inch cotton. The highest yield to qualify as premium cotton on an individual property was 76 per cent. These results indicate what an excellent area it is for cotton growing. The farmers are obtaining about 600 acres each at a cost of roughly £25 or £30 an acre. The properties are ready to walk into, sow the crops and develop the pastures. I doubt whether there is a better proposition available in any other part of Australia.

Senator Dittmer:

– It. is costing them more than £25 to £30 an acre.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am only citing the cost of the land. The average capitalisation cost of land for 1963-64 was £8,734 for 660 acres. The average cost of structures was £1,500; of vehicles, £2,955; of tractors, £15,000; and of plant £6,167; and the total was £34,419.

Senator Dittmer:

– The honorable senator said that it was about £18,000 a farm.

Senator SCOTT:

– This is the official figure. What I said and what the honorable senator said might be different.

Senator Dittmer:

– No, mine are the correct figures, as are the official figures.

Senator SCOTT:

– For a total investment of £34,000 a farmer on the Ord can obtain 660 acres of irrigable land and can grow cotton and other crops. Cotton is the first crop that will make him a profit. The farmers expect to show handsome returns, greater than they got in the first year. The Government, I understand and believe, has not knocked back the scheme at all. It has deferred it for 12 months.

Senator Dittmer:

– And dissipated the work force.

Senator SCOTT:

– When the honorable senator mentions the work force, he should know what he is talking about. I shall tell him something about it.

Senator Dittmer:

– Where has it gone?

Senator SCOTT:

– This may have been one of the reasons why the proposal was deferred. If I had deferred consideration of the Ord Scheme, the reason would have been because’ of the work force. In Western Australia, and no doubt in other parts of the Commonwealth, there is at present a condition of over full employment. As the honorable senator seems to want to go a little further into this matter. I explain that three or four mining companies are endeavouring to export iron ore from the north of Western Australia and are anxious to obtain 2,000 or 3,000 workmen. I understand on pretty good authority that because this labour it not obtainable the undertakings are offering over award wages. If another 300 or 400 men were required on the Ord, this would make the position more acute. I think that we are rapidly getting to a stage, particularly in Western Australia, at which we shall have to bring in labour from overseas to meet the requirements of these additional capital development projects. I would hope that if the Government had granted the request for additional assistance for the Ord scheme it would have made some arrangements for additional labour. No doubt such arrangements can be made.

I mentioned the growing of cotton. I believe that the growing of a new variety of rice could also be successful. We have not been successful rice growers in the past but the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has developed a new type of rice called sirgna, from which a yield of over two tons an acre in the north of Australia is expected. The first plantings of this variety on an experimental basis are expected to be made this year.

Sugar is grown successfully on the Ord experimental station. Tt gives a higher yield per acre than is obtained in almost any other part of Australia. The growing of sugar would necessitate the construction of sugar mills in the area and it may be a long term project. When the Western Australian Government was considering sugar, the overseas price was over £100 a ton. As the honorable senator knows, the sterling parity today has dropped quite considerably. No doubt with the construction of a sugar mill we would be able to grow large quantities of sugar in Western Australia to meet portion of Australia’s requirements.

The Ord River project would be a contribution towards development of the north of Australia. We must not think that it will just develop Western Australia, because onefifth of the area affected is in the Northern Territory, lt adjoins the Keep River, which is the river to the east of the Ord which is totally in the Northern Territory. As onefifth of the area affected is in the Northern Territory, this will not be entirely a Western Australia project. Agriculturally, it will help to develop the north. I think that we have to undertake this development and I hope that in 12 months, after getting further reports and another approach from the State Government, this Government will look at the matter sympathetically.

Senator Dittmer:

– I agree with the honorable senator. What is the acreage involved?

Senator SCOTT:

– Two hundred thousand acres.

Senator Dittmer:

– There are 150,000 acres of good arable land and 50,000 acres of marginal land.

Senator SCOTT:

– I told the honorable senator how many acres were involved and he contradicted me. Why did he ask me, if he knew the area?

Senator Wright:

– He gave the same figure, but divided it into arable and marginal land.

Senator SCOTT:

– It was divided into arable and marginal land in the book. I know very well the figures that are there. In the initial stages 30,000 acres are involved. Initially there will be about 35 or 40 farms. Later there will be many more. If we can have a sugar mill established or if we introduce irrigated pastures to fatten cattle, we can go a long way with the project. I should have liked the Commonwealth Government to agree to the Western Australian Government’s application for financial assistance. Unfortunately, it has not done so, but this is only one phase of the development of the north. I am convinced that adjacent to the Ord and in the Northern Territory and Queensland are large areas of high rainfall country that can grow leguminous plants for the fattening of cattle. If some of the higher rainfall areas adjacent to the Ord are utilised, we oan breed and produce many more cattle than are being produced at the moment. With the planting of siatro, Townsville lucerne and other legumes, the development of the north will be assisted as much as the development of the higher rainfall areas in the south of Australia were assisted by the planting of subterranean clover. I have noted this particularly of late years. Last year or the year before I was at the Townsville Research Station, where I saw siatro growing profusely, and also Townsville lucerne. The price of siatro was about 30s. per lb., and the price of Townsville lucerne is about 7s. or 8s. per lb. at present. These grasses are being sought by many of the cattie people in the area. We can foresee in this part of Australia a new phase of development which will follow the planting of these legumes, and we shall see far more cattle per square mile produced in the area than there are at present. This is how it will be done.

Returning to the Ord River project, I noticed also that one of the reasons why the Government has decided to defer the scheme is that it wants more information about the insects in the area and the ability of the farmers to control them. The first crop was partially ruined by prodaemia, I think it is called, an insect which attacks the bolls of the cotton. This necessitated the crop being sprayed some 16 times. I understand from the Department of Agriculture in Perth that this year there has been complete coverage and that the Department has been completely successful in holding the insect pests at bay. This is the second year of operation. I have no doubt that the scientists attached to the Department of Agriculture and the C.S.I.R.O. will produce an insecticide which will control any pests that are likely to attack the cotton crops in this area.

We also have problems in the south with insect pests. They are not always overcome in the first year, but I have yet to learn of a crop which has been attacked by insects in its first year and has not been saved by the C.S.I.R.O. in the second or third years because it has been able to beat the pest completely. These crops can be protected.

It is interesting to know that the crop at present being grown on the Ord, after one year of trial, is being sprayed effectively and that there have been no problems with insects.

Senator Ormonde:

– Are those insects in New South Wales cotton as well?

Senator SCOTT:

– No, I think this is only a tropical insect which does not attack crops in New South Wales. This particular insect problem has been overcome and no doubt the Government will take that into consideration when making a decision next year.

The Government also wants to consider the effect on tropical soils of intensive production for a number of years. We have to learn what is happening to the black soil plains in the irrigation area after they have received an annual average rainfall of about 30 ins. plus 2 or 3 acre feet of water annually. It is thought that this may cause soil erosion and bogging down through insufficient air being able to get into the soil because of the continuous application of water. These things will have to be worked out, but I understand from the Department in Western Australia that the State Government is not at all worried about this aspect because at the research station similar types of land have been irrigated and have received between 2i and 3 acre feet of water a year without causing a great deal of concern to the scientists. This is a big project. It is a project in which everyone in Australia is interested. A survey of people in Western Australia disclosed that they believe that the most urgent item for the Commonwealth Government’s consideration is the Ord River scheme. This survey was taken only a few months ago.

I conclude by saying that I was rather disappointed at the Government’s decision, but realising that it is responsible for the taxpayers’ purse, realising that it has to be careful, believing that the advice that it will receive over the next 12 months will satisfy its most earnest inquiries and having regard to the information that I have to hand now relating to the productivity of the area, I am confident that when the Government makes its next approach to this matter it will provide the financial assistance necessary for the construction of a project which is vital to the development of Northern Australia.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

.- In the few minutes available before the suspension of the sitting, I should like, first, to congratulate the Leader of the Government (Senator Paltridge) and the Ministers in the Senate for the way in which they have managed the business of this House over the past 36 hours and for the speed with which we have been able to get the work of the Senate adjusted to make room for this rather important debate in relation to the Ord River scheme, a debate which was postponed some time ago. I thought the handling of the Government’s business this morning by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) was a delightful example of how business should be piloted through the Senate. I must say that I think the Leader of the Government shows some of the qualities which made President Johnson such a notable leader of the majority in the United States Senate. He had a firm grasp of the situation.

We are discussing here the Ord River project. I do not think that the problems associated with this project can be divorced from the general problems of Western Australia. After all, Mr. Deputy President, Western Australia is your native State and you are old enough, although young, to remember that some kind of a national liberation front was set up there in the 1 920’s in order to secede from the Commonwealth. That was an extraordinarily serious situation. Since then there has been a great devotion by the other States towards Western Australia. In the Senate the State’s rights have been most vociferously and vehemently advocated by senators from Western Australia, not the least of whom is he who now temporarily occupies the President’s chair. You, Mr. Deputy President, are a member of a distinguished pioneering family in Western Australia. Senator Scott is another good advocate for that State.

Having said that senators from Western Australia have espoused the rights of that State in this State’s House, I think it is encumbent upon me, as a senator from Victoria, to espouse some of the residual rights left to Victoria. The stage has been reached when some wandering engineer, walking or driving a jeep by the bandicoot bar, can set in being a process by which the revenues of the Commonwealth can be engorged to the extent of £5 million or £6 million for a project which has never been examined. We can be held to ransom in the Senate for another £20 million for another phase of the Ord River scheme, based on no fundamental facts. 1 think the time has come when senators representing Victoria have to take a firm stand in the interests of the southern State. Victorian Ministers in another place and senators have displayed unexampled generosity to Western Australia over the last few years.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator CORMACK:

– When the sitting was suspended I was referring to the extraordinary circumstances in which the so called Ord River project was created in the minds of the Parliament and has since almost totally engaged the attention of the electors of Western Australia. In the short time available to me before the sitting was suspended, I elaborated on the fact that only 30 years ago Western Australia was in such a state of desperation that it set up, in modern terms, a national liberation front and sought to secede from the Commonwealth. This disastrous situation could easily have destroyed the hegemony of Australia and was only overcome by the inability constitutionally of Western Australia to do what it had sought to do.

The other States of Australia recognised that Western Australia had been driven to a state of desperation and that something would have to be done to readjust if possible the economic conditions under which the people of Western Australia thought they were labouring. It is this generosity of mind that has distinguished the electors of Victoria. In the immediate period through which we have passed, the Victorian representatives in the Senate have witnessed without comment, except the comment of innate generosity, an acknowledgment of the overall responsibility of the Commonwealth to provide subsidies to Western Australia. In the interests of national unity we have granted, if I might say so, some sort of Maundy money to Western Australia. Without going into deep examination of this matter I recollect immediately that in the last few years the Senate, without any debate and certainly with no protest from honorable senators from Victoria - or, I shall not be ungenerous, from New South Wales senators - has appropriated from Consolidated Revenue vast sums of money to assist Western Australia in its natural aspirations to develop what appears on the surface to be the sterile soil of Western Australia.

I have jotted down some of these items of assistance. There has been great port development in Western Australia. Vast sums of money have been spent on rail standardisation. Only 10 days ago we passed a supplementary appropriation for the development of water schemes, not on the pioneering frontiers of Western Australia but in the developed areas. In the last few years we have appropriated vast sums of money for beef roads. We have listened without any demur at all to Senator Scott, for example, speaking on gold bounties with the aid of which the gold mines of Western Australia can be kept going.

It comes to my mind that vast sums of money have been given to Western Australia for road development also. This is apart from beef roads. In providing money for the construction of beef roads, the Commonwealth Government took the precaution of saying that the money must be spent for that purpose. Vast sums of money have been made available to Western Australia under some curious formula for the development of roads. This money was granted not without the hopes of the Senate that it would be spent in putting roads through the great open spaces of Western Australia. But when we examine how these big sums of money in rebates of petrol tax have been spent, we find that they have not gone towards the development of the vast open areas of Western Australia at all, they have been spent within a few miles radius of Perth. As a matter of fact, the Premier of Victoria, Mr. Bolte, whom I represent in part in the Senate, has claimed that the fantastic bridge across the Swan River should be named either Victoria Bridge or Bolte’s Bridge.

I suggest that here in the House of the States the time has come when we should call for, not a halt to this great avalanche of money rolling into Western Australia, but at least some detached consideration of the priorities to which the money should be devoted. High in the list of these priorities is the Ord River development scheme. I mentioned before the sitting was suspended that so many of these development schemes are founded on some casual delusion of grandeur, generally in the mind of a politician. This is a tragic thing to announce here on behalf of politicians. But in the case of the Ord River project, the politicians can be absolved from such a fantasy because it has been clearly demonstrated by Senator Scott that the origin of the Ord River project was in an adventitious piece of travelling by an engineer of a Western Australian department who suddenly looked at the Ord River, saw the Bandicoot Bar and said: “ This is the place for a dam “. This is characteristic of engineers. They have a vision but it is a vision based on dams and nothing else.

From this simple beginning began this great - I was going to say monstrous - project which is bedevilling me and I hope will bedevil the Parliament. Vast sums of money - revenues substantially from Victoria - are now being engorged by a vast dam on the Ord River. To do what? I do not know, but I shall try to demonstrate its purpose to the Senate. Western Australia is an arid State. Its colonial history is a story of the development of a narrow segment of land along the Swan River - a little river that creeps into the sea and extends back 20 or 30 miles into a low range of hills - and from there the development of a small area of the south west. The whole development of a hundred years has been concentrated there. The rest of Western Australia is subject to seasonal flash floods in the rivers. Therefore it is natural that there should be in a State which is generally deficient in water not only an engineer who looked at the Bandicoot Bar and saw a dam, but also an idea evolving in the minds of Western Australians generally. “Here is a river with water going to waste “, they said. “ Let us build a dam.”

If there is any State that knows something of irrigation it is Victoria, the State I represent, for 75 to 80 per cent, of irrigation in Australia is in Victoria.

Senator Wright:

– Was not Prime Minister Deakin responsible for much of our earlier irrigation work?

Senator CORMACK:

– I will deal with Deakin, who was the architect of Victorian irrigation, and eventually became Prime Minister of this country. Senator Wright, Senator McKellar, Senator Wedgwood and I spent the whole of last winter trying to get some of the legalistic theories of the late Mr. Alfred Deakin off our backs in the interests of the Senate. I turn to irrigation, of which he was one of the architects. One of the characteristics of people who advocate irrigation schemes is that they have never been involved in irrigation. I think that Mr. Court of Western Australia and the late Mr. Alfred Deakin had this in common: They never soiled their hands or got blisters on their hands by handling a shovel in an irrigation ditch. This is a romantic concept.

Senator Wright:

– The spirit of Alfred Deakin might ask: Have you?

Senator CORMACK:

– I am not talking about the spirit of Alfred Deakin. There exists, embodied in the wisdom of Australia, the report of a Commission appointed by the late J. B. Chifley, M.P., Minister for Post War Reconstruction at that time. The report is dated 30th June 1944. The Commission was known as the Rural Reconstruction Commission and had as its chairman one of the most distinguished agricultural scientists Australia has had the good fortune to possess, in the person of Professor Whadham. I wish to refer to the third report of that Commission, entitled “Land Utilisation and Farm Settlement”. It is a bible of knowledge, compiled some 20 years ago. It is a report by a generation that had been through the problems of irrigation, land usage and land settlement, but we have sitting in the seats of the mighty these days - this is characteristic of human experience - a generation which knows not Garth. In the report the Commission said -

In developing new land, we may get very useful knowledge by selecting some settled district of similar climate in another part of the world, and noting which crops have been successful or which can only be grown in specially favourable years. Alternatively, if the introduction to Australia of a new crop or tree seems desirable, the first stage should be a detailed examination of the climates of localities in other countries where that species grows successfully.

The Commission called this the homoclime In paragraph 293, the report staled -

Professor Prescott has published a comparison of tropical Australia and northern Nigeria. This shows, for example, that Katherine is a homoclime of Kano, which is a peanut-exporting centre.

The report compares Katherine with northern Nigeria, and Katherine is not far from the headwaters of the Ord River. Kano is a peanut exporting centre; so, by implication, it is suggested that the Ord River area might well be devoted to growing peanuts. Senator Scott advocated the growing of cotton there - I do not know why. It is flying in the face of the scientific evidence embodied in this report. The honorable senator spoke for at least three quarters of an hour about the various crops which have been grown in the Ord River area, but he said nothing about the worms. The report continued -

Katherine, however, has a much more erratic rainfall than Kano and this would decrease its stability as a producing area. Prescott draws the lines of possible agriculture well north of Wyndham, Katherine and Burketown, all of which have a growing season of less than five months.

Later, under the heading “ Market Prospects as a Determinant of Long Range Policy “, the report, in paragraph 399, stated -

The Commission has noted with some alarm-

The alarm of the Commission is not less than the alarm in my breast at the present moment - a tendency of the part of private persons-

Is Mr. Court a private person? I do not know. He may be covered by the next few words, because the report went on - and, in some cases, of public officials, to think of settlement promotion only in terms of land resources and the physical capacity to produce. Projects for stimulating settlement have been repeatedly advanced to us in evidence, and in nearly all cases have involved the investment of large sums of public money.

This is what Senator Scott advocated tonight and what is advocated in the mass attack made on the Senate by all representatives of Western Australia. The report continued -

The motives behind these suggestions have been varied; in some instances it has been the desire to settle a district more closely and thus render easier the additional development of amenities and facilities, to say nothing of the additional opportunities for increased trade of various kinds. In others, there is evidence of a more personal motive in the desire to obtain land for those who have none; but, generally speaking, the sponsors have been eloquently enthusiastic as to what their plans would mean by way of increased development and increased production.

This is what has been constantly advocated in this place. The report stated, further -

Representatives of agricultural industries as such, and particularly those concerned with marketing the products, have been far more cautious.

Why not? There has been advocacy of the growing of cotton, safflower and peanuts. The report went on -

In some cases, for instance sugar and dried fruits, they have urged that there be no new settlement for their form of production; in others, e.g. citrus fruit, they have urged that settlement be planned in areas which would ensure low cost production.

The Commission’s report says that there cannot be land settlement for the mere sake of land settlement and that there must be involved other characteristics and needs. This has never been demonstrated by any honorable senators speaking in this place about what is going to come out of the Ord River project. AH they say is: “ Let us have the Ord River; let us have development and irrigation “.

As I have mentioned, Victoria is the State in which most of the irrigation in Australia is involved. I have here a book entitled “ Land Utilisation in Australia “, by Wadham and Wood. The great scientific genius of Australian Land use was Professor Wadham. He has now retired. He is a great and distinguished man, to whom Australia owes very much. The other author of this book is lucky in the fact that once - he never knew it - I sat at his feet. He taught me the elements of economics that I carry into this place. I refer to Mr. Wood. In Victoria the State, the politicians and the commissions know more about irrigation than does any other element of this aspect of administration in Australia. The authors of this book say under the heading “ Economic Considerations “ -

From the haphazard development of irrigation in Australia, and from the lack of attention given to the technical details and training of irrigators in the past, it is not surprising to find that, in many cases, the economic results have been disastrous. All the State authorities dealing with irrigation on the grand scale have been compelled to acknowledge severe losses at some stage of their operations. The State Rivers and Water Supply Commission (Victoria) started by shouldering many of the debts which had been incurred by the private irrigation trusts.

Further down the report states -

The whole matter was reviewed at length by F. W. Eggleston in 1932. In 1936 a Royal Commission investigated the position of the irrigation schemes in Victoria, and subsequently the State Government transferred to the “ Capital Expenditure borne by the State Account” loans for works for irrigation and domestic supplies amounting to £26,345,536 . . .

That was in 1936. If, Sir, you go through the arithmetical processes by which you can calculate the erosion of money values you can arrive at what that means in terms of modern currency. The document continues -

The various irrigation districts in Victoria are therefore required to pay operation, maintenance and depreciation charges only. The losses on land development in irrigation areas in Victoria are merged with those of other land settlement. In New South Wales the apportionment of overhead costs between the Stale and the irrigation authorities is on similar lines.

I could go further with this aspect. Here I am dealing with irrigation, one of the great sacred cows of Australia. I have in these documents an appraisal of the Snowy Mountains scheme. I do not want to embarrass Senator Sir William Spooner by reading it.

I turn now to the Murrumbidgee irrigation area.

Senator Cant:

– Do not forget to read the sequel.

Senator CORMACK:

– I do not propose to read this, but I refer any honorable senator who is interested to Current Affairs Bulletin No. 10 of 1st April 1963, where the problems of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area are discussed. Without one scintilla of scientific fact, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has been railroaded into the support and the sustenance of a development scheme in the Ord River area of Western Australia. No evidence at all has been given as to whether or not it is going to be successful. Senator Scott traversed the matter in the lightest possible way and said that a research station was set up in 1947. He said this, that and the other thing. The truth is that there has been no proper scientific investigation to indicate whether or not the Ord River scheme is likely to be successful. No such evidence has been adduced to the Parliament. This is due in a substantial degree to the activities of gentlemen in the eastern States, particularly centred in Sydney and Melbourne, who out of the goodness of their hearts and without any assistance from the Commonwealth Government or, indeed, from State Governments, set up the Water Research Institute. That organisation at least has begun to examine the water resources of Australia. It has been so successful as a private institute that over the last few years it has been able to persuade the Commonwealth Government to appropriate the sum of £10 million in combination with State instrumentalities, to enable it to examine the water resources of Australia. There is no evidence to indicate the true water resources of the Ord River basin. There is no evidence, for that matter, of what are the water resources of the State of Queensland, of which Senator Morris is a doughty exponent. Queensland has been settled for over 100 years, yet the Queenslanders do not know the water run off from the rivers in Queensland.

Senator Wood:

– The northern part has the greatest water run off in Australia.

Senator CORMACK:

– It is all very well to speak like a politician and say it has the greatest run off. I hear that the run off from the Ord River is exceeded only by that of the Amazon River and the Nile River, but no-one knows what the run off is. The Queenslanders are so filled with demagogue ry that they come into the Parliament and make great speeches about the great fertility of the northern and western parts of the State. They make speeches about the waters that are running down from the Burdekin, the Diamantina and the Darling Rivers. But if you ask a Queenslander what has been the run off of these rivers for a period of 15 or 20 years, he cannot tell you. Let me cite a text book example of these wild speeches that are made by the member from the frontier. We have heard here in the Senate of the Humpty Doo project. We have heard Senator McKenna make impassioned pleas for planning. It is true that what planners require are facts. It is beginning to dawn on twentieth century planners that they must have facts. Humpty Doo, the rice growing project outside Darwin, is almost a textbook example of planning. It began with the conception of another engineer. I do not know who he was. He may have been an itinerant politician who said: “You can grow rice here. You have the run off from this river. It overflows its banks.”

So a scheme was devised whereby they could grow rice. They got the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in. The facts were adduced, although not all of them, as I shall make clear in a moment. The engineers got to work and found out what the cusecs were. The people from the C.S.I.R.O. came along and said: “ Let us look at the quality of the rice “. So they got a New South Wales expert on rice to make an examination of it. He said: “ Yes, you can get rice to grow there “. They got an ecologist in. I am indebted to an Air Force officer for the word “ ecologist “. One day during the war I was travelling in an aircraft with a smart looking fellow wearing a Royal Air Force uniform. He had no wings on his uniform but he was a smart looking fellow. He had a bag. On the bag were the words “ Flying Officer Prune, Ecologist “. I could not care less about Flying Officer Prune, but the word “ ecologist “ fascinated me. After about seven hours in the air I leaned across from my bucket seat and said: “ Listen, mate, what is an ecologist?” He said: “I am a bug hunter”. That is how I know about ecologists.

At Humpty Doo they got an ecologist in to find out where the bugs were. I am not speaking in the vernacular when I refer to bugs. This great Humpty Doo rice project was commenced. I do not know how many millions of pounds it cost. It was a perfect piece of planning. Public money was poured into the project in vast sums. They started to grow rice, but no rice did they get. There was one factor which they had omitted to consider. That was the magpie geese which ate all the rice. We do not hear anything about Humpty Doo in the Parliament today. It is a dirty word.

The Ord River planners worked out that safflower could be grown there, but that was not successful. So, backed by Senator Scott and all the other honorable senators from Western Australia, together with the publicists in New South Wales, they decided to grow cotton. What happened? The ecology had not been examined. Out from the backblocks came worms or grubs which ate the lot. Senator Scott suggested this afternoon that the C.S.I.R.O., it its great wisdom would overcome this problem of the bugs. It is something like the story of penicillin. Eventually you get bugs that are not susceptible to these things. The Government in its wisdom at long last said: “A halt to this madness”. That is supported, not only by myself, but by other honorable senators representing Victoria. I hope that it also is supported by my colleagues from New South Wales and that they will say: “ No more of this until we find that all the facts have been properly adduced “. In the last 15 months the Government has set up within the Department of National Development the Northern Division. It will produce not only the scientific evidence which can sustain a successful Ord River scheme but also the economic dissiderata that are required to sustain it.

Therefore, I wish to go on record here in making the determined statement that if another bill is brought in for the further development of the Ord River to the tune of £20 million, I am going to vote against it unless it can be properly adduced in this Parliament by the Ministry that espouses the bill that this Ord River scheme has the qualities that are required and necessary to bring it to a successful conclusion. I know perfectly well that that money would not come within Western Australia. It would come out of Victoria, substantially, and out of New South Wales. The hard working men and women of Victoria would be taxed again, as they have been taxed pretty successfullly over the last 15 years to produce the capital sums for government investment in order to develop a scheme for the Ord River area.

Senator Morris:

– That cannot reduce export income.

Senator CORMACK:

– Prejudice is rearing its ugly head again all around the

Senate. I find myself standing here alone without support-

Senator Webster:

– No.

Senator Hannan:

– The honorable senator is not without support.

Senator CORMACK:

– I am without support except from my Victorian colleagues because 1 am making a critical examination of the romance of senators from Western Australia and Queensland, irrespective of which side of the Senate they sit. This is the tragic loneliness in which those who espouse factual scientific examinations find themselves in this modern century.

Senator Hannan:

– I think the honorable senator is making a most conservative analysis. - Senator CORMACK. - I cannot allow this occasion to pass without a quip. The demagogue is the man who has no blisters on his hands. I would like to look at the hands of Mr. Court. There may be a callous on one finger where he has been holding a pen, and there may be a callous on his tongue from his speeches. But he has never been on the Ord River digging ditches.

I want to advance to the Senate some lessons from history which can be well learnt by every honorable senator. I am reverting to my native State, which is Victoria. There is a pattern in land development which is observed by Western Australia. Honorable senators might be beginning to feel that I am against Western Australians. 1 am not against Western Australians or Western Australia. Western Australians have all the charactistics and qualities of the Texans. There is much in the pattern of Australia’s development, even now, which is analagous with the development of the United States of America. If I were looking for a character and quality that can be found in the United States that is analogous with character and quality of Western Australians, I would say that they had the characters and qualities of Texans. They are big, raw-boned lean men like Senator Scott, for example. They are on the verge of discovering offshore oil just as the Texans have discovered offshore oil. They are involving themselves in constitu- tional arguments with the Commonwealth Government as to who owns these offshore oil deposits. They are even finding oil inside Western Australia. They are finding this wealth, I must say, under the impetus of my esteemed friend, Senator Sir William Spooner, who was the distinguished Minister for National Development. Through the agency of a Commonwealth department, the Western Australians have discovered a number of things including iron ore, which they never knew they had in their State. There is a big heartedness about the Western Australians. They bring to this Parliament some of the fundamental things that the Texans have brought to the sophisticated eastern seaboard of the United States. We even have some twentieth century Henry Adams coming to the national capital of Australia. I do not want to pursue this analogy with American history any further, but honorable senators can find stereotypes of the colonial Americans here in Canberra at the present moment.

There is a pattern of development which the Mr. Courts of this world overlook. First of all, there comes a sort of frontier society from which Western Australia is now beginning to escape in part. After that stage of development which involves the opening up and the use of spinifex lands for sheep and 300 lb. bullocks, after five years in the Kimberley area, there comes this characteristic of the pattern of development which leads to the extractive industries. Victoria went through this phase over 100 years ago with the development of the gold fields. Following the development of those gold fields there came the element of secondary industry. From the development of secondary industry which begins to harness itself to the extractive industries, a further growth occurs in the primary sector. But I suggest that Mr. Court, who is the Minister for the North West in Western Australia, is trying to bypass, as the West African countries are, the necessary stage of growing pains, which Western Australia itself must go through.

It seems to me that the diversion of national resources to the tune of £60 million or £70 million into the development of the Ord River area to grow cotton that nobody wants - or that grubs might require, wish or want - is an illusion. Surely the development of Western Australia has to go through the normal pattern through discovery into the exploitation of its extractive industries. By the development of extractive industries and the harnessing of those industries, the necessary elements of processing in those industries will follow, such as the creation of an additional steel industry for Australia in Western Australia based upon the extractive industries of that State. Following from that, Western Australia would find the automatic development on the primary levels to provide the food, the means and the wherewithal whereby a necessary impetus can be given to the subsequent phases of primary development and to primary industry, and the secondary and tertiary industries which are imposed on it. This is a quality and characteristic of Victorian development which has led to the stage where Victoria can be taxed so heavily that it can provide some of the capital that the public sector of Western Australia so heartily desires.

Before I leave this subject I want to quote an illustration of what I concede to be the necessary national priorities for the works into which investment in the private sector should be diverted. I think for example - this is my own personal opinion - that a very good case could be made out for the development and the siting in northern Australia of substantial power resources based on atomic power. Such a project could be based somewhere in northern Australia. Such power could be used not only to aid in the extractive industries in Arnhem Land and, particularly, the Gove Peninsula area but also to set up a substantial element of secondary industry using the vast resources of electrical power for the handling of the processing of alumina and bauxite. A secondary industry of a substantial order and nature could be set up in that area. Power could even be produced, under the modern conditions of transmission, into the areas of the Kimberleys which cannot be divorced from the development of Western Australia.

It is apparent, 1 suggest, that this development should take place. But unless a clear and effective case is demonstrated in this Parliament for any stage of this development, I, for one, as a senator representing the State of Victoria, will be opposed to it. I am sure my distinguished colleague, Senator Sir William Spooner, who comes from New South Wales and who, I understand, is to follow me in this debate, will sustain the arguments that I have advanced. The honorable senator, of his own volition, has now retired to the back benches, where he can look at these matters completely dispassionately in the interests of the people whom he represents.

I like Western Australians. I admire their swift change from wild colonial boys in the twenties to sophisticated exploiters of the State of Victoria in the sixties.

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER (New South Wales) [8.40].- I always like the story told about himself by Dr. Johnson, who, for the good of his immortal soul, decided to pursue the study of economics but had to discontinue the study because he felt he could never concentrate properly on the task as cheerfulness kept breaking in on his thoughts. Apply that story to the study of water conservation and closer settlement, I am certain the Senate will agree that Senator Cormack has earned every high degree that could possibly be earned, because I detected no sign of cheerfulness in his approach to the subject. I agree with the honorable senator in relation to many things, but I cannot agree with him in his approach to this particular problem.

The honorable senator has spoken about the development of nuclear power in the north. I go along with that thought but only to the extent that there will be a market for the metals that will be produced and to the extent that an atomic energy plant can be established successfully. Surely we in Australia must approach the development of the north from all directions. I regard the Ord River scheme as being one of many governmental contributions to closer settlement. I do not see any difference in principle between protecting manufacturing industry to enable it to grow and providing very substantial sums of money for basic mineral exploration so that we can increase our mining activities and develop our export trade. I see no difference in principle between protecting industry and governments providing the headworks for irrigation projects. In my innocence, I believe that the best prospect of decentralisation and the development of closer settlement lies in the development of water conservation projects.

I regard the Ord River scheme as being probably the most interesting water conservation scheme in Australia. Over the last decade there have been in the north of Australia developments that we would not have thought possible ten years ago. Let us think of what is happening across the north from Weipa to Arnhem Land and down to Mr Isa, which has recently experienced bad luck. Let us think of the iron ore and uranium that are being won at places like Mr Isa, Weipa and Gove. If we leave to one side the tobacco growing project at Tinaroo in Queensland, the north has lacked agricultural development. I stand to be corrected, but if we put to one side the project at Tinaroo - it is fairly close to the more developed areas - I can think of only three agricultural projects of any consequence that have been undertaken in the north - the ill fated Humpty Doo project, the Ord River scheme, and the rice project on Liveringa Station. Of course, those projects have now been reduced to two in number.

We have to make a start somewhere. A start must have been made at some stage or other in Victoria. We must make a start on agricultural activities in the north of this continent. Not only have we a tremendous area available, but also a substantial proportion of our water resources are to be found there. What are we to do? Are we to sit back and refuse to let cheerfulness break in? If we were to adopt Senator Cormack’s line of thought, we would have more speedways, more railways and more developments around the port of Melbourne. That is all very good, but even Victorians are Australians. They must make their contribution. As Australians, we must accept a big element of risk in developing the north. That is why the Ord River scheme seems to me to be the most interesting agricultural development in Australia. I should be very much happier if Senator Cormack, who knows much more about this sort of thing than T will ever know, were to apply his mind to this problem constructively rather than critically. I believe that there will never be success in any scheme to develop the north without some initial failures. There must be troubles, there must be anxieties, there must be ups and downs in any such scheme. Whatever else may be said about the Ord scheme, it cannot be said that it was commenced without careful preparation.

My mind goes back to a trip I made to the Ord River area soon after I took over the portfolio of National Development. I recall the long dusty journey by car to Carlton Downs Station, arriving there late one night. I recall sitting on the verandah of a little home and hearing a strange noise which seemed to me to be coming from underneath the verandah. I said to my little hostess: “ Have you milking cows here?” She said: “ No. They are crocs.” This place was within 100 yards of the river. I have always thought that a great tribute should be paid to officials of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and of the Western Australian Government who have been making experiments in this area over a period of 10 or 15 years. I recall finding, to my surprise, sugar cane being successfully grown in this area. I was so surprised and pleased that I marked the occasion by making a public statement that sugar cane could be grown in the Kimberleys.

I was very properly reminded of my then political immaturity by the protests that came from Queensland at such contemplated activity. That must be 10 or 12 years ago. At that time they were experimenting with sugar, cotton and crops of that kind. A lot of experimental work has been done. I was sorry to hear Senator Cormack speak in derogatory terms of Mr. Dumas, the Western Australian engineer. I had a great deal of contact with him in those days when I was a Commonwealth Minister and he was a State officer. I was also in frequent contact with Mr. David Brand, who is now Premier of Western Australia. I think those two men - Dumas in particular - did a first class job. It is not enough to be a good engineer to work in these outlying parts of Australia. You have to be a man of courage who is prepared to take all the comment, the criticism and the backlash of advocating a big scheme in an uneconomical part of Australia. I always pay great tribute to Mr. Dumas, and to Mr. Brand who was his Minister and often supported him.

My point applies not only to the Ord River but to all northern Australia. The same value cannot he expected for money invested in northern Australia as for money invested in other parts of Australia. Everything runs against pioneering activity. In addition to the costs of transporting plant and equipment and getting men to work in

Outlying areas, higher costs are incurred in getting the produce to market. What then is the alternative? Are we to spend our money in Victoria, New South Wales and southern parts of Queensland and get 20s. for our £1 and let the northern parts of Australia, where perhaps only 15s. is obtained for £1, stand still? I always remember that Australia has plenty of resources and assets. The only thing Australia does not have is time. We have to keep moving ahead within Our limits.

I wish now to put another point of view of the Ord River scheme. I do not pretend to have a practical knowledge, but I have been so closely associated with the scheme for a long period that I remember that its original conception was for development in stages. The first stage was a small area of experimentation at the Ord River Experimental Station to gain experience in small plot work. The next stage was to be in the nature of a pilot experiment and was to include the building of the diversion dam. If my memory is correct, the diversion dam was estimated to cost between £3 million and £4 million. It was contemplated that it would command about 30,000 acres. I cannot remember all the figures. Senator Scott will remember them but I do not keep them readily in my mind. As I remember it, the first stage of development was expected to provide between 40 and 50 farms. It was planned that the results obtained on those farms would be closely observed for whatever period was necessary and then, with the knowledge gained, the next stage was to be commenced. If my recollection is correct, the next stage was to be the construction of the big dam about 30 miles upstream from the diversion dam. That would command a very much greater area of land to be irri gated and settled - about 200,000 acres. As I understand the facts, the first stage - the building of the diversion dam - instead of costing between £3 million and £4 million, has cost about £7 million or £8 million. We are all familiar with the fact that works in outlying areas such as the Ord River cost far more than originally anticipated. Of the total cost of the scheme, including the cost of building the diversion dam, about £5i million or £6 million has been found by the Commonwealth.

The original plan was to open up about 30 farms after the diversion dam was completed. But before the dam was finished and the farmers settled, the Commonwealth received an application from the Western Australian Government to find an extra £30 million for the second stage of development. I think crops have been grown on about five farms in the area commanded by the diversion dam. About 20 farmers have been settled to this stage. This early request from the Western Australian Government is completely opposed to the way in which the project was first planned. It was contemplated that it would proceed stage by stage. Senator Cormack has gone from the chamber and left me to my sorrow.

Senator Wright:

– What did the honorable senator say was the departure?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– .

That it was contemplated that the dam would be built at a cost of about £4 million and that the land commanded by that dam would provide about 20 farms for settlement. It was planned that the results achieved on those 20 farms would be watched for as long as practical farmers thought necessary. If the first stage proved to be successful, the second stage would be commenced; that is the construction of the big dam upstream to command greater areas of land to be divided into a greater number of farms. However, instead of the scheme being developed in those stages, the diversion dam was hardly completed before a request was received from the Western Australian Government to provide £30 million for the second stage.

Two points are involved. The first concerns the sum of £30 million, which is not as important as the second point - that of proving that the project is successful in its first stage. Honorable senators should not forget that if the Ord River scheme fails, that is the end of agricultural development in the north of Australia for a generation. We cannot afford to let it fail. We are in the Ord River scheme as a nation and if I may make bold to forecast the future, as a nation we shall see that project through to the end. But, as a nation, surely we will go about the scheme in a common sense farming way so that it is proved by practical farming methods that the scheme is successful. We have every foundation to believe in its success after 10 to 15 years of patient work, research and study by officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in conjunction with the Western Australian Government. I think that everybody in the Senate should take an interest in the scheme in a critical way. We are all going to support it. The point is that we shall support it in a way that will make it a success. We can make it a success only by the man on the land being given the right assistance. I think that one of the good things, according to the way I see them, of the preliminary development that has occurred there is that the men who have gone into this area have a substantial equity capital of their own. They have put their own capital at stake, and they are taking this opportunity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1227

PARLIAMENTARY AND GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report of Joint Select Committee

Debate resumed from 13th May 1964 (vide page 1095, Vol. S.25), on motion by Senator Marriott -

That the report and minutes of proceedings be printed.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

.- I appreciate the fact that at this late hour at the end of the sessional period the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Paltridge) has allowed me to debate this motion. After all, the Joint Printing Committee felt that there should be a select committee of the Parliament on parliamentary and government publications and the Government decided that there would be such a committee. Both Houses of the Parliament appointed their representatives. We sat long hours, we heard expert witnesses, and we worked very hard on the report. It is my view as an ordinary backbencher that when the Parliament appoints a committee and the committee makes its report, the Parliament and not the Government should debate the report.

All honorable senators have had a copy of the report, which contains over 70 pages. I think it would be very wrong for the Parliament to go into recess without having discussed this report. It is a report to the Parliament and not to the Government. It contains 67 recommendations. I am sorry that one of the most helpful members of the Parliamentary and Government Publications Committee, Senator Murphy, is not here. I hope that he will have an opportunity to join in a debate on this report, which I think is very valuable. We have had some results already. The Department of the Treasury has already taken certain action following our report. One of the greatest handicaps of the Government Printing Office was the lack of a typographer. I believe that as a result of our Committee’s investigations, findings and recommendations, the Government took action to appoint a typographer.

Senator Wright:

– What is that?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– He is the expert who decides on the type of print, colour, set up and size. It was very difficult for the Government Printer to get a typographer but, I believe because of our Committee’s findings and recommendations, we now have employed in the Government Printing Office a typographer who will do a lot to help us. I would not like, particularly at this late stage, to detain the Senate very long on this matter, although I should love to have an hour on it. There are several recommendations of which I think the Senate should take note and in which I hope it will support the Committee.

One of the chief findings is that there be set up in Australia an equivalent of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in Great Britain, where the ordinary person and/ or politician can purchase any paper printed by the government. There are government papers available at Sub-Treasury Offices in the various capital cities, but very few people know that. I understand that the previous New South Wales Government set up a stationer’s shop. I believe that the Commonwealth should act on the recommendation in the report to confer with the States with a view to establishing a shop similar to Her Majesty’s Stationery Office wherein one will be able to buy Commonwealth and State publications. A shop could be set up in a Government building. I believe that the people of Australia should be able to obtain publications that are issued by the State and Federal Governments.

I understand there is still in force what is called the Departmental Publications Committee. The Joint Committee strongly recommended that that Committee be abolished, because all the evidence that we took on that matter led to the unanimous opinion that the Departmental Publications Committee was not worthwhile. We were of opinion that a department which wanted to publish an annual report or even a statement should have to go to some authority in order to be able to publish it. We believe they should go to the Government Printer and the typographer before they are put into print. In my view, there has been a terrific waste of money by departments due to the lack of efficiency of the Publications Committee to which I have referred. Annual reports and other statements have been printed by departments, either using their own resources or the resources of private enterprise.

Senator Wright:

– What departments are represented on the Committee?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Only the Treasury. There has been a terrific waste of money in the compilation and publication of reports from this Parliament and from departments. We urge the Government to adopt the recommendations in the report. If the Government will not, I believe that we will be able to take action in the Senate to compel it to adopt them. I am not too sure of that, but 1 believe, as a start, that the Senate should say: “ Yes, we agree with this report “. 1 do not want to bore the Senate by listing the 67 recommendations contained in our 71-page report, but there are two items to which I wish to refer. One is uniformity of size of government publications. We have come down on the side of royal octavo - many honorable senators may not know what that is - and quarto size papers. We object to the foolscap size. I have in my hand the notice paper of the Senate, which is foolscap size, and the journal of the Senate, which is foolscap size. Many departmental reports are also foolscap size. Anyone with any knowledge of filing papers would know that you cannot file foolscap, quarto, and royal octavo papers together. We can learn from the House of Commons, the House of Lords and Her Majesty’s Stationery Office about obtaining uniformity of size in papers presented to the Parliament and/ or printed by departments. I hope that the Senate will support the adoption of that recommendation.

Senator O’Byrne:

– On what size paper did the Committee print its report?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– We printed it on quarto size paper. Royal octavo is the smallest size. There must be some reports which can be printed on royal octavo. I was told today that it would be difficult for the Senate notice paper and the journal to be printed on the smaller size paper, but I still suggest that our recommendation be adopted.

The Senate has received this report and honorable senators have had an opportunity to read it. At this late hour, at the end of the sessional period, I do not think they want me to make a lengthy speech. I merely ask honorable senators to support our recommendation in relation to uniformity of size.

My lawyer colleagues or friends may come in on my next statement. At present a bill, and then an act, provide that the act will come into force, say, on the twentyfirst day of March in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five. Our suggestion is that in government publications the date be shown as 21 March 65. Unless honorable senators have studied this aspect they will not know that the adoption of our suggestion would save in a year a terrific amount in the cost of paper and printing. The spelling out of the date goes back to the time when documents were handwritten and could be altered. We had expert evidence that printing cannot be altered. It would be quite safe to show a date as 21 March 65. Everyone knows that the year is 1965, not 1865 or 2065.

Finally, I ask the Senate to support another view of the Committee, which is that every government publication of any thickness - I have one in my hand at the moment - shall have the title printed on whit is called, in printing terms, the spine, so that when it is filed the title will be clearly visible.

There are other aspects of this report. As I have said, there are 67 recommendations, which no doubt honorable senators have read. All I ask is that the Senate support our recommendations so that they can be put to the Government. If the Government does not accept them, or at least the main ones, we can take further action in the next sessional period.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- The Senate is indebted to the Joint Select Committee which prepared this report and made it available to the Senate. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1229

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Discharge of Motions

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to-

That the following Orders of the Day, Government Business, be discharged -

No. 8 - Foreign Affairs - Ministerial Statement - Motion to take note of Paper - Resumption of Debate upon the motion, That the Senate take note of the paper.

No. 9- -Visit to South East Asia and United States of America by Minister for Defence - Ministerial Statement - Motion to take note of Paper - Resumption of Debate upon the motion. That the Senate take note of the paper.

page 1229

QUESTION

COMPUTER SYSTEM

Senator HENTY:
LP

– On 19th May Senator McClelland asked whether, because of defects, the computer system at the Government Printing Office in Canberra was unable to communicate with the computers in the States. Doubtless he was referring to the installation, operated by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, which is temporarily located in space at the Printing Office in Kingston. The answer to the question is “ No “ because the form of communication which was planned when the contract was let in 1963 was by interchange of magnetic tapes and the acceptability of tapes between the computers has been proven beyond doubt in the Canberra installation, which includes a computer of exactly the same type as those to be used in the State Capitals.

It may interest honorable senators if I were to give some further information about the installation. The contract placed in 1963 for an amount of £2.14 million provided for a network of six installations to be located in Canberra and in each mainland State Capital. The work to be processed on these machines included that of the Bureau and other government departments. The central unit in Canberra was installed in June 1964 and has become progressively operational since about September 1964. The installations in the States are proceeding according to plan, that in Sydney is currently being tested, and the Melbourne machine is at present being installed.

Whilst there is no evidence either of faulty installation or of technical defects in the system and no additional sum has been spent, or is to be spent, to rectify any fault of installation or technical defect associated with communication between the computers or of any other kind it is possible that, in relation to the amount of £600,000 that was quoted in the question, there has been a misinterpretation of confidential information. In fact, some additional expenditure of the order of £600,000 has been approved for equipment comprising magnetic tape units, printers, card punches and some additional storage, to enable the basic system in the States to carry out more work than was originally anticipated, particularly for the Taxation Branch.

Sitting suspended from 9.20 p.m. to 9.30. a.m. (Wednesday).

Wednesday 26th May 1965 (continuation of sitting of 24th May).

page 1230

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 393.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minis ter representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What amounts of commission have been paid by the Government on the purchase of aircraft, both commercial and military, since 1955?
  2. To whom have such amounts been paid?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following information -

I have ‘been unable to discover any instance of the Commonwealth, or its instrumentalities, having paid a commission in respect of the purchase of commercial or military aircraft since 1955. Whereever practicable the Commonwealth deals directly with principals, butin the event of a seller’s representative or agent being involved the question of commission would be a matter between the seller and the representative or agent, and the Commonwealth would not be aware of it.

page 1230

QUESTION

PUBLICATION OF LITERARY AND MUSICAL WORKS

(Question No. 431.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will the Government consider making the services of the Government Printer available free or at reduced rates for the publication of Australian musical or literary work upon the recommendation of some authoritative body that the work is of sufficient musical or literary merit and ought to be published as a contribution to Australian culture but cannot be published otherwise except at a loss?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following information -

The honorable senator asked whether the services of the Government Printer could be made available free or at reduced rates for the publication of Australian musical or literary works. As the honorable senator is aware the principal functions of the Government Printer in Canberra are the reproduction of Parliamentary documents and printing for Commonwealth departments. However, for many years the Government Printer has faced substantial difficultiesin recruiting sufficient staff to perform these functions and as a consequence it has been necessary for a large amount of Commonwealth printing to be undertaken by commercial printers. In the circumstances it will be appreciated that it would not be possible for the Government Printer to accept printing work from outside sources. However, the honorable senator will also be aware that since 1939 the Commonwealth Literary Fund has provided assistance towards the cost of publishing Australian books of literary value. Manuscripts are assessed by an Honorary Advisory Board following which the Committee of the Fund is empowered to make grants to enable the publication of important books at a reasonable cost. The Government is at present considering representations for the establishment of a Commonwealth musical fund to provide finance to assist the publication of Australian musical compositions.

page 1230

QUESTION

INSURANCE COMPANIES

(Question No. 433.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

To what extent is the insurance business in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia, or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

Of the 42 companies who are carrying on life insurance business in Australia at 31st December 1964, 26 were controlled by overseas interests. Companies controlled by overseas interests at the end of 1963 held 14 per cent, of the total life insurance business in force excluding industrial business, which is not transacted in Australia by overseas controlled offices. Of the 377 companies and firms currently writing general insurance business in Australia or acting as brokers and agents for overseas insurers, 112 are incorporated outside the Commonwealth. Of the companies incorporated in the Commonwealth details of shareholdings are maintained by the Registrars of Companies in the States but not by the Commonwealth. Information concerning the extent of general insurance business written by companies owned and controlled by Australian and overseas interests respectively is not published by the Commonwealth.

page 1230

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION FUND

(Question No. 437.)

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. With reference to the Treasurer’s statement on the surplus in the Superannuation Fund, did the Auditor-General fail to draw the attention of the Government to this apparent miscalculation on the part of the Commonwealth Actuary?
  2. What steps are being taken 10 prevent a recurrence of such a serious miscalculation?
  3. Will the Treasurer make a further statement indicating clearly whether or not former contributors to the Fund will receive any moiety of the surplus?
  4. What was the point of difference between the members of the Board, referred to in the Treasurer’s statement?
  5. Will the Treasurer have a statement prepared showing the total assets of the Fund in 1930, 1940, 1950 and 1960?
  6. Are the figures in the Commonwealth Year Books, recording that the assets of the Fund rose from £14 million in 1945-46 to nearly £100 million in 1960, correct; and if so, does this imply that during those 15 years contributors were significantly responsible for the huge surplus now disclosed?
  7. If former contributors are to participate in the distribution of this surplus, will the Government favourably consider increasing the rate of pension payable to widows of contributors from five-eighths to five-sixths, and stipulating that such increase will not affect any Social Services payments which they might be receiving?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. The responsibility of the Auditor-General under the Superannuation Act is to audit the accounts relating to the Fund. The audit provides no indication of the state and sufficiency of the Fund, or that the assets of the Fund together with expected future contribution and interest receipts will be sufficient to meet the prescribed benefits payable or to be payable from the Fund. Such a determination can only be made by actual examination. For this reason the Act contains a statutory requirement for an actuary to be appointed by the Superannuation Board to conduct quinquennial investigations. I know of no miscalculation by the Commonwealth Actuary, who was appointed by the Board for the purposes of the investigation as at 30th June, 1962; the surplus has largely arisen from the increased earnings of the Fund in comparison with the rate of earnings of 33 per cent, assumed when the rates of contribution were calculated.
  2. As outlined in the Treasurer’s statement of 25th March 1965 the Government’s decisions not only will result in distribution of the surplus already accrued, but are designed to minimise the possibility of the emergence of future surpluses.
  3. As explained in the Treasurer’s statement, former contributors to the Fund who are now in receipt of superannuation pensions will be entitled to a share of the surplus. However, no additional amount will be payable to those former contributors who have not retired on pension and have already received a refund of all the contributions paid by them to the Fund.
  4. The report of the Superannuation Board upon the Eighth Quinquennial Investigation of the Superannuation Fund, tabled in the Senate on 18th

August, 1964, referred to the suggestions made by the Actuary for the utilisation of the present surplus and outlined various alternatives which were considered by the Board and rejected. The report went on to state “ The Board, by majority, therefore endorses the recommendations contained in the Report “. The Board’s endorsement of the Actuary’s recommendations was, therefore, not unanimous.

  1. The total assets of the Fund at 30th June in the years referred to were -
  1. The figures shown in the Commonwealth Year Book for the period after 1948 are gross figures for the Superannuation Fund and the DefenceForces Retirement Benefits Fund.

With the exception of a residue of surplus carried forward from the previous investigation, the surplus revealed by the Eighth Quinquennial Investigation of the Fund arose during the quinquennium from 1st July 1957 to 30th June 1962. The surplus has arisen entirely from contributions paid into the Fund by present and former contributors, together with interest thereon: the Commonwealth doesnot contribute its share of benefits until thebenefits become payable.

  1. The Government has already, taken its deci sions upon the method of distribution of the surplus and these decisions were explained in the Treasurer’s statement of 25th March 1965. Before reaching its decisions the Government gave careful consideration to the views of all interested parties and organisations of public service employees expressed agreement with the decisions of the Government.

page 1231

QUESTION

NATIONAL DISASTERS RELIEF

(Question No. 470.)

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. During the past 10 years, on how many occasions has the Commonwealth Government been approached by the States to assist financially after national disasters have occurred?
  2. What is the total amount of such financial assistance given by the Commonwealth?
  3. What amount of such assistance has been given to each State?
  4. What types of national disasters have occurred and in which States?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. Available records indicate that during the past 10 years there have been about 30 occasions when a State has approached the Commonwealth for financial assistance directly related to a natural disaster in that State.
  2. 3 and 4. From 1st July 1955, to 30th April 1965, the following amounts were paid to the States by way of financial assistance in relation to natural disasters: -

page 1232

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 472.)

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Will the Postmaster-General furnish information indicating the range of the South Australian Television Station Channel 1 and listing the towns of the northern area of South Australia which can be regarded as receiving, for all practical purposes, an adequate reception from this Station?
  2. What plans are being made to bring within the effective range of Channel 1 other towns and districts lying beyond the present viewing area by means of a booster station or similar device, and when is it anticipated that any such plans will be put into effect?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. The collection of the necessary data to provide a complete answer to the question would involve comprehensive surveys in the area concerned which would extend over a considerable period. Such surveys by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board are normal practice in regard to television stations and a survey is planned for the Spencer Gulf North area. It will, however, be some time before it can be undertaken and completed. However, from the limited observations which have so far been made, the following information can be given: Reports indicate that reasonable reception has been achieved to the south as far as Arno Bay and Moonta, to the west at Kimba, to the north somewhat beyond Quorn and to the east beyond Peterborough. Because the strength of television signals in any location depends very much on the local topography some viewers in a particular town may obtain reasonable reception whereas nearby viewers may have difficulty. It is suggested that viewers seek the advice of local servicemen.
  2. At the present time there are no plans to extend service by means of booster or translator stations to areas beyond those served by the existing station. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board will make a report and recommendation to me in due course if its further investigations indicate this to be practicable and appropriate in any case.

page 1232

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

(Question No. 476.)

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Commonwealth Government been approached by the State Premiers for drought relief assistance?
  2. Does the Minister agree that it is time for some constructive policy to be formulated with a view to eliminating the periodic economic battering which primary producers take from this recurring economic hazard?
  3. Will the Government take action to make available long term loans at low interest rates for the purpose of irrigation and fodder conservation schemes as advocated by producer and rural political organisations?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. Last March the Premier of New South Wales advanced a proposal regarding credit sales of wheat by the Australian Wheat Board to drought-stricken farmers. This proposal was referred to the Australian Wheat Board, and the Premier has been advised of the outcome of the Board’s deliberations.

More recently the Premier of Queensland has indicated that his Government proposes to make an approach for Commonwealth financial assistance in relation to the current drought.

  1. The problem of mitigating the effects of drought has been engaging the attention of interested parties for many years.
  2. The question of special loan assistance at concessional interest rates for the purpose of irrigation and fodder conservation is a matter for the State Governments concerned.I understand that at least some of the States provide loans of this nature.

page 1232

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT

(Question No. 479.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Will the Government make public the latest figures on radioactive fallout over Australia?
  2. Will the Government consider making arrangements to release such figures for each year by at least March of the following year?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows - 1 and 2. The authority in Australia responsible for monitoring fallout from nuclear weapon tests is the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor E. W. Titterton; data from its programmes are published on an annual basis as soon as they have been collated and analysed. The A.W.T.S.C. is directly responsible for an extensive programme for monitoring strontium 90 in the Australian environment and collaborates with Commonwealth X-ray and Radium Laboratory in measurements of caesium 137. The accurate estimation of these radioisotopes is difficult and laborious; it requires special equipment and technical skill. In addition, to permit a satisfactory assessment of the levels of the radioisotopes in the environment many samples of particular materials must be examined. Consequently, the collection and analysis of these data is a slow process. The scientific papers presenting the results are usually published in the Australian Journal of Science; the most recent papers appeared in the February issue of the Journal and reported results for strontium 90 and caesium 137 for 1963. When measurements are completed on materials from the 1964 survey, the results will be assessed and reported in the Journal later this year. In view of the demanding and time-consuming nature of this work, it is not possible to give an undertaking that the results for each year will be published by March of the following year. However, the honorable senator can be assured that as a matter of policy, the results will be published as soon as possible after they have been collated and analysed.

page 1233

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

(Question No. 480.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice -

  1. What would be the approximate total cost of any endeavour to produce, test and provide for the carriage of a nuclear weapon by countries not now possessing such a weapon?
  2. Would not the cost to Australia be completely prohibitive and such as to prejudice gravely our national development?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The answer to honorable senator’s questions is as follows -

Australia is opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Accordingly, while our policy does not preclude for all time the possible future acquisition of nuclear weapons for use by the Australian forces, the Government is not undertaking the development of a nuclear capability. Cost is only one consideration in this matter. In the circumstances I would not wish to give an estimate of the possible costs sought by Senator Murphy.

page 1233

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES TO COMMUNIST CHINA

(Question No. 485.)

Senator MARRIOTT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice -

  1. How many tons of wheat were exported to Communist China in 1964, and at what price per bushel?
  2. Is there any information to prove that any of this wheat was re-exported to other countries; if so, how much of this wheat was re-exported to what countries, and at what price?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers -

  1. 2,001,472 tons of wheat were exported from Australia to Mainland China in 1964. Following normal commercial procedure, the Australian Wheat Board has not revealed the price at which sales were made.
  2. No information is available that any of this wheat was re-exported to other countries.

page 1233

QUESTION

COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO SERVICEMEN

(Question No. 490.)

Senator WRIGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

In view of the comments made a few weeks ago by the High Court Judge, Sir Victor Windeyer, when adjudicating upon a claim by a civilian in respect of the “Voyager” disaster, and, after consideration, the allowance of compensation to the dependants, when he observed that there was no liability for the injury or death of a serviceman in respect of the actions of another serviceman, on what basis is compensation being paid to injured Naval personnel or to their dependants in respect of the disaster?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for the Navy has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s question -

When the Government decided to settle claims made against the Commonwealth arising out of the loss of H.M.A.S. “ Voyager “, it did so with the knowledge that the strict legal position in relation to the liability of the Commonwealth arising out of the tortious acts of one serviceman to another was not clearly established. The comments by Mr. Justice Windeyer referred to in the question do no more than confirm this understanding of the position. Notwithstanding the uncertainty as to the legal position, the Government in dealing with these claims, is proceeding on the basis of making offers of settlement to servicemen or their dependants to cover what it considers to be a fair and reasonable assessment of the loss in each case.

page 1233

QUESTION

COMMUNITY WELFARE PROGRAMME

(Question No. 492.)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

Having regard to the increasing public awareness of the existence of poverty in Australia and to the need to give special attention to large numbers of underprivileged and handicapped citizens, suffering hardship and lacking the satisfaction of basic human needs, will the Minister give consideration to convening, under Commonwealth Government sponsorship, an annual National Welfare Convention, on a basis similar to the National Citizenship Convention, to which representatives of Federal and State Governments and delegates from voluntary welfare organisations would be invited, with a view to discussing the many and complex problems involved and to planning and coordinating a community welfare programme on a national basis.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following information -

The preamble to the honorable senator’s question presumes several matters in support of which he offers no argument and as to which I am in doubt. The National Welfare Convention suggested is to cover a field of social welfare which at the government level is primarily the responsibility of the States. Within their respective Government auspices many local authorities, voluntary agencies and private individuals also make notable contributions. The role of the Commonwealth Department of Social Services is largely confined to the payment of cash benefits to people with family responsibilities or who have limited resources and who are old, sick, widowed or unemployed, lt is doubtful whether the authority of ils Ministerial Head extends to the convening of the suggested Convention.

page 1234

QUESTION

NATIONAL DEBT

(Question No. 495.)

Senator PROWSE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer -

  1. What was the amount of the National Debt related to (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the States and (c) Local Government authorities as at the 30th June 1954 and 30th June 1964, respectively?
  2. What amount of interest is debited under each of these headings?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honorable senators questions -

Information concerning the obligations of the Commonwealth and State Governments and of semi-government and local authorities in Australia and overseas is published in the annual Finance Bulletins issued by the Commonwealth Statistician. For the Commonwealth and the States, the figures are of securities on issue on behalf of those governments. The amounts shown for semigovernment and local authorities include, in addition to securities on issue, liabilities of over one year for which no formal securities have been issued, and also net overdrafts.

As the latest dale for which information is available for all authorities is 30lh June 1963. the earlier figures requested have been supplied for 30th June 1953. Details are as follows: -

page 1234

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 497.)

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Will lbc Postmaster-General investigate claims by a firm called Western Telonics that it has the technical equipment to provide city-quality television reception for any towns in the upper Murray area of South Australia, that this equipment has been inspected by and has met with the approval of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and that engineers of the Postmaster-General’s Department have expressed interest in the equipment?
  2. Will the Postmaster-General furnish a report on this matter to enable the Parliament to determine whether there is any substance in the firm’s claims, and whether it is economically practicable?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. The Postmaster-General has advised that he is not aware of claims by Western Telonics concerning provision of television service to the Upper Murray area of South Australia. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board is conducting tests on a low-powered television translator unit manufactured by Western Telonics to determine whether it meets the Board’s technical standards. Western Telonics is one of a number of firms which manufacture television translators and the Board has examined the performance of a number of different units.
  2. A television translator station operates by receiving signals from a normal television station, amplifying them, changing their frequencies to a different channel and re-transmitting them. For successful operation it is necessary that signals of good strength and stability should be available at the input of the translator as the quality of the transmitted signal can be no better than that received. Having regard to the distance of towns in the Upper Murray Area of South Australia from existing television stations it would not be expected that signals of adequate strength and stability would be available for satisfactory translator operation. The television stations now being established to serve the Mildura area which will commence transmission later this year are expected to provide stronger signals in the Upper Murray area and the possible use of translator stations to further improve service there will be examined in due course.

page 1235

QUESTION

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 18th May Senator Bishop asked me a series of Questions without Notice concerning the establishment of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation.

The Minister for Housing has informed me that he hopes to be in a position to announce the members of the Corporation within a week or two. As Honorable Senators will be aware, the members of the Corporation, when appointed, will be required to appoint staff, determine procedures and submit certain recommendations to the Minister before the Corporation may commence to insure housing loans.

All these matters must necessarily take some time to complete, and it may be some months before the Corporation is in a position to commence business. When the Corporation is ready to start business a branch or an agency will be opened in each State capital city.

As soon as the Corporation has completed its initial plans of operation and settled on its procedures, it will announce the names of approved lenders and publicise its services. The Minister for Housing informs me that he has already discussed the insurance scheme with the major institutional lenders for housing to seek their support.

Senator Bishop suggested that there had been a decrease in the amount of funds made available for housing loans since the Housing Loans Insurance Act was passed by the Parliament on 29th April. I do not know what he bases this suggestion on: there are no figures available yet of housing loans made since the Act was passed on 29th April.

page 1235

QUESTION

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE ACT

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 21st May Senator Wright in a question without notice asked me whether the Minister for Housing had specified the classes of mortgages which will be insured under the Housing Loans Insurance Act.

Under the Housing Loans Insurance Act, classes of insurable loans are to be prescribed by regulation, and the Minister for Housing is empowered to direct the Corporation not to enter into contracts of insurance except in respect of such of the prescribed classes of insurable loans as the Minister specifies.

The Minister for Housing informs me that the regulations prescribing the classes of insurable loans and certain other matters that are to be prescribed will not be made until after the members of the Corporation have been appointed and the initial planning and preparatory work have reached a more advanced stage. The first step is, of course, the appointment of the members of the Corporation and the Minister for Housing expects to announce the appointment of these members within the next week or so.

page 1235

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 18th May Senator Wedgwood in a question without notice brought to my attention, as the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, a statement by the Victorian Minister for Housing on the rate of lending for home building, and sought information as to whether there had been a recent change in Reserve Bank policy in respect of lending for housing purposes in Victoria and in the other States.

The Minister for Housing has advised me that the Reserve Bank has informed him it has not submitted any request to the trading banks in respect of the volume of their lending for housing and that there has been no change since early 1964 in Reserve Bank policy in respect of lending by savings banks for the acquisition of homes.

page 1235

QUESTION

FOOTWEAR

Senator HENTY:
LP

– On 1st April, Senator Lillico asked a question without notice concerning the importation of low cost footwear from Mainland China. The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following information -

In the latter part of 1964 the Tariff Board was asked to inquire into and report on the protective needs of the footwear industry. The Board completed the taking of public evidence in this inquiry on 27th April 1965.

The footwear industry has taken the opportunity afforded by the Board’s inquiry to raise the question of low cost imports from several overseas sources, including Mainland China. This particular question is also under examination by the Minister for Customs and Excise who is taking provisional anti-dumping action against imports of Chinese footwear pending completion of investigations into allegations of dumping.

page 1235

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to the distribution of the States into electoral divisions. Opportunity is also being taken to effect other amendments considered desirable. The provisions relating to the distribution of the States into divisions have not been changed since Federation, and it is not intended to alter in substance those provisions. For the information of the Senate, I will read the existing section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which is pertinent to the proposed amendments -

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to -

Community or diversity of interest;

Means of communication;

Physical features;

Existing boundaries of Divisions and Subdivisions;

State Electoral boundaries; and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution, and the Distribution Commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, hut in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-fifth more or one-fifth less.

However, the proposed amendments will make it clear to the Distribution Commissioners, that, while keeping within the 20 per cent, margin of the quota, a margin which has existed since the Act began, they shall give consideration to community of economic, social and regional interests, means of communication and travel with special reference to disabilities arising out of remoteness and distance, the trend of population changes, the density or sparsity of population and the areas of proposed divisions. In addition the Commissioners will be required to have regard to physical features and the existing divisional and subdivisional electoral boundaries.

While the trend of population changes, the density or sparsity of population and the areas of proposed divisions are new elements which are now expressly stated for the first time, they will not result in any significant change in the procedure followed by Distribution Commissioners since they are factors in respect of which some allowance has invariably been made by Commissioners at past distributions. The amendments do, however, give specific expression to these factors and, in a sense, will thereby provide a legal basis for what has been normal practice. Accordingly, all Commissioners will in future be working to the same ground rules.

Under a new provision, any person or organisation will in future be able to submit suggestions to the Distribution Commissioners before the Commissioners have formulated any plans. Honorable senators will know that this has not been possible in the past. The procedure will be for the Distribution Commissioners, by advertisement in the Commonwealth “ Gazette “, to invite the submission of written suggestions relating to the distribution. Then after a period of 30 days, any suggestions lodged with the Commissioners will be made available for perusal at the office of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State, after which a further period of 14 days will be allowed for the lodgment of written comments on the suggestion. Until these periods have elapsed - that is, a total period of 44 days - the Distribution Commissioners will not commence their task of formulating their initial proposals for distributing a State. All suggestions and comments lodged with the Commissioners will be duly considered in addition to the other factors referred to earlier.

When the Commissioners have made their initial proposals they will, as in the past, cause maps to be exhibited at post offices showing the boundaries of the proposed divisions. At this time, any written comments lodged with the Commissioners will be made available for perusal as before at the office of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State. A further period of 30 days will then be allowed for the lodgment of written suggestions or objections to the proposals. Apart from making available for perusal copies of all suggestions and comments lodged with the Commissioners, it is not intended that the Commissioners be required to generally make available other copies. However, because of the particular interest of political parties in any distribution, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) will direct that copies be made available upon request to any recognised political party.

At the expiration of this further 30 day period, the Commissioners will consider all suggestions and objections lodged with them and thereafter they will make their report to the Minister. Such report will be accompanied by a map showing the boundaries of the proposed divisions together with copies of all suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Commissioners. All these documents will be tabled in Parliament. Except as expressly permitted by law for the lodgment of written suggestions, comments or objections, a person will be prohibited under the provisions of this Bill from seeking to influence a Distribution Commissioner in the performance of his duties. Although not included in the proposed amendments, the Government intends that the Minister direct the Chief Electoral Officer to arrange for consultations between the Distribution Commissioners appointed for the several States for the purpose of obtaining uniformity in procedures and to ensure the proper interpretation of the law by the Commissioners.

The purpose of requiring a deposit to be lodged with a nomination paper is to discourage “ frivolous “ nominations. The existing amount of £25 is now ineffective. This amount has remained unchanged since 1902 and today’s equivalent would be more in the nature of £200. Under the provisions of this Bill the amount of the deposit to be lodged with a nomination will be increased from £25 to £50 in the case of a House of Representatives election and from £25 to £100 in the case of a Senate election. The Government believes that because of the State-wide nature of a Senate election, the candidates’ deposit in such elections should be double that of the candidates in the House of Representatives elections. It might be noted that the amount of deposit required of candidates for the British House of Commons is £1 50 while it is 200 dollars for the Canadian House of Commons. The amounts of candidates’ deposits for State elections are -

Under the electoral and referendum regulations, a number is placed on each postal vote certificate and declaration envelope relating to absent and section voting and a corresponding number is placed on the relevant ballot papers. This enables a Court of Disputed Returns, should it so desire, to identify and reject any such ballot paper where it is found that the person who marked the ballot paper was not entitled to vote at the election. However, there is no way of identifying the ballot paper of any person who had recorded an ordinary vote at any polling booth and there is no justification for a provision which enables a Court of Disputed Returns to identify the ballot paper of a postal, absent or section voter. Accordingly, it is proposed to repeal section 189a which was enacted in 1922 specifically to enable a Court of Disputed Returns to identify and reject such ballot papers.

A consequential amendment is proposed to the electoral and referendum regulations which will remove altogether the numbering provisions which have been the subject of much criticism over many years due to the fact that in certain circumstances the numbering could be used to violate the secrecy of the poll. No State electoral law provides for the numbering of ballot papers. Queensland discontinued this practice in 1959 and Victoria discontinued it in 1938. The electoral laws of New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania have never included such provisions.

Senators will be aware that two or more candidates in a Senate election may have their names grouped on the ballot papers and that the names of candidates included in groups are shown before the names of candidates not in groups. Accordingly, where there is a single casual vacancy to be filled at a Senate election - as was the case at the 1963 Senate election in Queensland, held in conjunction with the House of Representatives elections - a candidate who does not group, has his name placed at the end of the ballot paper together with other ungrouped candidates. Thus, a political party can obtain an advantageous position on the ballot paper by being represented by more than one candidate even though only one vacancy exists.

In order to remove this anomaly, it is proposed that the grouping provisions shall not apply where a single Senate vacancy is to be filled in any State. Under the proposed amendment, all candidates for a single Senate vacancy will be subjected to a draw for position on the ballot papers. The names will not be arranged in alphabetical order but they will be listed from top to bottom as in the case of a House of Representatives election.

It is also proposed that the amount of the penalty for failure to enrol or failure to notify change of address be increased. The maximum penalty for such an offence will be raised from £2 to £5. The minimum penalty will remain unchanged except in the case of a second or subsequent offence, when it becomes £2 in lieu of 10s. Up to date rolls are the very essence of a good electoral system and the existing penalties are quite ineffective. From time to time magistrates have criticised the smallness of the fine which they may impose. The proposed increase in the amount of the penalty will affect only those cases which are referred to a court. An offender will still have the option of having his case dealt with by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer who may impose a penalty of not more than 10s. for a first offence and not more than £2 for any subsequent offence.

Under the provisions of this Bill the amount of penalty for failure to vote will also be increased from “ not less than 10s. and not more than £2” to “not less than £1 and not more than £5”. The amount of the penalty has remained unchanged since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924 and it is now regarded as inadequate. It has become evident that, in this day and age of high wages, some people are prepared to risk the possibility of a small fine rather than upset their Saturday routine for the purpose of voting. Whilst it is thought that an increase in the amount of the penalty will have the desired salutary effect, in practice it will affect only those few non-voters who do not consent to having their cases dealt with by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer and who are subsequently dealt with by a court. It is not proposed to alter Regulation 78, which empowers a Commonwealth electoral officer to impose a penalty of “ not less than ten shillings nor more than two pounds “ for failure to vote.

Under the existing law, an elector may hand the postal vote envelope containing his marked ballot paper to a divisional returning officer or to any assistant returning officer where the postal vote, if posted, would not reach the divisional returning officer for the division in respect of which the elector claims to vote, within a period of seven days. A postal vote which is posted to a divisional returning officer must be received within this seven day period to be admitted to the scrutiny but due to the increased overseas postal voting, more and more postal votes are being returned through the post just outside the seven day limit.

Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill extend from seven to ten days the period in which postal votes must be returned, if posted direct to the divisional returning officer, to be included in the scrutiny. The time limit applies only where a voter posts his ballot paper direct to the divisional returning officer. There is no time limit for the return of postal votes which are handed to any divisional returning officer or assistant returning officer up to the close of the poll. In such event, these votes are included in the scrutiny even though they may not be received until after seven days.

While, under the existing law, a Presiding Officer may adjourn the polling from day to day in the event of an interruption or obstruction due to riot or open violence, there is no such provision for an adjournment in any other case, once the polling booth has been opened on polling day. It is proposed, therefore, to extend this power of day to day adjournment to instances where the polling is interrupted by storm, tempest, flood or occurrences of a like kind.

The proposed amendment to section 91b provided in clause 9 is merely an administrative amendment to -make it clear that, where a postal vote is being recorded outside Australia, any elector for a State or Territory is also an authorised witness in addition to other persons referred to in section 91b (1.) (b). I commend the Bills to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Bill before us is one which is expressed to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I think it might have been more appropriately described if words had been added which indicated also that it was intended to perpetuate and extend the representation of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives because, as the Opposition conceives the Bill, that is the true purpose of the amendments that are now effected by clause 3. 1 move -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “ but the Senate is of opinion that amendment of the law relating to the distribution of a State into Electoral Divisions should be deferred until the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review with respect to this matter have been submitted to the people for their approval “. 1 propose at a later stage of my remarks to submit justification for that amendment. I indicate that despite the fact that the Bill deals with a number of matters the Opposition intends to concentrate its attack upon the provisions of clause 3. This clause contains a new principle and embodies a departure from an old and good principle.

These features the Opposition finds completely repugnant. So that attention will not be distracted from what is being done we do not propose to concern ourselves particularly with the other matters dealt with in the Bill.

Clause 3 deals with the distribution of a State into electoral divisions for purposes of elections to the House of Representatives. The position broadly is covered both under the Constitution and under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Constitution concerns itself with determining the number of members to be elected to the House of Representatives in each State. The Commonwealth Electoral Act at that point picks up the matter and deals wilh the distribution of a State into electoral divisions.

As a foundation for what I have to say, I propose to traverse briefly the provisions both of the Constitution and of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in those two respects. The first provision I refer to is section 24 of the Constitution. It provides that the members of the House of Representatives are to be directly chosen by the people. I put emphasis on those words, to lay the groundwork for later comments: The members are to be directly chosen by the people. They are to be, as nearly as practicable, twice the numbers of senators. The number of members in the various States “shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people “. Again, I underline the word “ people “. The Constitution provides that a quota is to be ascertained by dividing twice the number of senators into the total population of Australia. That gives the quota and this in turn is divided into the population of each State. The result is the number of members of the House of Representatives to be elected in each State.

The Constitution also provides that if, on such division, there is a remainder greater than one-half, an additional member is to be elected for that State. It is this provision that makes necessary the words I have already used, that the members of the House of Representatives are to be as nearly as practicable twice the number of senators. The exact duplication of the Senate can, of course, be disturbed by remainders being left on the division of the quota into the number of people in the States. There may be a few more or even a few less - according to population - than the full 120 members. That explains the care with which the Constitution provided that the number of members of the House of Representatives had to be as nearly as practicable twice the number of senators. The only other comment I think I need make on that aspect is that the Constitution provides that in no original State is the number of members of the House of Representatives to be lower than five. That provision operates today in favour of only one State and that is Tasmania.

The last provision in the Constitution to which I wish to refer is section 29. This section deals with electoral divisions, which is the very matter before us now. It states -

Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of any State may make laws for determining the divisions in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen, and the number of members to be chosen for each division. A division shall not be formed out of parts of different States.

In the absence of other provision, each State shall be one electorate.

The latter provision, of course, has never operated. The States have not legislated, although they were free to do so, unless the Commonwealth did. The Commonwealth has plainly legislated. I direct attention to the fact that the power of the Parliament to legislate for determining the divisions of a State for purposes of the House of Representatives is quite unlimited. In other words, it may decree that there shall be one member for each division; it may decree that several members shall be elected for each division; it could declare the State one electorate only; it could, in fact, have certain divisions which elected one member only and other divisions which elected more than one member. That is a position which I shall show later caused quite serious concern with the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, which thought those possibilities - except one of them - should be eliminated and that a constitutional safeguard should be inserted to ensure that only one member should be elected from each division, thus writing into the Constitution the safeguard against the other possibilities which I mentioned a moment ago.

I leave that matter for the moment and pass on to the Electoral Act, which is now the subject of amendment. In dealing with electoral divisions, I refer first to section 18 of the Electoral Act, which provides for the establishment of a new quota. I point out in advance that this quota is not based upon the population of Australia, as is that under the Constitution, where men, women and children aTe included in the quota used to determine the number of representatives in each State. I am now discussing a quota which deals with the number of electors in a State - the electors only; the adults. Section 18 provides -

For the .purposes of this Act the Chief Electoral Officer shall, whenever necessary, ascertain a quota for each State as follows: -

The whole number of electors in each State, as nearly as can be ascertained, shall be divided by the number of Members of the House of Representatives to be chosen for the State.

I think I might indicate to the Senate that, in talking of a quota in reference to clause 3 of the Bill and in relation to the division of a State into electoral divisions for the House of Representatives, I shall be referring to the quota under this section of the Act and not to any quotas determined for another purpose under the Constitution. I come now to section 19 of the Act, which is the key section. This is the section that is being repealed and re-enacted in most objectionable form - from the viewpoint of the Opposition. Section 19 begins by authorising the Distribution Commissioners - in fact compelling them, because it requires them to do this - to give due consideration to five factors in making any proposed distribution in a State. The section then states - and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution-

I will be coming back to those words: “ the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution.” The section continues - and the Distribution Commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary-

I direct attention also to those words: “ to be used whenever necessary”. The section continues, further - but in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-fifth more or onefifth less.

That brings me to what we regard as the heart of the trouble in this Bill. I invite the Senate now to look at clause 3 of the Bill, whereby the present section 19 of the Act is repealed - that is the section from which I have just read - and a new section 19 is substituted. I invite the Senate also to note the differences between the section at present in the Act and the new section proposed to be inserted. Sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 19 reads -

In making any proposed distribution of a Slate into Divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall so determine the proposed Divisions that each Division contains a number of electors not exceeding, or falling short of, the quota of electors by more than one-fifth of the quota.

Let me point out what has happened. Under the Act as it has been framed, the Distribution Commissioners were required to treat the quota of electors as the basis for a distribution. That provision is to be repealed. The requirement that the quota shall bc the basis of the distribution does not appear in (he proposed new section. Let me interpolate here to comment that making the quota the basis of the distribution would ensure complete equality of the value of votes as between electors in one division and electors in another. The provision that the Distribution Commissioners may allow a certain margin above or below the quota whenever necessary has been struck out by those responsible for the drafting and presentation of this Bill, and it has not been reinserted in the proposed new section.

There must be a reason why this has been done with such complete deliberation. The basis that was formerly clear and distinct - that is, the quota to form the basis of a distribution - has been thrown into the wastepaper basket and is not to be reenacted. The provision that there could be a variation where necessary has followed it into the wastepaper basket, and we are to have a new section that does not contain such a provision and says broadly that the Distribution Commissioners may address themselves to their task by picking a figure anywhere between a figure 20 per cent, short of the quota and a figure 20 per cent, greater than the quota. I think the way it has been described is one-fifth more or onefifth less. So the firm principle with provision for one definite and clear figure to be the basis for a distribution, to be varied within certain limits only when necessary, is to be completely discarded and the Distribution Commissioners are told in the broadest terms: “ You now have a wide field extending from 20 per cent, below the quota to 20 per cent, above it “. This, of course, is an entirely new principle. The Commissioners are to be given a wide scope and are to be allowed to pick any figure they wish.

Senator Paltridge:

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– T say they are.

Senator Webster:

– The quota is still mentioned in the ‘amendment.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, but it is not laid down that the quota shall be the basis for a distribution. That is the real significance of the change that will be effected by this measure. Let me read the terms of the amendment again -

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall so determine the proposed Divisions that each Division contains a number of electors not exceeding, or falling short of, the quota of electors by more than one-fifth of the quota.

Whereas the requirement was that the basis for a decision should be the quota, and that there should be a variation only when necessary, that has been discarded with complete deliberation by those responsible for drafting and submitting this measure to the Parliament. There is, of course, a reason for this. It is not by accident that this has been done. As I go on T will indicate what the principle is and what the purpose of the change is.

I want to summarise what I have said in this way: The present section 19 proposes that the quota of electors determined under section 18 shall be the basis for the distribution. This is a firm and a just provision. It is not likely to be departed from. The emphasis is on equality between divisions. The proposed section 19 provides that the number of electors in a division may be fixed at any figure that lies anywhere between a number that is 20 per cent, below the quota and a number that exceds the quota by 20 per cent. Assuming that the quota is 200,000 electors, one division may have 80,000 electors and another may have 120,000 electors. The second division will have 50 per cent, more electors than the first. In other words, the vote of an elector in the first division has 50 per cent, more value than the vote of an elector in the second division.

Senator Paltridge:

– That is taking the two extremes.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I am just illustrating the point. You may have any variation between the two extremes that the Commissioners care to select.

Senator Prowse:

– That could operate under the existing Act.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. Under the existing Act they are required to accept the quota as the basis of distribution. They are told not to depart from it unless it is necessary.

Senator Prowse:

– Having due regard to a series of other requirements.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is right; having regard to a consideration of certain factors. Those factors are not repeated in sub-section (I.) of the proposed section 19 but they are inserted in sub-section (2.). I have not adverted to them yet ‘because they are constant in both the Act and the Bill, with certain additions to which I shall refer. The point I am making and which I ask the Senate to note is that the new provision in the Bill puts emphasis on variation and not on equality between the divisions. It quite deliberately discards the principle of equality between the divisions and sets up the principle of variation in its stead. It postulates variation as the rule instead of the exception.

The claim that no change is effected by this particular provision is, in my considered opinion and in that of the Opposition, completely false. It throws an entirely new emphasis in the path of the Distribution Commissioners. No doubt they are officers who have been previously concerned with redistributions. They pick up the Act. They are to be brought together, we are told, at the instance of the Minister for the Interior and asked to confer so that they have a common interpretation of the Act. What is the first thing that the Distribution Commissioners will do when they get together? The very first sentence they speak will be: “ We have an entirely different charter from the one that we had previously. What are the differences? “ Obviously, they will say: “ We now have much greater freedom. We are no longer tied in the first instance to the quota. We may now run quite freely between 20 per cent, below the quota and 20 per cent, above it.”

Senator Wright:

– Is the honorable senator giving full effect to the words “ subject thereto” in the old Act? The quota was to be the basis, subject to community of interest physical features, and so on.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am giving full effect to that. I indicated a moment or two ago that the earlier provisions and the qualification antecedent to section 1 9 in the Act have been repealed under proposed section 19(2.). I made it quite clear that that was so and that I would deal with them in some detail later on. In reply to Senator Wright, I merely indicate that they deal with matters other than population in certain instances. The objection of the Opposition is to those provisions that take in factors that are not connected directly with people, as the Constitution requires. In our view what is being done is not a very subtle way, on examination, of destroying the quota between divisions in electorates for the House of Representatives, and it quite plainly, in the view of the Opposition, opens the door to gerrymandering of electorates. I repeat that when the Distribution Commissioners from the various States come together they can look at the past charter and they can look at the new one. They will, with real acumen, notice the distinction. They will notice the variation in the factors they are called upon to take into account and they will certainly feel they have greater freedom than they have ever had before. They are experienced people. Two of them are officials with a knowledge of matters of this type - matters electoral and the rest. I refer to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Surveyor-General of the State. The present provision in section 19 which allows for a one-fifth margin up or down has been tolerated because it affirmed the principle of equality first, and, under it, a variation was treated as the exception. It has also been tolerated because the exception has not been abused down the years in the redistributions that have taken effect.

Dealing with the Act itself, I refer to only one more section. That is section 25 sub-section (2.). Section 25 deals with redistributions. The section deals with the position regarding further redistributions after the original redistribution has been made, lt provides that a redistribution of any State is to be made whenever the Governor-General by proclamation directs. It is not a mandatory requirement but it docs provide that the proclamation may be made. Sub-section (2) (b) provides -

Whenever in one-fourth of the divisions of the Slate the number of the electors differs from a quota ascertained in the manner provided in this Part to a greater extent than one-fith more or onefifth less . . .

The old Act, in addition to making the quota the basis of distribution, buttressed that by providing that whenever in any State a variation beyond one-fifth affected onequarter of the number of divisions you could go ahead and have a new distribution, lt was not mandatory but was clearly persuasive for that purpose.

The Minister for Defence, in this chamber, and the Minister for the Interior, in another place, indicated that it is not intended to alter in substance the existing provision. The Opposition contests that point entirely. We say that that statement is wholly and completely incorrect. We think it not only was intended but that a completely fundamental change has been effected. We are justified in saying that when we find what the Minister for the Interior had to say after he had won the distinction of being made a Minister of the Crown, and returned triumphant to his electorate justly proud, and gave vent to the thought that was uppermost in his mind at a complimentary dinner tended to him at Murwillumbah. His speech is recorded in the “ Daily News “ of that town of 15th June 1964. It is quite interesting to know that it must have given the locals a shock because whilst the date on the front of the “ Daily News” is Monday 15th June 1964, and the report of the Minister’s speech appears on page 2, the rest of the paper is dated 15th June 1946. The newspaper reversed the figures. It must have come as a very great shock and it certainly shocked us when we heard about it. The report stated -

The Minister for the Interior, Mr. i. D. Anthony told a Country Party dinner at Murwillumbah that, in carrying out the proposed redistribution of Federal seats-

The very matter we are discussing - he would make sure fewer people were required to elect representatives in country areas than in the cities.

Senator Webster:

– Hear, hear!

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator says: “ Hear, hear! “ I repeat that this was the uppermost thought in the mind of the Minister for the Interior after he had won the distinction of elevation to the Ministry. That is the first thought that he expressed when he went back to his electorate. I indicate that, in the view 61 the Opposition, it was this thought that inspired his elevation to the portfolio of Interior, which administers the Electoral Act and has responsibility for these matters. That is the underlying thought in selecting this portfolio for him. He is reported as going on to say -

Australia’s electoral system was the finest in the world but lacked territorial representation.

Where did the Minister get that concept from, in justice or in the Constitution? The newspaper report continued -

But Mr. Anthony stressed that Australia needed territorial representation for balanced development.

Clearly, that was in his mind from the beginning. Clearly, that is the intention of this Bill. To state that the Bill is not intended to alter anything in substance is to put a completely false proposition before the Senate. This is one proposition that we reject.

It is very significant that, throughout the lifetime of this Government, there have been five Ministers for the Interior in fairly close succession. Not one of those Ministers came from the Country Party, with the exception of the present Minister. There is significance in that fact in the view of the Opposition. We think that what the Government proposes in this amending Bill is wrong; that it is unjust; that it is undemocratic; and that it is against the whole electoral traditions of this country which is acknowledged to be one of the great countries in the world in providing for free secret votes and preserving some element of equality between voters regarding their votes. I say further that this Bill represents a complete sell-out by the Liberal Party of its own interests in favour of the Country Party. The Liberal Party has been pushed, engineered and domineered into a position where we find it joining with the Country Party to put before the Senate an outrageous proposal that will reflect no credit on the Parliament or on Australia itself.

The Constitutional Review Committee saw the possibility of these troubles and, as everybody knows, it gave very grave attention to the question of the division of States into electoral divisions for House of Repre.senatives purposes. It was concerned to ensure two important safeguards. The first safeguard was that all electrical divisions for which members of the House of Representatives are chosen should be single member electorates, but that that should not be left even to the discretion of the Parliament and that the provision should be written into the Constitution. It is for that reason that the Opposition asks the Government to defer his Bill until that safeguard is written into the Constiution. Secondly, the purpose of the Committee was to make sure that, as far as practicable, the number of electors in each division would be equal. They were two great principles that the Committee wanted enshrined in the Constitution.

The Constitutional Review Committee comprised 12 members. Two came from the Country Party, four came from the Liberal Party, and the Australian Labour Party supplied six members. All of these members were unanimous in the recommendations that they made. There has been before this chamber since late last year a Bill seeking to give effect to that particular proposal. I think it is a pity that the proposal, along with others which were submitted, was not put to the people at the last Senate election. The Committee had addressed its mind to the relations of the Houses and to matters connected with the parliamentary institution. No more convenient time could have been chosen for this proposal to be submitted to the people, because there was not then all the heat and controversy of the usual Federal election. But that was not done. The Bills have lain on the notice paper since late last year. No opportunity has been given to debate them or to determine them. We believe that the Government has had more than enough time to address its mind to this question of constitutional reform in the parliamentary sphere and in other directions. It has had the report of that Committee since the end of 1958 - nearly seven years ago - and it was the Government that was responsible for the appointment of the Committee. It initiated the proposal that there should be a constitutional review committee and, having got the report in 1958 - in November, I believe - and the report that it made a year later, giving the reasons for the recommendations, the Government did not make a decision until there was an announcement quite recently that it proposed to select one thing out of the whole field and consider a referendum increasing the number of members of the House of Representatives without increasing correspondingly the numbers in the Senate.

I should like to make a few brief references to the report of the Constitutional Review Committee. The Committee said in paragraph 324 -

The Commonwealth Constitution does not provide many guarantees of individual rights although there are some provisions which afford personal protection.

The Committee went on in paragraph 328 to say, after reviewing the position -

The Committee concluded that the absence of constitutional guarantees in the Commonwealth Constitution had not prevented the rule of law from characterising the Australian way of life. The Committee believes that as long as governments are democratically elected and there is full parliamentary responsibility to the electors, the protection of personal right will, in practice, be secure in Australia. The Committee has not chosen, therefore, to recommend the writing into the Constitution of a charter of individual liberties. Instead, the Committee considers it appropriate, at this stage of Federal history and having regard to recent and contemporary world events, to recommend a constitutional amendment to protect the position of the elector and the democratic processes essential to the proper functioning of the Federal Parliament.

I would say that in relying on the practice in Australia - a practice enshrined in section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral

Act - the Committee was justified in making the recommendation that it did when it said there was no need to write in for that purpose particular safeguards of the individual. But I could take a different view today if the proposed section 19 were to become law. I think it would be necessary to review any constitutional provision to ensure in the most explicit terms that the quota as determined under the Constitution is to be the basis of distribution of a State into electorates and is not to be lightly departed from but only, in fact, when completely necessary. With hindsight and in view of this proposal, 1 frankly think that the proposal of the Constitutional Review Committee needs redrafting and strengthening to ensure and protect the position for which the Opposition is contending. In paragraph 329 the Committee said -

Thus, the Committee concluded that it should recommend the inclusion in the Constitution of provisions ensuring the regular review of the electoral divisions of each State and also accord near uniformity to the value accorded to the votes of the electors for each of the States.

Then paragraph 330 states -

One form of gerrymandering is the creation of electoral divisions in which there are substantial disparities in the number of enrolled voters so securing for a political party greater representation than it should have. In all forms, the device is thoroughly subversive of the democratic process. In making possible minority governments, the majority can be deprived of the government of its choice and the way is opened for arbitrary action impairing the freedom of. the individual even though that action stands condemned by the majority of people who comprise the electors of the Commonwealth.

The Committee addressed its mind at very great length to the sufficiency of a one-tenth margin of allowance. The present margin of allowance in the Act is one-fifth.

Senator Webster:

– It is not being changed.

Senator McKENNA:

– I acknowledge that. The Constitutional Review Committee indicated that it should be changed. Realising that that was a substantial proposal, the Committee devoted quite a number of pages of its report to a consideration of the sufficiency of a one-tenth margin. On the face of it, the fact that the Distribution Commissioners may make a distinction between one electorate and another which has the effect of the one having 50,000 more electors than the other is not to be commended. That is what the wide above-and-below quota permitted by the present Act makes possible.

The Constitutional Review Committee had the present Act in mind when it recommended that any variation from the quota should be not one-fifth but one-tenth. It advanced most comprehensive arguments in support of the sufficiency of an allowance of one-tenth. I trust that those who are interested will look at paragraph 347 at page 49 of the Committee’s report. The paragraph reads -

In order to keep the matter in its proper perspective, it should be appreciated that in the redistribution which took effect in 1937, of the 74 State electoral divisions, only six were determined with an enrolment which departed from the quota for a State by more than one-tenth. Only one of the six divisions exceeded a IS per cent, margin. In the 1948 redistribution, the quota was exceeded by more than one-tenth in fifteen of the 121 State divisions. In nine of the fifteen divisions, however, the departure from quota did not exceed 12i per cent. The enrolment departed from the quota by more than IS per cent, in only one division. In the 1955 redistribution, only eight divisions out of a total of 122 State divisions had an assessed enrolment exceeding the quota by more than onetenth. Only three of the eight divisions had margins in excess of 124 per cent.

Then the Committee gave details showing seat by seat by what percentages these very few seats went over the 10 per cent, range. There is no time for me to deal with them now.

I now direct attention to paragraph 349 at page 50 of the Committee’s report, which reads -

In the 1955 redistribution there were, however, only three very large divisions, Darling, Kennedy and Kalgoorlie, outside the one-tenth margin of allowance.

The Darling division in New South Wales was below the quota by 11.5 per cent., the Kennedy division in Queensland was below by 17.9 per cent., and the Kalgoorlie division in Western Australia was below by 14 per cent.

Senator Wright:

– The Committee would not sustain a very strong case that there was any gerrymandering under that Act, would it? Those are not seats held by the Country Party; they are seats held by Labour in each instance.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is right. I am not suggesting that it did. The point I am making at the moment is how very few electorates varied by 10 per cent, or more. That is one point which the Committee repeated. I come now to the conclusion of the Committee stated at paragraph 361 of its report -

In the Committee’s judgment, it is more equitable and democratic for a division to conform at the outset to a one-tenth margin, even though it may later exceed the margin rather than that the division should initially exceed a one-tenth margin and be made dependent upon subsequent population changes to bring about some adjustment.

Further, in paragraph 364 of its report the Committee states -

The Committee repeats, moreover, that, although its proposal requires a redistribution to be conducted in accordance with the narrower margin, a redistribution is obligatory only once in every ten years.

The Committee perhaps thought that should be obligatory, lt continued -

If, in the meantime, some divisions in a State should have enrolments in excess of a margin of one-tenth from the quota for a State, it is in the discretion of the Parliament as to whether a distribution should bc undertaken. Meanwhile, the existence of the constitutional sanction should discourage governments from allowing anomalies in the size of electorates to continue without adjustment.

If we examine the position in Australia today we find that the last redistribution took place in 1955. There have been vast variations in populations of electorates in the interim. We have seen the phenomenon of people moving out of the hearts of the capital cities to the outside suburbs. We have also seen the reverse proposal where, with the subsequent clearance of slum areas and the erection of multiple storied flats, the population has drifted back into the hearts of the capital cities. These are ebbs and flows in population that are. to a greater or lesser degree, wilh us all the time. They are factors that have to be taken into account. But is it not right that in a developing country such as Australia, where this type of change is frequent and great, there should be fairly frequent redistributions? Is it not right, as the Consitutional Review

Committee recommended, that there should be a redistribution once, at least, every ten years.

I am not being critical of the redistribution of 1955 when I point to the facts that I now wish to mention. At the present time, taking the situation State by State, the electorate of Mitchell in New South Wales has 91,635 electors and West Sydney has 32,473. One electorate has nearly three limes the voting strength of the other. That is due to the type of changes I have mentioned. In Victoria, Bruce has 109,560 electors and Scullin has 31,000. That is three times the number again. That is the variation over a ten year period. In Queensland, Brisbane has 37,150 and Petrie 65,061. In South Australia, Adelaide has 34,192 and Bonython 79,584. In Western Australia, Kalgoorlie has 35,894 and Stirling has 68,234. Tasmania invites no particular comment as the electorates are pretty even there. It is quite urgent that there should be a redistribution. In the normal course of events one would be held this year. The Government has postponed it until after the taking of a census next year. I think there is sense in that proposal in order to get exact figures. But the crying need for a redistribution already appears.

I come now to the question of one vote, one value. It is important that as near as possible that ideal should be preserved. I know that it is not possible to get it exactly. It might be possible with a strict application of the quota to the cutting up of electorate divisions. At one point in time you might get equality and one vote one value. But by reason of the changes in population, the day after the proportion was fixed, it would be again disturbed and would keep on changing and being disturbed. The legislation is facing that fact and the need to allow the Distribution Commissioners to take note of changes and trends in developments which they are sure will take place. The Distribution Commissioners are entitled to take into account factors such as the type of slum clearance I have referred to and the building of satellite towns around highly populated areas. It is for that reason that the Constitutional Review Committee recognised that some freedom in common sense had to be allowed to the Distribution Commissioners; but members of the Committee addressed their minds most carefully to the proposition as to what was an adequate margin to allow them to depart from the quota. The conclusions, which I think are irrefutable and correct, are that the Distribution Commissioners can function adequately within the confines of 10 per cent, below and 10 per cent, above the quota. Anybody who has the democratic process at heart ought quite frankly to see the virtue of that proposal.

I shall refer briefly to what has happened in the United States of America quite recently, lt may well be that if we make the margin of allowance too great in this country, in view of our own constitutional requirement that the people of Australia are to directly choose their representatives, the provision for a 20 per cent, allowance may be held to be unconstitutional. That is possible. The question of distribution of States into electoral divisions has been acutely raised in recent years in the United States, beginning with the case of Baker and Carr, upon which a decision was given on 26th March 1962. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down a distribution in the State of Tennessee. It struck down the distribution, not strictly on grounds under the United States Constitution comparable with the position under our own, but under what is known as the Fourteenth Amendment, which assures to all citizens of the United States equality under laws made by the State. The Supreme Court declared illegal the distribution that had been made in Tennessee. That case has been followed by a flood of similar cases culminating in the publication of a lot of decisions in June of last year.

I would like to quote to the Senate one or two brief extracts from the case of Reynolds v. Sims, the judgment in which was handed down on 15th June 1964. I should indicate to the Senate that the Constitution of the United States provides that the Federal legislators shall be elected by the people of the States. That corresponds very closely with our own provision that our Federal members shall be elected directly by the people of the Commonwealth. Earl Warren, the noted Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Stales, had this to say, amongst other things, in handing down the judgment -

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities, or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their State legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given 2 times, or 5 times, or 10 limes the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavoured areas had not been effectively diluted.

In another passage, Chief Justice Warren stated -

Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race … or economic status.

My final quote from the judgment is this -

To the extent that a citizen’s right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen. The fact that an individual lives here or there is not a legitimate reason for over-weighting or diluting the efficacy of his vote. The complexions of societies and civilisations change, often with amazing rapidity. A nation once primarily rural in character becomes predominantly urban. Representation schemes once fair and equitable become archaic and outdated. But the basic principle of representative government remains, and must remain, unchanged - the weight of a citizen’s vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. Population is, of necessity, the starting point for consideration and the controlling criterion for judgment in legislative apportionment controversies.

It is probably that representation in every State in the United States of America is in disorder. Amazing figures are available to anyone who may be interested. They are published in the “ Congressional Quarterly “ for the week ended 19th June 1964. That journal looked at all the 50 States and showed what has happened and the type of thing against which the United States Supreme Court has struck. In each State, there are a Senate and a House. In California, the average population of a Senate district is 392,930. But the largest district contains 6,038,771 persons and the smallest 14,294. This table indicates that 10.7 per cent, of the State’s population, theoretically, could control the Senate under the electoral arrangements in California. In Florida, the largest Senate district contains 467,525 people and the smallest 17,711, and 15.2 per cent, of the population could control the Senate. I shall now give some figures for lower houses. In Connecticut, the largest House division has a population of 8 1,089 and the smallest 191, and 12 per cent, of the population could control the House. In Vermont, the largest House district contains 35,531 people and the smallest 38, and 11.9 per cent, of the population could control the House.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Some of those rotten boroughs.

Senator McKENNA:

– They are. I merely indicate that, once you get a gerrymander, there is no stopping it. It goes on ami on until you reach an absurd position like this. Such absurdity is the inevitable end of starling on a gerrymander.

Senator Prowse:

– Who was responsible for the gerrymander in the United States?

Senator McKENNA:

– Quite obviously, the State legislatures were responsible, and ii has been enshrined, unfortunately, in the institutions of that democratic country for a very long time, the State courts claiming that they have ‘no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and that it requires the High Court of the nation. I have cited the most extreme cases, but if honorable senators care to look at this document - it is available for anybody who wishes to see it - they will fmd that as at 16th June 1964 in no State of the United States had 50 per cent, of the people been able to control either House.

Senator Wright:

– And that shows how chronic was the situation in America to which the Chief Justice was directing his attention under the Constitution.

Senator McKENNA:

– It does. In relation to the talk about there being no Country Party over there, I invite honorable senators to have a look at some of the issues of the New York “Times” which reported decisions of June 1964, and to have a look at the cartoons. One is a picture of a benevolent looking cow and a highly intelligent looking pig, scanning a newspaper poster on which the decisions of the Supreme Court were announced. The cow was saying to the pig: “ Good gracious! They have taken away our votes “. We only hope that we do not embark on a course which will lead to that type of thing in this country. From this side of the Senate we say that the significant change from the terms of section 19 of the old Act to the terms of this Bill, in fact, opens the doors to a gerrymander. 1 think it rests heavily on the consciences of every one of us in this chamber to note that the Government presents a Bill, drops out the provision that equity is to be the basis of redistribution and revokes the provision that variation is possible only when necessary. It behoves the Minister, in particular, in his reply to this debate - and I suggest that it behoves every senator who addresses his mind to the problem - to say what he thinks of these proposed changes that I have demonstrated so plainly from the provisions of the old Act.

I regret that I have taken so long, but the Opposition feels very deeply on this and is determined to drag the matter out into the light so that the searchlight of the Parliament and of the public may be directed to what is afoot. I support the amendment for the reasons that I have, given. If the amendment is not carried, we shall oppose the second reading of the Bill, and we shall oppose the third reading of ‘the Bill. We have amendments to move in Committee. At the end of the second reading debate, if our amendment is not carried or if the Bill is not defeated, I shall move for the appointment of a Senate select committee under the provisions of Standing Order 196a.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has just spoken for one hour in forwarding the proposition that the amendments to this legislation that we are now studying are for the purpose of perpetuating and extending the representation of the Australian Country Party. He devoted the whole of his speech - in that he was following the procedure in another place - to the substantiation of that argument that this amending Bill is to perpetuate and extend the representation of the Australian Country Party. He claimed that the Aus- tralian Labour Party is the great upholder of the principle of one man, one vote. He waved over his head a flag of electoral purity. I remind him of the old saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I am wondering when it was that the Australian Labour Party discovered this great and abiding necessity to stick with the principle of one man, one vote. The direct inference to be taken from the suggestion that this amending Bill is brought down for the purpose of giving weighted representation to people in country areas is that the Bill will result in an automatic entrenching of the strength of the Country Party. Is the honorable senator implying that the platform and policies of the Australian Labour Party are repugnant to country people? In saying that this Bill will give greater weight to country votes, is the honorable senator arguing that it necessarily follows that that will perpetuate the Country Party? If that is his argument, then he is adopting a policy of defeatism. He is admitting that the Labour Party is unable to attract the votes of country people.

I do not agree with the honorable senator that the Labour Party’s policies have alwayshad that effect. To support my argument, ) refer to the Western Australian electorate of Forrest, in which I have some interest. That seat was held by a Labour man. I: was taken from him by a Country Party man. It was then taken from the Country Party man by a Labour man. It is now held by a Liberal. I emphasise that Forrest is a country seat. Yet the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe that, because country people would have some weighting under the principle we are proposing - which I support - that would automatically mean the perpetuation and extension of the Australian Country Party. If it does have that effect, that will be only because the Australian Country Party is putting forward policies that are more acceptable to the country people.

Let us have a look at the historical basis of this Act. One member of another place made brief reference to statements by Sir William Lyne. I propose to quote several statements that were made in 1902. First, I refer to page 13355 of “Hansard” for 5th June 1902. Sir William Lyne is reported as having said -

There is a somewhat elastic but necessary provision that the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution of the divisions, and shall be adhered to as nearly as practicable, but may be departed from to the extent of one-fourth, more or less.

I ask honorable senators to note that at that time it was suggested that the quota be onefourth. It was later changed to one-fifth. Sir William Lyne continued -

They will exercise their discretion, but they are not to go either above or below one-fourth. The principle of the Bill is equal representation.

I say that the principle of the Act is equal representation, subject to the qualifications that have been embedded in it since that time. In laying down this principle, and adopting it, Mr. Salmon, the member for Laanecoorie, said -

But while I recognise that the natural sequence of the adult vote is equal electorates, I have always held that under the conditions which exist in Australia it would not be fair tx> country districts to have this principle laid down by statute. There is no country in the world where the conditions are so abnormal in regard to settlement - our population is all along the seashore - and the undoubted difficulties in country districts must be taken into account when we are deciding the method of representation.

In an ideal Stale the population would be evenly distributed, and under such conditions there would be no more ardent advocate of equal electorates than myself.

Mr. Deakin proposed the wording of section 19 in the form that has existed in the Commonwealth Electoral Act since that date. That was borrowed from the New South Wales act. Another member of the House at that time, Mr. McLean, said -

I pointed out on a former occasion that the electors in the large centres of population can easily get together and form associations to promote any views that they may hold. They are close to the seat of government and in direct contact with the leading officials of the State, and thus they can bring infinitely more influence to bear upon the Government, and upon legislation, than can the electors scattered throughout the country. More than that, the metropolitan newspapers exercise an influence on legislation second only to that of Parliament itself. They mould public opinion and largely sway the proceedings in Parliament.

These were the considerations that led to the inclusion in the Act of certain provisions which required that the Commissioners, in implementing the principle of equal representation, should take into consideration community or diversity of interest, means of communication, physical features, existing boundaries of divisions and sub-divisions and State electoral boundaries. Having due regard to these factors, they were given a margin of 20 per cent, up or down in which to operate.

This Act has operated since 1902. It became evident that in implementing the provisions of the Act the Commissioners, as is apparent from their reports - I have all the 1962 reports here - placed variations of value upon the requirements of the Act. In each of the reports one finds embedded and enshrined the following words -

In framing their proposals, your Commissioners gave due consideration to the following provisions of section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

They then quoted that section of the Act. Why did each of these reports, which was in fact a certificate to the effect that consideration was given to these factors which impinge upon the principle of equal representation, give such prominence to this aspect?

Senator Cant:

– Why was that proposed redistribution rejected?

Senator PROWSE:

– Wait a while. In each one of these reports there is a certificate that those factors were given due consideration. If one reads the report of the Commissioners for the State of South Australia, for instance, one will see that cognisance was also taken of the somewhat wide discrepancy between the percentage increase of enrolment in the metropolitan and extrametropolitan divisions since the previous distribution of 1955. I cannot see anywhere in the Act that they were required to take any cognisance of metropolitan and extrametropolitan divisions. Paragraph 8 of the report is in these terms -

Realising that the growth of population will continue to increase in the metropolitan divisions at a greater rate than in the extra-metropolitan divisions, your Commissioners decided to increase the numerical strength of the extra-metropolitan divisions to near quota proportions by the transfer of fringe areas from the metropolitan divisions.

The last sentence of paragraph 10 states -

Figures for the remaining metropolitan Divisions have been allotted in accordance with anticipated rate of development.

Nowhere in the Commonwealth Electoral Act are the Distribution Commissioners required to take into consideration the anticipated rate of development. But that is a practical and sensible consideration which has been taken into account. It is one of the matters which, rightly and sensibly, are included in this amending Bill.

Under proposed new section 19(2.) the Commissioners in future will be required to take into consideration “ the trend of population changes within the State “. That represents a vast improvement. That matter, which has, in fact, been taken into consideration in the past, will now be accepted as a practical and proper matter to be taken into consideration. The Commissioners also will be required to take into consideration “ community of interests within the Division, including economic, social and regional interests “. That provision gives some extra definition to what is meant by “ community of interest “. It represents a recognition that economic, social and regional interests have some bearing on the ideal of equal representation. If we had a mechanical way of automatically getting a perfect distribution. I do not think we would achieve the intended result. Those interests have been recognised right from the commencement of the Act as having some bearing on the principle of “ community of interest “. The Commissioners also will be required to take into consideration “ means of communication and travel within the Division, with special reference to disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance “; “ the density or sparsity of population of the Division “; and “ the physical features of the Division “. Those are very real things, which have always been recognised.

I remind members of the Opposition that the things which were said in 1902 and which I read earlier, are the things that we are saying today. In that year there was no Country Party and, for that matter, no Liberal Party. So, these matters could not have been laid down in 1902 for the perpetuation of the Country Party. I fail to see how the Leader of the Opposition can say today that the Commonwealth Electoral Act is being amended to suit the convenience of the Country Party and that this Bill is a gerrymander. If this Bill is a gerrymander, the Act, when it was passed in 1902, was a gerrymander. What utter rot has been put forward today.

I turn now to the report of the Commissioners for the State of Western Australia, which was presented in 1962. It is interest- ing to note the difference of emphasis given by the Commissioners for Western Australia and the Commissioners for South Australia. One of the things that this Bill is seeking to do is to achieve a uniformity of interpretation. The Commissioners for Western Australia went through the ritual of saying -

In framing their proposals, your Commissioners were guided by Section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act . . .

They went on to say -

Objections to the proposals were lodged by Political Parties, one Local Government Authority, and individuals, viz.: -

Australian Labour Party.

Country Party of Western Australia.

Federal Parliamentary Labour Party (Western Australian Branch).

Communist Party of Australia (Western Australian State Committee).

Wyalkatchem Shire Council.

W. Collard, M.H.R.

H. Webb, M.H.R.

I wonder what these objections were. Under the old Act there was no way of the public knowing what was being said to the Commissioners. However, the Commissioners have told us that objections were received from those people. Reading on in the report, which is more lengthy than the reports from the other Commissioners, the following appears -

Generally, the grounds of protest are-

Inequitable distribution of enrolments giving excessive numbers to metropolitan divisions.

I suspect that the Country Party probably made that objection.

  1. Illogical inclusion of some urban metropolitan districts with adjacent rural areas.

AgainI suspect that that was an objection raised by the Country Party.

  1. Further enlargement of the existing giant dimensions of the Kalgoorlie electorate.

I wonder who it would be who would object to that. I suspect, and I think it could be fairly claimed, that it would be Mr. Collard, the Labour member for Kalgoorlie in the House of Representatives, who would object to the further enlargement of the “ existing giant dimension of the Kalgoorlie electorate “. We find that these objections, these principles of electoral purity, the waving of the banner of one vote one value were not so prominent at that particular time.

Senator Cant:

– Is Kalgoorlie a very big electorate?

Senator PROWSE:

– It comprises the great bulk of the State of Western Australia and it is by far the biggest electorate in Australia. Awareness that there had to be large electorates was the reason why at the outset in . 1902 when there was no Country Party, it was thought desirable that there should be some provision for giving a loading with regard to the number of people in those electorates. This has been supported by the objections of the Labour Party to increasing the size still further.

If we look at the other reports we find that in Tasmania the prime consideration seemed to be the movement of population - something that was not written into the Act. In Queensland we find that the Commissioners gave a peculiar sort of interpretation to the requirements of the Act. Some of the great country areas were given more voters than relatively small electorates in city areas. So there was a great need for a uniformity of interpretation and that need for uniformity of interpretation was heightened by the fact that when these reports were presented to the Parliament, the attitude was that we must either adopt or reject the whole lot. The reports were prepared by different groups of people and, of necessity, because of the fallability of human nature, they may not all necessarily be perfect. Some of them could depart to some extent from the ideal. Yet Parliament was being required to take them as a lump and not to reject one or other of them. There seems to be some practical need for this requirement. It is more than ever desirable that there should be uniformity of interpretation and this Bill seeks to provide for just that.

The Opposition has sought to confine the attack on this Bill to one particular aspect. It has conveniently neglected to admit the very great merit of the other proposals in the Bill, such as the proposal that the Commissioners should first hear objections. I always felt that the old procedure whereby

Commissioners first considered a problem and drew maps before hearing objections was a fault in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. When the work has been done, there is a natural reluctance to upset it. There is a natural resistance to re-opening an inquiry into something that has been carefully considered. The provision in the amending Bill that Commissioners should first hear objections before drawing up their proposals is a sound, valid and acceptable provision.

The Bill provides also that the public shall be made aware of objections raised by one party or suggestions put before the Commissioners. I cannot follow the reasoning behind any submission that these provisions bear an element of gerrymander. They bring the whole subject of objections and propositions into the open. There shall be no secret or private communications with the Commissioners. Is this the action of somebody trying to bring about a gerrymander? This is a safeguard written into the legislation so that the public shall be aware of representations made to the Commissioners. I fail to see that Senator McKenna in any way, except by implication in relation to a rearrangement of the proposition and an addition of some necessary provisions, destroyed the principle of equal representation. On the contrary his remarks showed in relief the original idea that there were other considerations that impinged on the principle of equal representation and which should be taken into consideration.

I have looked at some of the quotas that were set in the redistribution proposals of 1962. Under the Act that qualified the provision of one man one vote, about which Senator McKenna was so eloquent, the quota fixed for Tasmanian electorates was 37,371. The quota fixed for Western Australia was 48,870. Electors in Western Australia, which surfers difficulties due to size and inacessibility and where the responsibilities in developing an area equal to one-third of the Commonwealth are enormous, had the lowest vote value of any State. Queensland’s quota was fixed at 48,374. The quota for New South Wales was 48,363. For South Australia the quota was 48,052 and for Victoria it was 46,566. So here we had a shining example of the principle of one man one vote.

Senator Ridley:

– Who used that expression?

Senator PROWSE:

– That is the essence of the Opposition’s argument.

Senator Ridley:

– One vote one value, was it not?

Senator PROWSE:

– Yes. This is a principle. I admit that it is a principle which we should take into consideration, having regard to the factors bearing upon it.

Let us look at the situation in Western Australia. Under the system in this State, electorates in the north west pastoral and mining areas have an average of 1,500 voters, electorates in the agricultural areas have 5,000 and electorates in the metropolitan area have 6.500. I think that is the figure; 1 am speaking from memory. The Western Australian Act provides that votes cast in the electorates in the north west will have a value four times that of votes cast in the metropolitan area. This practice has been perpetuated by a Labour Government, and Labour supporters there would drop dead with horror at any suggestion that the system should be altered. It is very nice to talk about gerrymandering and to raise phoney arguments about principles; but when we come down to the practical policies of the day we find that these principles are forgotten. The Bill that we are considering now is a vast improvement on the original Act, because it gives us a better definition of the principles to which we all pay tribute.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– Senator Prowse commenced his speech by saying that those who opposed the Bill wanted to blot out the Australian Country Party. I do not think he has any ground for making this statement. Iti this country, every elector has the right to present himself as a candidate for election to the Parliament, and the party to which he belongs does not matter. Senator McKenna’s case was that, when we are elected to the Parliament, the vote of an elector living, say, in the city should have the same value as the vote of an elector living in one of the far flung corners of Australia, subject to the right of the Distribution Commissioners to allow a margin of one-fifth one way or the other.

Debate interrupted.

page 1253

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr DEPUTY PRESIDENT:

– Order! I desire to inform the Senate that six members of the House of Assembly of Papua and New Guinea, who are visiting Australia to attend a seminar of the Australian Society for Cultural Freedom are present in the gallery of the Senate. On behalf of the Senate, I extend to them a very warm welcome.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

page 1253

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator KENNELLY:

– To return to a discussion of the Bill, this is not a matter of political parties; it is a matter of principles. We should recognise that the fundamental issues dealt with by the Bill were fought out long before the beginning of this century. It was believed, at least by those who supported the democratic principle, that one vote was as good as any other, irrespective of where the elector lived. Senator Prowse said that in Tasmania some electoral divisions with about 37,000 electors had quotas of perhaps 10,000 or 11,000 less than divisions in the mainland States. I believe he knows that under the Constitution each State has te have five divisions, irrespective of its population, and that is why the quotas for some Tasmanian divisions are so far short of some of those on the mainland, so I do not think he can gain any comfort from submitting that proposition.

Going right back to 1902, since when the question of redistribution has been debated, off and on, in the National Parliament, we find that in the intervening period, irrespective of the political colour of the government of the day which introduced the legislation, there has never been any real substance in any suggestion that there had been a deliberate gerrymander, because the States have been divided into divisions according to the quotas laid down. Senator McKenna quoted, from the report of the Constitutional Review Committee, the small number of seats in which variations occurred. So I do not think that Senator Prowse could have hoped to submit a very strong case in support of the Bill. Anyone who has taken any interest in the legislation - even at this late hour in this chamber, or when it was passing through another place - knows full well that the measure has one purpose only. That is to give greater value to rural votes than to metropolitan votes. I do not know how anyone can support that principle, except in a few isolated cases such as the division of Kalgoorlie in Western Australia, possibly Kennedy in Queensland, Liechhardt in the north of Queensland and Darling in the outback of New South Wales.

If one cared to work out the percentages, one would find that it is only on rare occasions that thought has been given to the differential principle and in those instances one can still honestly claim that it was not used for the purpose of breaking down the one vote one value principle. I marvel to think that the Liberal Party is supporting this legislation, because whatever may be said of it, and leaving out what the various State Governments have done - let us be honest with ourselves and agree that State Governments of all political complexions have played ducks and drakes with redistribution -

Senator Webster:

– Speak for yourself.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Let me tell Senator Webster that 1 was in the Victorian Parliament and I had a lot to do with the party to which the honorable senator belonged, in a variety of ways. If he wants the full history, I have not the time to give it to him now, but I will be prepared to tell him how certain governments, at least two of them formed by the honorable senator’s party, were put in and put out because members of that party broke their word on the very question that we are discussing today. I do not want to go into that now, however.

We listened last night to a rather humourous speech, but one with a lot of meat in it, by Senator Cormack. I am not going to canvass the discussion about the Ord River project, but I ask honorable senators opposite whether they can point out a case in which a political party has not gone out of its way to further the development of country industries in this country. We on this side of the House are not altogether silly, you know. We realise that every political party recognises that unless it obtains a certain number of seats in the rural sections of the nation its supporters will sit on this side of the Parliament for years and years. What honorable senators on the Government side are now trying to do is to make it impossible - all the nice words aside - for a radical political party to form a government in this country, and they are doing this by gerrymandering the electorates. I say that this has been done, and I believe it has been initiated by the Country Party. I ask honorable senators of the Liberal Party how long they are going to be subservient to the Country Party. I am amazed to think that in this day and agc we can have a situation in which the members of the Liberal Party in this Senate allow the tail to wag the dog, just for the sake of allowing certain members of that party to retain their positions as Ministers and to govern this nation. While we of the Labour Party differ violently from honorable senators of the Liberal Party on certain political questions, we must admit that political parties in this and other nations that have called themselves Liberal have not previously accepted the proposition that a person should be given extra voting power because he happens to live in one part of the nation rather than another part.

It is no use honorable senators opposite talking about democracies in the international sphere, and how right should triumph in that sphere, when they prevent this from happening in their own country in order that they can perpetuate one system of government and of administration. Honorable senators of the Liberal Party, to whom I am now appealing, are prepared to sit dumb in this chamber. I have had a look at the list of those who are to speak in this debate. Where are these great champions of the Liberal Party who believe in their principles? Where are they in’ this debate? The only people whose names are on the list are members of the corner party who stand to gain by the iniquitous policy embodied in this legislation.

This is a negation of all the mouthings of honorable senators opposite. They speak of democracy, yet they allow four or five senators to sit here who could not be here unless their names had been placed in the No. 2 position on the ballot paper. Last night I listened to the speech of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Holten) in another place. What more right has a person in Gippsland or Wangaratta in Victoria to a greater say in the affairs of this nation than a person who lives in South Melbourne as I do? What justification is there except that the parties opposite want to rig elections. They want to do what we all agree has been wrong in the various States. They want to import the same abuse into elections for the Commonwealth Parliament. We disagree violently on certain questions, but at least let us be honest on the question of representation. Honorable senators opposite do not like the present proposal and they do not want it.

Senator Webster:

– It is not being changed.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Pull that over someone else’s eyes. I have a lot of respect and liking for our new friend. He comes from my own State. But do not let us fool ourselves. For the first time in the history of this nation we are confronted with a gerrymander of Commonwealth seats. Why do the parties opposite need it? Are they afraid that we will win?

Senator Mattner:

– No.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honorable senator says that they are not afraid that we will win. I hope we do. But why stack the cards against us? Why stack the cards against the vast majority of voters in the metropolitan areas?

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– What did the Labour Party do in the 1949 Senate election?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Something that the Government, which has been in power in this nation since 1949, has never altered. If the situation was as bad as the honorable senator seems to imply it was, the Government has had from December 1949 until 25th March 1965 to alter it. Why has it altered it?

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– We had to dissolve both Houses of the Parliament to put it right.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No, you did not. The honorable senator asked what we did in 1949, as far as the Senate election was concerned. If Senator Sir William Spooner, who was Leader of the Government in the Senate for a great number of years, had thought it was bad, he would have been failing in his duty if he did not try to alter it. Of course, he could not alter it because he could not get the numbers. That is one thing for which Government parties will not get the numbers they need. The honorable senator knows that as well as I do. Why talk niceties about this question? The Opposition, is sure of one thing about this legislation; we know it is bad. This Bill is designed to do something that no other government in this nation has ever attempted to do. Why is such a change needed? As I have said already no government has ever neglected the interests of country people. Every government has, so to speak, fallen over itself to give bounties here and bounties there. I do not say that Governments are not entitled to try to get for country people the same standard of living as is enjoyed by people in metropolitan areas who have access to arbitration courts and other means of improving their standards. Every effort has been made to see that country people do get their share of the profits of production.

The Government has introduced this Bill into the Senate in the last four or five hours of a sessional period. It could have introduced the measure at the beginning of the sessional period when the Senate would have had plenty of time to deal with it. Irrespective of what provisions the Bill may contain, it has been brought down for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to make the vote of a person living in a country area of more value than that of a person living in a metropolitan area. Sometimes, unfortunately, the work of the Parliament does not receive the recognition that it shouldbe given in the various media of mass communication, with the result that irrespective of which party is in power the institution of Parliament is not held in the esteem in which it should be held.

When all is said and done the people have the right to elect the representatives they desire. Leaving personal individual con siderations out altogether, the action of the Government will have the effect - if a majority in this chamber vote for the Bill - of lowering the prestige of the parliamentary system in the eyes of the people. Irrespective of our beliefs on various questions, each of us should attempt to build up the prestige of our democratic institutions. If honorable senators vote willy-nilly for this legislation they will give those who want to smear and ridicule the National Parliament some justification for doing so. If democracy is to mean anything in any country it should mean that the vote of a person, no matter where he lives, has the same value as the vote of any other person in the community.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

.- I rise to support the Bill. I am very pleased to be able to follow in this debate my friend Senator Kennelly from Victoria. Holding an official position within his party as he does, I hope he will arrange to have published the views of his party and its leaders in relation to representation in rural areas. I certainly think that the views of the Labour Party should be known to the people of these areas. It is noticeable that the members of the Labour Party in another place who represent country areas have been very quiet regarding this matter. I doubt very much whether they accept the principle that has been espoused by speakers for the Opposition in the Senate.

We are dealing with a Bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918- 1962. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) has stated that this measure is not intended to alter in substance the provisions of the Act. I commend that statement to the Senate because, if one studies the provisions of the Bill, one will find that very little weight can be given to the arguments of the Opposition. The provisions of the Act which remain in the Bill have been in this statute since Federation. Section 19 of the Act provides -

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to -

Community or diversity of interest,

Means of Communication,

Physical features,

Existing Boundaries of Divisions and Subdivisions,

State Electoral boundaries; and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution and the

Distribution Commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, but in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-fifth more or one-fifth less.

There will be six Distribution Commissioners in the various States. The Government is well aware of the variations in the interpretation of these provisions over the years, as is the Opposition, and the Bill is designed to bring about some uniformity. Proposed new section 19 (1.) provides -

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall so determine the proposed Divisions that each Division contains a number of electors not exceeding, or falling short of, the quota of electors by more than one-fifth of the quota.

These provisions are basically the same as those in section 19 of the principle Act but there are three specific innovations. Proposed new section 19 (2.) provides -

For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration, in relation to each proposed Division, to -

community of interests within the Division, including economic, social and regional interests;

means of communication and travel within the Division, with special reference to disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance;

the trend of population changes within the State;

the density or sparsity of population of the Division;

the area of the Division;

the physical features of the Division; and

existing boundaries of Divisions and Subdivisions.

A most important provision in the Bill is the one that now lays down a procedure for the Distribution Commissioners. I have not heard any argument by the Opposition to suggest that this is something tending towards the advantage of one party. This is the first occasion on which a procedure has been written into the legislation for the guidance of the Commissioners, and it is a procedure which is to be commended. First, the Distribution Commissioners, by notification in the Commonwealth Gazette, will invite suggestions relating to the distribution. A period of 30 days will be allowed for suggestions, which must be made in writing. These suggestions will then be made public for perusal at the office of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State. After that time, 14 days will be allowed to individuals, political bodies or any interested party to lodge a written comment on the suggestions. In other words, a total period of 44 days is available in which a written comment may be lodged. The Commissioners will then consider all the suggestions and comments that have been presented to them. Maps will then be exhibited in post offices and a 30-day period will be allowed for objections or suggestions to be lodged in respect of the proposals made by the Commissioners. Further, copies of all these suggestions, together with all relevant matters, will be made available to the public and to political parties at their request.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Nobody is arguing about that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I agree that nobody is arguing about that. Those are the provisions of the Bill.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honorable senator is justifying a gerrymander.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is interesting to note what this gerrymander happens to be, and it is interesting to observe that the Australian Country Party is the subject of the attack in this respect. It is interesting to note also that the Opposition has concentrated its argument on the proposal of a 20 per cent, variation in the quota. The whole song from the Opposition in this matter is that there should be one vote one value, but has this been the suggested policy of the Australian LabourParty now for a number of years? It is interesting to recall that the Labour Party was probably the only party that was represented when the original Act was promulgated. In 1902 when the Labour Party was probably the only one of our present parties that had been formed as a party it passed the Commonwealth Electoral Act which allowed a margin of 20 per cent, above or below the quota. Has the Labour Party changed its views since then? Undoubtedly we would find from the arguments in the Senate this morning that it has.

It is interesting to note that in Queensland in 1949 - this is a rather significant year - the Labour Party, which was in office at that time, amended the State Electoral Act to provide that 10,795 metropolitan votes should have the same effect as 4,613 country votes. In 1949, at least, the Labour Party did not propose a principle of one vote one value. In Western Australia under the

Hawke Labour Government in 1955 a metropolitan seat required 9,369 electors. Under the Labour Party, which saw wisdom in its wonderful proposition of one vote one value, it was decided that there should be three seats with no quota whatsoever. How can honorable senators opposite argue their case when within the last half a dozen years they have put up a proposition like this? Do the Federal Labour members argue with their State members about what they did in 1955? Perhaps they see reason in the wisdom of making some disparity in the value of a vote. Perhaps the Labour Party believes not in one vote one value but in equality of representation. Perhaps the standard of one vote one value that is held over the heads of Labour members is intended for the densely populated metropolitan areas, lt is from such areas, of course, that the majority of Labour members come. I put it that, when they come here today suggesting that one vote should have one value, their policy in regard to rural areas is quite out of line with what is required in those areas.

Is it possible that Labour members believe that constituents should have equality of representation in either the Federal Parliament or a State Parliament? Do they suggest that a member should be able to contact all his constituents with the same facility? Are we able to say that there is equality of representation when in a closely populated metropolitan area a member may have to take only a five minute or a ten minute walk to see a constituent and when in certain large electorates a member may have to take a trip on foot and by road and aeroplane to see a constituent? The constituent is the first person who must be considered. Members who come from the big States know that there is no equality of representation as between a constituent in a metropolitan area who has only to put through a telephone call or to take a tram or even walk half a mile to contact his representative and a constituent in a rural area.

Senator Ridley:

– We will give you two members with one vote in a country area. Will that satisfy the honorable senator?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honorable senator may have some such principles. What he has said has been said only by way of interjection. T have not heard that sug gestion made yet. I do not believe that the honorable senator would want to double the number of Country Party members.

Senator Ridley:

– I am suggesting that the honorable senator is interested not in the constituents but in the party that he represents.

Senator WEBSTER:

– In our age the interests of the constituents are very much bound up in whether they can congregate to discuss matters of importance - perhaps matters such as the one we are now discussing. It is much easier for constituents in a closely populated metropolitan area to meet and discuss the problems of the day than it is for constituents in rural areas.

Members of the Labour Party are particularly quiet on this point. They know that this measure does not favour the Country Party. Indeed, rural voters select representatives from all the great political parties. lt cannot be suggested that a Country Party representative will be returned in particular circumstances. Indeed, if the rural electorates were to contain fewer constituents, representatives of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the Country Party would all have an opportunity to be returned. We speak of equality of representation, but when we think of the difficulties that are experienced by country electors we must agree that there is no equality of representation as between those electors and metropolitan constituents.

A suggestion has been made that this Bill represents an attempted gerrymander on the part of the Country Party. I do not think that suggestion is well founded. Indeed, this is a bill which has the full support of the Government. It is rather difficult for members of the Country Party to have their voices heard in this matter but my party, representing the rural areas, is being given an opportunity to voice its opinion on this side of the chamber. The Country Party does consider the matter of balanced development to be of great importance to the nation. We feel that this Bill will provide a way in which balanced development can be brought about. I imagine that every honorable senator would agree that a greater balance of development, or the decentralisation of the population away from our great cities, is an admirable thing. It will be only by a greater concentration of parliamentary representation of outer areas that this may be brought about. But the Labour Party has suggested that this measure is a gerrymander. Has the Labour Party ever known a measure which was more out in the open than this one? It is provided that arguments for the alteration of electoral boundaries shall he in writing. This is certainly something which has never been proposed in the 60 years that Labour has been interested in this matter. The whole proposition has been laid out quite clearly. I suggest that the Opposition would agree that it is in the national interest to have a transfer of population to country areas.

Senator Cant:

– We have agreed with that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The Opposition agrees on points which may be to the benefit of the Labour Party but it opposes anything which it thinks may be for the good of the rural community in particular. The Labour Party opposes any greater representation in rural areas. I hope the Labour Party will make that known in country areas. I noted with interest the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place about the position existing in the United States of America and the great disparity that occurs there. As far as voting weight is concerned, there is a disparity in every country in the world as to the principle of one vote one value. But now an attempt is being made in Australia to have some equality of representation in the rural areas.

Senator Ridley:

– What about the Tas.manian State election?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not familiar with the Tasmanian State election. I know that there has been a Labour Government there for a long time. I have no idea what has happened there. I think that great advances are being made in this measure we are debating. The Government has introduced provisions which are sound and sensible. The Bill will direct Distribution Commissioners to take note of particular things in order to bring about equality of representation as far as scattered areas of Australia are concerned. Certain procedure will be laid down which will bring uniformity to all States. I congratulate my friend Senator Prowse on the excellent figures which he presented to the Senate. I suggest that Opposition .members again read those comments he made and study the figures he produced. If they do they will find themselves in agreement with ‘ the principle of equality of representation and not necessarily that of one vote one value which they expound. I heartily commend this Bill to the Senate and I am confident that the wisdom of Senators on both sides of the chamber will ensure that this Bill is passed today.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Mr. Deputy President, before proceeding to discuss the Commonwealth Electoral Bill I want to correct at least one thing which Senator Webster said. I refer to a repetition of something said by the Leader of the Country Party, Mr. McEwen, when discussing this measure yesterday in another place. He said that in 1950 the Australian Labour Party - or the Hawke Government - introduced in the State Parliament provision for a gerrymander of up to 900 per cent. - not 20 per cent. He was referring, of course, to city electorates and to a particular electorate in the north west of Western Australia.

Senator Webster:

– I did not use the figure of 900 per cent.

Senator CANT:

– I shall come directly to what the honorable senator said. In 1950 there was no Hawke Government. It was the McLarty-Watts Government which introduced the legislation containing this provision. Senator Webster referred to the redistribution made by the Hawke Government in 1955. That redistribution took place under the legislation passed by the McLarty-Watts Government.

Senator Webster:

– They did not alter it, apparently.

Senator CANT:

– A redistribution was not held in 1960 until the High Court said it was necessary. The McLarty-Watts Government was forced by the High Court to hold a redistribution. That shows the worth of that Government. I suggest to Senator Webster that he should get his facts straight before dealing with these matters. If he does, he will not get his story mixed as he did in relation to Tasmania.

The measure before the Senate provides for the redistribution of boundaries of electoral divisions. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) has seen fit to bring in certain factors to be used as guides by the Distribution Commissioners, and no-one could quarrel with the proposals of the

Minister in that regard. However, when the provisions of the Bill are totalled it leads to the conclusion that the Distribution Commissioners, in substance, are being directed to apply a 20 per cent, differential to one seat as against another. Of course, it is not really a 20 per cent, differential, and to dwell upon that figure is completely to misrepresent the position provided for by the Bill. The differential is to be 40 per cent. A quota will be struck by the usual means of division. For the purposes of illustration I have taken a figure of 50,000 which is approximately correct. When 20 per cent, of the quota is added for a city electorate it becomes 60,000. When 20 per cent. - or 10,000 - is taken from the quota the result is 40,000. Obviously the value of a vote in a small electorate is half again as large as that of a vote in a large electorate.

Senator Webster:

– That is the law today.

Senator CANT:

– It is the law the honorable Senator wants to bring into this Parliament. It is the proposition contained in the Bill.

Senator Webster:

– It was also in the old Act.

Senator CANT:

– The honorable senator who is interjecting said that the Bill is not intended to alter the principle of the original Act.

Senator Webster:

– That is right.

Senator CANT:

– I have in my notes the words used by the Minister for the Interior as to the intention of the Bill. He happens to be a Country Party Minister.

Senator Paltridge:

– Would the honorable senator like a copy of the Minister’s second reading speech?

Senator CANT:

– The remarks to which I refer were not uttered in the Parliament. He prefers to inform the Press rather than the Parliament. That is his attitude. Both Senator Prowse and Senator Webster had to go back to 1902. They stepped back 63 years iia, their efforts to find support for the propositions on which this Bill is based.

Senator Webster:

– It is not a matter of support. The provision is unaltered.

Senator CANT:

– It is a matter of support. Honorable senators opposite are supporting a gerrymander on this occasion, and they know what the purpose of that gerrymander is. Its purpose is to strengthen the Australian Country Party and not the position of Ohe elector in a country constituency. The Country Party has been writing the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia for so many years that it has now felt its own strength, and it now wants to strengthen itself a lot further because it wants more power fcu this Parliament. I warn the Liberal Party that this proposal may be the commencement of the great takeover. Members of the Liberal Party have made themselves subservient to the Country Party for many years in order to obtain the fruits of office. If they are not careful, they will be pushed to one side. It is noticeable that, apart from the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge), who is in charge of the Bill in this chamber, members of the Liberal Party are being very silent on this matter. But I warn them that they may rue the day when they allowed the Country Party to manoeuvre them into agreeing to the introduction of this measure. We all know where it started, of course. It started with the 1963 general election. In 1963, the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) wanted to have an early election, but Mr. McEwen would not agree that the Government could win. The price that the Liberal Party had to pay for the Country Party’s agreement to the holding of an election at that time was this measure.

Senator Prowse quoted, thankfully, reports of Distribution Commissioners and argued that they favoured the Government’s proposal with respect to the matters that the Commissioners shall take into account. But the Country Party on the last occasion rejected the recommendations made by the Commissioners. I wonder why. I think it is worth considering why. I know, for one thing, .that, had the recommendations been adopted, there would not have been any Country Party members returned to the House of Representatives by Western, Australia at the last general election. I hope to show shortly that there will not be any after the next general election, anyway. We have heard much talk about gerrymanders, Mr. Deputy President. The one with which we are faced now, I think, may be described as a legal gerrymander. This occurs when something is written into the law and so becomes legal. But so far in, this debate I have not heard any speaker mention the illegal gerrymander that exists already as a result of agreements between the Government Parties, at both State and Federal levels, not to put up opposing candidates in any seats. These agreements are not played up in the Press as a rule, because it does not usually attack the Government Parties. It only attacks the Australian Labour Party. Whenever there is an argument between two people in the Labour Party, the Press claims that there is another split. But, between the Liberal Party and thi: Country Party, there are constant splits about who shall nominate candidates for particular seats and whether one party will oppose the other party’s candidates.

Some time ago, I had the pleasure of attending the declaration of a Senate poll. On that occasion, I issued certain warnings. I stated certain things that the Labour Party had intended to do, and I was accused by one of the successful candidates of having attempted to deprive the people of the right to vote for particular candidates. The Labour Party does not want to prevent from nominating for election to the Parliament a member of any political party or any unattached individual. The agreements that are entered into between the Country Party and the Liberal Party do prevent the offering of a selection of candidates. This is a principle of the division of the Australian electorate to suit the political convenience of political parties. There is agreement that certain people shall not contest elections. In the recent State elections in Western Australia, the parties even went so far, in an electorate which the retiring Liberal member was not contesting, as to allocate the seat to the Country Party, and a member of the Liberal Party had to resign from his party in order to contest the election. Agreements between the parties have reached this stage. Does anyone think that this is not a legal gerrymander? Members of the Liberal Party put up with it because of the fruits of office. They put up with it in order that there shall be no break in the continuity pf their occupation of the Treasury bench of this Parliament.

I intend to have at least part of the resolution to which I have referred, about which the Country Party complained so much, recorded in “Hansard”. It reads -

In any election held for the Western Australian House of Assembly, the Western Australian Legislative Council, and the Federal House of Repre sentatives, the second preferences of the Australian Labour Party shall be directed towards the candidates representing the Liberal and Country League . . .

That is the name of the State party - . . before being directed towards the candidates of any other political party.

One purpose of this, of course, is to prevent the tail from wagging the dog as it has done in this coalition Government over a great many years. A second purpose of it is to confirm that, in fact, in Australia there are two political philosophies, Labour and anti-Labour, and that there is no room within the democratic system for splinter groups. A third proposition attached to it is a clear warning to the Country Party that if it seeks to divide the electorate for its own political convenience, we shall see that many seats throughout Australia which the preferences of the Australian Labour Party control do not go to the Country Party. If the Country Party wants to divide up the Australian electorate to suit itself, it will suffer the consequences. At the next election, its representation in the House of Representatives could easily be reduced to 12. This is the price that it will pay if it continues with this proposition.

I am not particularly concerned with what happens to the Liberal Party, but I should think that those who represent that party in this Parliament would be somewhat concerned about it. Under proportional representation, the Liberal Party will continue to get its share of representatives in this chamber. But in another place, if it is not very careful, it will lose seats to the Country Party. Because of the way the Australian electorate is divided, the Australian Labour Party holds very few country seats. The proposition in the Bill would favour those country seats that Labour does hold. If acres instead of people are to have votes, we shall continue to hold Kalgoorlie, Kennedy, Leichhardt, Grey and Darling. We shall not be greatly affected by legislation. But when one studies the proposition put forward by Mr. Moss in Victoria that it is the intention of the Country Party to contest the fringe city electorates, one finds that the Liberal Party will be in great danger of losing seats. This is even more likely to be so if the fringe seat areas have attached to them large acreages of votes. In those instances, the Country Party could commence to build up its strength and take over from the Liberal

Party, and the Libera] Party in Australia might eventually find itself in a position similar to that in which the Liberal Party in the United Kingdom today finds itself - almost ineffective. Instead of the Country Party being the splinter group the Liberal Party will be the splinter group.

The Australian Labour Party will not be greatly affected by it. We might reach the position where it will be very difficult for the Australian Labour Party to win elections. Just as it took 32 years to win an election in South Australia, so too might that length of time pass before there is a change in this Parliament; but a change of government whether it be from Libera] to Labour or from Country Party to Labour is inevitable if this proposition is accepted, and the Liberal Party should be looking at it very closely.

I come now to Senator Webster’s statement that the Bill is not intended to alter the principles of the original Act. His Country Party Minister who introduced the Bill does not agree with him because he is reported in the Press - which his family owns - ‘as saying this -

In carrying out the proposed redistribution of Federal seats, he -

That is, the Minister - would make sure fewer people were required to elect representatives in country areas than in city areas.

By introducing this Bill, he is putting into effect the principle embodied in that statement. And the honorable senator has the audacity to say that no principle is being altered. He can think only of the 20 per cent, because “ one-fifth “ has been in the Act for so long. He does not look at the effect of the amendments proposed in this Bill.

The main purpose of bringing all the State Commissioners together in consultation is to ensure that the principles proposed by the Minister will be put into effect throughout the whole of Australia, and that no Commissioner in any State shall have the right to consider the particular conditions that apply in his State and apply them to redistribution. The Commissioners will have a clear and precise direction that, right throughout the Commonwealth, the electorates shall be divided in the way in which the Minister has stated that he desires them to be divided.

The Minister did not go to the extent of making that statement to this Parliament, although I always understood that he was responsible to the Parliament. He made it to the Press, and remained completely silent about it in his second reading speech. One wonders whether the Minister is the tool of the Press or the servant of this Parliament. I leave it to honorable senators to decide that for themselves after seeing the statements published in the Press.

About 18 months ago, just prior to the 1963 elections, there was some talk to the effect that the Australian Labour Party in Western Australia had made a deal with the Country Party over the seat of Forrest. Forrest is one of those electorates for which, by agreement, the Country Party and the Liberal Party did not compete against one another. But there was talk that a deal had been made between the Country Party and the Australian Labour Party. I refute the suggestion that any deal was made in respect of this electorate. The Australian Labour Party does not make deals with other political parties. When I moved the resolution which I have already mentioned - I do not want to be insulting about this, Mr. Minister - the matter was referred to as another deal between Porky Paltridge and Cocky Calwell. I assure the Senate that there was no reference by either of those gentlemen to the resolution that I put forward. I assure the Senate also that we of the Australian Labour Party will not make deals with other political parties for political advantage.

However, we intend to see that the Country Party, a minority group, is not allowed to become a pressure group in the Australian electorate to the extent that it becomes a Government, as in fact it has been for a good number of years. By depriving the Country Party of preferences in the marginal electorates - those that we can control - we will see that it does not elect members to the House of Representatives.

Senator Webster:

– Labour Party candidates will not always be on the bottom of the card to give their preferences.

Senator CANT:

– I said we would do this in those electorates that we can control. The principle of one vote, one value runs parallel to the principle of majority rule. If you destroy one you tend to destroy the other. This is the position in which we could very easily find ourselves if we agreed to this measure. I have no doubt that it will be agreed to. Nevertheless, the agreement will tend to break down the processes of democracy in this country.

I have referred to the Country Party pressure group. In this way alone the law of majority rule is being flouted constantly because whatever the Country Party puts forward the Liberal Party will accept, provided that the suggestion appeals to the Liberal Party as a reasonably rational one. Instead of the majority of members of the Government - it is only the majority in numbers that is counted in the Parliament - forming the policy of the Government, the minority is doing so. This is the position that we have reached today. I think the Libera] Party is walking into this with its eyes almost closed. We do not intend to rescue the Liberal Party, but we intend to see that the Country Party does not gain advantage from the proposals contained in this Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I have listened to this debate and have watched its trend. I had not intended to speak unless the opportunity occurred Noticing that no other honorable senator rose in his place, I shall take the opportunity because I feel bound to express my views on the debate as I have heard it. 1 heard a speech from Senator Kennelly, full of sound and fury and, as the poet said, signifying nothing. He expressed the viewpoint of a party that has a unique outlook with regard to the integrity of the parliamentary vote, which is the subject of this debate. I remind the Senate that it was Senator McKenna who said, as reported in “ Hansard “ of 17th October 1950- . . the federal executive is the controlling body of the Australian Labour party, and directs all its activities during the periods between the triennial conferences . . . Not only is every member of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party honorably bound by the decision of the federal executive, but so also is every member of the Australian Labour party throughout Australia . . So far as I, and other members of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party are concerned, whatever we may say regarding that decision in the halls of the party, we are bound by the decision, and accept it unquestionably . . we of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party concur entirely in the statement made by the federal executive . . .

That was an explicit admission that the Federal Executive, which is an outside body and which is subject to no democratic vote whatever, controls the parliamentary vote of the party that is seeking to champion the integrity of the vote here this morning. What members of the Opposition are now facing is a dilemma in which they are dominated by the 36 faceless men. I resent these unbridled accusations of gerrymandering. As I will show by an analysis of the relevant figures, the accusations are baseless. It is completely in character for a party that will permit its parliamentary vote to be bound by an outside executive to impute gerrymandering to the Government in introducing this legislation.

Senator McKenna brought into the debate this morning the report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review. It will be remembered that that Committee consisted, apart from the ex efficio members who included the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) and the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr. Calwell), of 12 working members - six from the Australian Labour Party, two from the Country Party and four from the Liberal Party. I was one of the four from the Liberal Party. As a decision of that Committee with regard to writing an electoral amendment into the Constitution comes into question in this debate, my conception of my proper approach to this chamber is that I should state briefly my viewpoint on that matter. It will be remembered that the Constitutional Review Committee was so constituted that the 12 working members were charged with the duty of finding the greatest number of amendments to the Constitution that could be agreed upon by the three political parties to which I have referred.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act provides that the margin or differential within which the Distribution Commissioners must work is 20 per cent, above or below the quota. The Constitutional Review Committee agreed unanimously to recommend an amendment of the Constitution restricting that margin to 10 per cent, above or below the quota.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Which is a total margin of 20 per cent.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes. As a proposition, it is quite acceptable to me that the differential should be 10 per cent, above or below the quota; but, by the same token,

I do not deny the propriety of a 20 per cent, differential, unless the ‘Parliament can produce evidence of some abuse of that margin for which the law has provided from 1902 to 1965. Senator McKenna addressed much of his argument to the actual terms of the proposed legislation. He gave ‘the impression that in proposed new section 19 there was a rather sinister alteration of language which really effected a different meaning. The position really is that section 18 of the principal Act, which is not to be amended, provides -

The whole number of electors in each State, as nearly as can be ascertained, shall be divided by the number of Members of the House of Representatives to be chosen for the State.

Section 19, which is being amended, provides -

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to -

Community or diversity of interest,

Means of communication,

Physical features,

Existing boundaries of Divisions and Subdivisions.

All of these factors are rewritten into the new section, but whereas the old section required the Commissioners to give due consideration to State electoral boundaries, that factor has been deleted. Having regard to the argument that has been produced here and in another place regarding the gross disparity of electors, for State purposes, in various States, is there anybody who complains of the fact that the new law no longer directs the Commissioners in making a distribution to have regard to State electoral boundaries?

Last night, in another place, Mr. McEwen said that differentials of 900 per cent, were in existence and, in some instances, differentials of the order of 9,000 votes for one electorate and 3,000 for another. Senator Cant referred to South Australia. Does he not acknowledge that the new provision that this Government is introducing no longer requires the Federal Commissioners to have regard to the State boundaries that the Opposition so much criticises? Does the Opposition withhold any recognition of that as a positive attempt to ensure that the Federal Commissioners shall ignore those boundaries which., in many cases, are based upon undue disparities, and give attention only to that which the new legislation writes in?

The new legislation directs the Federal Commissioners to have regard to three other features. The first is the trend of population changes within a State. As I understood an interjection from the Opposition, members opposite offer no objection to that. The other two features to which they direct their opposition are the density or sparsity of population in the Division and the area of the Division. It is solely upon those two considerations that the Labour Opposition bases what I think is an unsubstantiated challenge that this is an attempt to gerrymander.

Having enumerated the different considerations, and having enumerated the considerations that are identical in the new provision and in the old provision, Senator McKenna sought to find in the language of the new section itself a direction that equality was not the first factor. He sought to say that the new legislation provided for a different emphasis so that the original consideration of the Commissioners should be directed towards the differential and not towards equality. But if anybody reads the old section and then the new section in this respect, he will find, I suggest, that their substance and meaning are indistinguishable. The meaning and substance of the old legislation as compared with the new legislation, insofar as the legislation directs the Distribution Commissioners first to find their quota on a basis of equality and then to give due weight to these other factors, was dealt with by Senator McKenna, but I submit that his argument would be misleading if accepted. I say that because the old legislation provides that in making any proposed distribution of a State into divisions the Commissioners shall give due consideration to the factors I have mentioned. These are the important words of the legislation -

  1. . and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution-

The quota arrived at after a proper consideration of each of those factors was made the basis for the distribution.

In my submission, it is proper for the Distribution Commissioners, in dividing up a State for the purpose of electoral divisions, to have regard to, amongst other things, the density or sparsity of population of the division and the area of the division. I have listened with respect to the details given of the amusement that the metropolitan dweller obtains from a cartoon depicting a cow farewelling a pig and captioned: “ You are losing a vote “. That sounds very smug indeed. But the country people will not take it in that spirit. They are jealous of their rights and of the pioneering improvements that they have made. Insofar as they are a unit of work for strengthening and developing this country, I claim that proper consideration should be given to them when making a sub-division for electoral purposes. In doing this we should not ignore density or sparsity of population, or area and population.

Senator Murphy:

– Would the honorable senator give their votes a higher value?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Let me make my points- in a reasoned sequence. Reference has been made in the debate to the Constitutional Review Committee’s report. In paragraph 348 of its report the Committee said -

On& of the main problems in the creation of electoral divisions arises from the uneven dispersal of the Australian population. Most people live in the capital cities of the States and large areas are very sparsely populated. As a consequence there are in four States, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, rural electorates of greater area than- the State of Victoria.

In l-955i the Government, which it has been claimed, is out for a gerrymander, caused a redistribution to be made and only three divisions had a differential in excess of the 10 per cent, margin allowed. What were they? They were Darling, Kennedy and Kalgoorlie, all of them held by members of the Australian Labour Party. The degree to which their percentage was below the quota was 11.5, 17.9 and 14. The three other divisions of exceptional size - Grey in South Australia, held by Labour; Leichhardt in Queensland, also held by Labour; and Maranoa in Queensland, held by the Australian Country Party - were 1.1 per cent., 2 per cent, and 9.8 per cent, respectively below the quota.

To see the enormity of the 1955 redistribution, which allowed to Darling, Kennedy and Kalgoorlie some special excess due to density or sparsity of population and their large area, let us look at the size of these electorates. Kalgoorlie has an area of 899,000 square miles out of a total of 976,000 square miles in the whole of

Western Australia. One electorate represents 90- per cent, of the huge area of Western Australia. Kennedy occupies 45 per cent, of the huge area of Queensland and Darling occupies 42 per cent, of the huge area of New South Wales. Although each of these large areas had a differential in excess of 10 per cent, to the degree that I have mentioned, each of them was inveterately returning a Labour representative. Would’ it not shock the conscience tothink that an electorate that extended over 90 per cent, of Western Australia should’ receive a little spare excess in relation to its huge area? When we hear arguments that legislation that introduces density or sparsity of population and area of the electorate into this specific section which gives the guiding points for the consideration’ of the Distribution. Commissioners, is it not merely political claptrap to suggest that that is a proper basis upon which anybody can have a reasonable apprehension of gerrymander?

Senator McKenna:

– On that point, would the honorable senator mind reading the last two- sentences of paragraph 350; to, which he has just referred?

Senator WRIGHT:

– At the request ofthe Leader, of the Opposition, I will read the sentences referred to. The Committee said -

But, in the opinion of the Committee, it is quite unrealistic to imagine that in electorates covering more than 100,000 square miles, the reduction of the permissible margin from one-fifth to onetenth will produce any vastly different results. Community of interests and the other factors mentioned in section 19 can mean a great deal in drawing the boundaries of divisions of small areas, but they become rather unreal in the determination of the boundaries of the mammoth divisions which exist in four States.

Those sentences do not alter or distort the meaning of my submission one iota. All I am submitting is that the Commissioners under the old law permitted a difference in excess of 10 per cent, in these mammoth electorates,, obviously not being able to resist some consideration for the density or sparsity of the popuulation and the area. Under the new Act it will make little difference that these two considerations are specifically written into the legislation; so I suggest it is essential, not merely for Country Party political purposes but for the proper representation of country interests in a Commonwealth that depends upon expansion of settlement into the great outback area, that proper consideration be given to the vote in areas of sparse or dense population.

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:

– At the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the operation of the existing Commonwealth Electoral Act, with its provision for a 20 per cent, differential in some particular Australian electorates. I called attention to three strikingly interesting examples, the electorates of Darling, Kennedy and Kalgoorlie. Kalgoorlie represents about 90 per cent, of the area of Western Australia, Kennedy about 45 per cent, of Queensland and Darling about 42 per cent, of New South Wales. To my way of thinking it is ludicrous to say that it would not be proper for the Distribution Commissioners to take into account the density of population and area of those electorates in making a proper distribution for electoral purposes.

Some figures with which I have been supplied give the density of population in Darling as .6 of an elector to a square mile, whereas in another New South Wales electorate, Dalley, the density of population is 1 1 ,255 electors to the square mile. When we consider the need for this country to extend its facilities in the way of telephones, roads and aerodromes, to enable us to develop the country, is it in any degree consistent with sense to say that area is not one of the legitimate items for consideration when you are deciding how to constitute your electorates? As I have just said, the population density in Darling is given as .6 of an elector per square mile, while in the pocket, handkerchief electorate of Dalley the population density is 11.255 electors per square mile. Can anybody say that- on an abstract, arbitrary basis of theory you should give the same per capita representation to the pocket handkerchief electorate as you give to the vast Darling electorate which represents 42 per cent, of the area of New South Wales? Once you develop the ease of organisation that comes from the closeness and compactness of your urban population, you find developing a self-interested, compacted population in the city areas that could well frustrate completely the development of

Australia. This may happen unless the sparsity of population and the area of electorates can be taken into account.

Senator Murphy:

– What about density? The Commissioners have to take into account density as well as sparsity.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Well, when the Commissioners are directed to take into account density and sparsity they are, in effect, directed to take a balanced view of both ends of the question of spread of population.

I do not want to become party political on this matter and I do not wish to detain the Senate, but I cannot forbear to remind the Senate that already the advantage of ease of organisation and control in the metropolitan areas, which results in compact services and the availability of various facilities at the very feet of the residents, has allowed the building up of an economy in the cities with advantages that are lacking in the country districts. To give just one set of figures, in 1948-49 the amount of wages and salaries accruing in the Commonwealth was £1,036 million. Farm incomes in that year were £303 million. In the year 1962-63, the wages and salaries figure was £3,796 million, and farm incomes had risen to only £535 million. That is to say, whereas the wages and salaries of the Commonwealth had increased by about 350 per cent., farm incomes had risen by only 60 per cent. This Parliament must bear these factors in mind in according representation to different sections.

Senator McKenna referred to the huge disparity that is being continued in some of the American States. That reference only highlights the innate insistence that Australia places upon the fair operation of an electoral system. He showed a gross disparity in some of the American States. I think he said that 36 electors enjoyed the same representation as 3,000 electors. The disparity may have been even more gross than that. With a permissible differential of 20 per cent, above or 20 per cent, below the quota ever since we have had a Commonwealth electoral law, only three electorates in the last distribution had a differential which exceeded 10 per cent. This legislation is to be operated by independent Commissioners. The Bill provides that there shall be an ascertainable way by which they may be approached and that people wi;! have a lawful right to make objections and submissions. But the Commissioners are required by law to remain aloof from any political influence, except by those means provided by law. I think that all experience in Australia demonstrates that the Labour Party’s jibe at gerrymandering is a completely political notion on their part.

Reference has been made to abstract democracy. The United Nations has been established for the purpose of enabling international disputes to be debated in a democratic manner, and every member of the General Assembly has one vote. I think that Gambia is the latest recruit to the congregation. It has a population of about 350,000 people, which is equal to the population of Tasmania, but it has the same degree of voting strength as the United States of America which has a population of over 150 million people.

I noticed that one of my colleagues in another place made a jibe at the disproportion of the Tasmanian vote in the Senate when compared with the New South Wales vote. I think it was pointed out that 16,000 votes elect one senator in Tasmania, whereas 160,000 or more votes are required to elect a senator in New South Wales. Owing, as I do, due deference to Senator Murphy who has the great responsibility of representing that State, I ask: Is there any man in this chamber who denies that that disparity of representation in the Senate, in the light of our Constitution, is justified? It is the very foundation of the Federal structure. We in this Senate, because of that disparate representation, have a duty to take part in the formulation of this law even though it affects the electorates of another place. We are part of the Parliament, and it is only a measure that has the approval of another place and this place that becomes law.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– In this Bill we are not dealing with the rights of political parties. We are dealing with the rights of the people, and the right to vote is fundamental. If that right is impaired all other rights are illusory. There has been a miserable attempt in this legislation to set the country people against the city people. It is miserable because it is designed to take away the thoughts of the people from the real issue involved. Balanced development is important. The introduction of better communications in the country is important. All these things are important but democracy is even more important.

What does Senator Wright’s argument really mean when you consider it? It is the same argument as that raised toy honorable senators who have spoken on behalf of the Australian Country Party. They say that we must give more value to the votes of persons in rural areas than to those in the cities because otherwise the country will suffer. Senator Wright said in effect that the people in the country areas should have more voting power because otherwise they would not be able to prevent decisions from being made by the majority of the people electing their representatives and their representatives acting on their behalf. In other words honorable senators opposite want to strike down democracy in this country. Under a system where every vote has an equal value, decisions will be made in a certain way but honorable senators opposite do not want that; they want a disparity. They say that greater voting power should be given to some interests in order that those interests may be able to change decisions that otherwise would be made. What else is that than a negation of democracy? I notice that the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) is signifying his disapproval. Let him speak up. What else is it but a negation of democracy when honorable senators opposite suggest that you must give a higher voting value to some sectional interests than to others? Is not the purpose to defeat a democratic decision that might otherwise be made?

Senator Webster:

– Does the honorable senator agree with the 10 per cent, provision?

Senator MURPHY:

– I say that there should be .no departure at all from the principle of one vote one value. The intendment of the Constitution is that the election of representatives shall be by the people. The same words are used in our Constitution as are used in the Constitution of the United States of America. The Supreme Court of the United States has had to interfere in that country to stop the kind of gerrymandering, and the kind of departure from democratic principles, which are being discussed in this chamber today. The Supreme Court of the United States has said what the words “ by the people “ mean. They imply that where you have one vote you will have one value. The Labour Party agrees with that principle.

Senator Mattner:

– But it does not carry it out.

Senator MURPHY:

– lt does carry it out. We will see to it that the principle is carried out. In considering the framework of our electoral laws - and it is true that this Bill may be regarded in this way - the fundamental approach is that there ought to be one vote one value. That preserves democracy. Where you have a quota there ought to be no departure from that quota, or at least you ought to keep to it as closely as possible. Because we live in a state of flux we cannot pin down, from a practical point of view, the size of electorates so that they will be exactly the same. Because of changes due to the incidence of births, deaths and so forth, inevitably there is a disparity of a few hundred or a few thousand. That is one thing that is permitted by the imposition of the differential. When one refers to 10 per cent, or to 20 per cent, it is not indended that by any means shall there be a great departure from the quota. One puts a limitation on it. One says that no matter what happens you will not get further out than 10 per cent., 20 per cent, or whatever it may be. That is one thing.

It is a completely different thing to come to the Senate and say that, in the electorates, there ought to be a deliberate departure from the one vote one value principle and that a weighting must be given to the country electorates. This ought not to be done. Honorable senators can talk about what has bean done end the intendment in the past. This Electoral Act never intended that that should be done in the past. There is not one word in it which says there ought to be a weighting so far as the quota is concerned. The approach that has been made is this: One has a quota as the basis of our electoral system and one keeps to that. But in determining what particular electorates might be, one has regard to various factors. If one were to approach this matter as some of the Government senators have approached it one would say: “Well, it is really innocent if one looks at it. Why should not one pay attention to these various matters?”

One can say that when the Distribution Commissioners come to chart out the actual electorates, they will pay attention to these various matters. But that is not the only voice that speaks. Another voice that speaks points out that the Distribution Commissioners shall pay attention to these factors, not merely in determining the outline of an electorate, but in determining the number of people who will be in the electorate. What warrant is there for this approach at all? Yet, this is the design behind the Bill. This Bill does not represent what is intended to be done with it. lt is obvious that what is really intended to be done with this Bill is to see that one electorate shall be larger in number than another electorate and that die country electorates shall have fewer electors than the city electorates.

This intention is not expressed in the Bill. But it has been expressed again and again inside and outside of this chamber by persons on the Government side. Who is the most responsible of those persons? The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) has been reported as saying at Murwillumbah that he would make sure that fewer people were required to elect representatives in country areas than in the cities. How will he make sure of this? He is the Minister in charge of the Electoral Act. Distribution Commissioners work under the Minister. What is said about this? In his second reading speech, the Minister for the Interior said -

Although not included in the proposed amendments, the Government intends that the Minister direct the Chief Electoral Officer to arrange for consultations between the distribution commissioners appointed for the several States for the purpose of obtaining uniformity in procedures and to ensure the proper interpretation of the law by the commissioners.

Senator Prowse:

– Is not that a desirable thing?

Senator MURPHY:

– What does it mean? These Distribution Commissioners are appointed, and they hold their office during the pleasure of the Governor-General - during the pleasure of the Government. So, the Commissioners are going to be told what to do. It has been made apparent already by the Minister for the Interior what they are going to be told to do - something that is not in the Bill. There is not one word in the Bill, on the face of it, which justifies this approach. But let. us not be deceived because Senator Wright and others have said that the Bill is going to be used in such a way, in practice, as to give a greater voice to one section of the people than to other sections. It is completely opposed to democracy. Why should acres be represented? That question has been put and it cannot be answered. This Bill should provide for the representation of people, not the representation of square miles. Senator Wright speaks about the small areas down at Darling Point as contrasted with larger areas elsewhere. But it is not the area which counts; it is the people who count. The House of Representatives is a representative chamber, but the honorable senator tried to obscure the issue by speaking about the Senate. The Senate is a representative chamber of the States, not of people. The representatives of the people Sit in the other chamber, and there has been an endeavour to break down that representation by introducing considerations which are completely irrelevant.

Representation of the people must be on a basis of equality; otherwise you do not have democratic government. Whatever else he may do, let not the honorable senator from Tasmania ever say again in this chamber that he stands for democracy. Representation of the people is the very core of democracy, but he publicly announced himself as being against equal representation of the people. He said that because country people were pioneers, or some were of this stuff, they should have a greater voice so that decisions could be made which otherwise would not be made. What is that but a denial of equal representation of the people? The honeyed words that have been used by Government supporters will not obscure their purpose in endeavouring to gerrymander and destroy equal representation of the people.

Nevertheless, there may be ways in which this can be countered. First, we still have a Constitution in this community. If I am right, any endeavour to use this Bill so as to deny equal representation - that is, to use it in the way in which the Government has clearly indicated that it will be used - is contrary to the Constitution. In this country, as well as in the United States of America, steps can be taken to invalidate representation which is unequal. The next safeguard is that the Distribution Commissioners, if they have the courage, will understand that their duty is to observe the law. The first law is the Constitution. The next law, but subject to that Constitution, is this legislation. The Commissioners ought to have the courage to obtain advice as to what their plain duty is and should not be induced by the Minister’s pressure upon them to depart from the requirement of equal representation in this community.

Next, if the Government uses this measure in the way that it intends and we have unequal representation in this community, certain consequences will follow. If the Government, after a period of time, is able to be returned in the House of Representatives by less than a majority of the total votes cast, this will mean, as the experience in South Australia and in other parts of the world has shown, that the electorate will divide itself about the point at which the Government can be returned. If the Government can be returned by, say, the votes of 48 per cent, of the people, the electorate will tend to divide itself around that point. There will come about all over Australia, as came about in South Australia, the position that there will be a majority of Labour voters in the community and a minority of Government voters, even though the Government will still be able to obtain a majority of representatives in the other. House. The consequence will be that the Senate, which is elected on a States basis, will turn against the Government. So people like Senator Webster should not be too jubilant. The Government, in embarking upon a gerrymander, a denial of equal representation in the House of Representatives, for the first time is lending an ear to proposals for breaking down the strength of the Senate. It is obvious to anybody who looks to the future that the Senate will be the only legislative chamber in which an attempt can be made to break the gerrymander that will undoubtedly flow from this Bill.

There is an evil intent behind this measure. It is of no use for Government senators to quibble about the provisions of the Bill and say that they do not mean anything. What is the reason for the amendments contained in the Bill if it is not to pave the way for inequality of representation? Why should the Bill have been intro:duced if it was not to carry out the purpose that has been stated inside and outside both chambers by Government members - that is, to introduce unequal representation of the people in this community? This legislation can be described only as being a wicked onslaught on democracy in Australia.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– in reply - Senator Murphy has spoken with considerable vigour if not with much common sense about the one vote one value principle. I should have been more willing to give his argument, some consideration if he had devoted some of the energy that he has displayed today to a correction of the position that existed in his own State prior to the election of the Askin Government. The honorable senator had the cheek to refer to a certain situation in South Australia when a similar situation had existed in his own State for upwards of 24 years. During that time he as an influential member of the Australian Labour Party could have done something about the situation but he resolutely refused to do anything about it. Now today he comes into this chamber with this holier than thou attitude and asks us to take note of it. As I have done on other occasions, I put on record the fact that I never take him very seriously.

Now I want to say something about the speech delivered by Senator Cant, who is a fellow Western Australian senator. He referred to a matter in connection with which my name was mentioned. He referred to the fact that a few months ago an alleged political deal was described by some near nonentity in the political sphere as a cook up between Paltridge and Calwell. I think we were referred to as Porky Paltridge and Cocky Calwell. I was satisfied when Senator Cant took advantage of the opportunity to say that the allegation was quite untrue. I, too, take advantage of this opportunity to say that the allegation was completely and contemptibly untrue. The fact of the matter is that when the particular gentleman who was alleged to have made this statement for the purpose of political propaganda was confronted by me on the issue he showed sufficient cowardice to say nothing. He neither denied it nor confirmed it but preserved then, and has continued to preserve, a monolithic silence. Fortunately the story did not gain any currency but as Senator Cant mentioned it I take the opportunity of giving the lie to that story.

Senator Cant went on to speak in the same high flown way about the purity of a one vote one value basis. As he spoke I remembered all the years that I have known him and known of him, of his background and his beginning, and of his association with the Kimberleys in Western Australia. I asked myself, as he spoke, how serious he was in advocating one vote one value for, say, the Kimberleys in the north west area of his own State. He has never done so before. He has always opposed any suggestion that there should be a disturbance of the existing vote value as between electorates in the far north and those in the metropolitan area in the State Parliament of Western Australia.

He referred rather sneeringly to the possiblity of a great takeover by the Liberal Party of the Country Party. I was amazed at this statement because I had the general impression, merely from reading the newspapers, that if any party in the Australian political conspectus was in danger of takeover it was his own party, and he ought to be giving consideration to that. He was, I thought, rather unnecessarily abrasive when, today of all days, he referred to a speech that he had made at the declaration of a poll. I would have thought that his kindliness, if not his agreement with another member of his party, would have prevented him from speaking about a statement made at the declaration of a poll.

The Opposition’s amendment is that the following words be added to the motion for the second reading of the Bill - but the Senate is of opinion that amendment of the law relating to the distribution of a State into Electoral Divisions should be deferred until the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review with respect to this matter have been submitted to the people for their approval.

It is hardly necessary for me to say at once - and for all the reasons which have been advanced from my side of the chamber, which I do not propose to repeat - that the Government does not accept the amendment. We most emphatically oppose it. I turn now to the remarks of Senator McKenna. I was particularly struck by the fact that he devoted so much of his speech to clause 3 of the Bill relating to section 19 of the Act, which deals with the quota of electors. I am particularly grateful that Senator Wright addressed himself to this particular argument and I believe that he disposed of it in a much more effective way than I could have done. I take the point because Senator McKenna devoted so much time to that section. I am pointing out that what is in fact in the new Bill is indistinguishable from what was in the Act in respect of the quota. Indeed, reading it as a layman, I would think that stated as it is in the new Bill, it is rather more restrictive, if that is possible, than it may have been in the Act. It says in clear terms -

  1. – (1.) In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall so determine the proposed Divisions that each Division contains a number of electors not exceeding, or falling short of, the quota of electors by more than one-fifth of the quota.

Surely that makes it crystal clear that the quota shall not be departed from, up or down, by more than one-fifth. That is precisely the provision in the old Act in respect of the maintenance of quotas.

Senator Hannaford:

– And the quota is arrived at in the same way.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– That is correct. Senator Hannaford reminds me that the quota is arrived at in a manner which is provided for in the Constitution. It is worth putting on record that, oddly enough, when the provisions of the Constitution are applied in order to strike the quota, it happens that the one vote one value principle does not enter into the calculation. The reason is that the quotas vary from State to State. I prefer to think that the founding fathers realised this and had in mind the fact that when the provisions of the Consititution were applied, those States which would have a lower quota per electorate were the outlying States of Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland. This is merely by way of introduction. It stands merely on the threshhold of the question of purity propounded today by the Opposition in respect of the principle of one vote one value.

A good deal has been said, and a good deal more will be said, about the need to preserve rather than to reduce the one-fifth elasticity which is allowed in the fixing of the number of electors for any one constituency. Reference has been made to the report of the Constitutional Review Committee. I say only that a study of the figures since the report of the Committee supports the need for maintaining a 20 per cent, tolerance either way. I say that with respect to the Com mittee and to its report. I have a list of electorates which exceeded in three separate periods at three separate election dates the 10 per cent, tolerance either way which is now sought by the Opposition. I think the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) referred to these electorates. In 1934-37 there were six. In 1948 there were 18 and in 1955 there were again 18.

To provide an example of what can happen in a community which is developing at so fast a rate as ours, I shall cite the situation in the Bonython electorate. Other examples are available. No doubt in the realisation that the number of electors in the Bonython electorate was rapidly growing, in 1955 the quota was set at 15.26 per cent, below the then existing quota. Now, with an enrolment of nearly 80,000 voters, the quota is exceeded by 28,000. Originally, the number of electors was 15.26 per cent, below the quota, and now it is 28,000 above the quota. I say that we shall need to retain this 20 per cent, margin for many years to come while our economy is expanding, Mr. Deputy President. If the position in Bonython does not constitute a case that supports the retention of the 20 per cent, margin, I do not know what would.

I wish to mention only one other point, most of the arguments advanced by honorable senators opposite having been taken up by my colleagues. This final point relates to the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition when he attempted to compare the situation in the United States of America with the situation in Australia. This was a wholly invalid attempt, because there is no basis for comparison. Surely this is borne out by the figures cited by him. Nowhere in Australia is there a situation comparable with that in almost all the American States.

I was interested to hear the honorable senator cite some cases that had come before the law courts in the United States. I have had a look at one - Baker v. Carr. I suggest only, with due respect for the legal knowledge of the honorable senator, that he should read, as I have read, the dissenting judgment of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in that case. This, I am told by my own legal acquaintances, is now quoted rather more than the majority judgment in this case, Mr. Justice Frankfurter being, as is known throughout the world, a legal luminary of high standing. A United States case of which the Leader of the Opposition attempted to make a great deal wars that of Reynolds v. Sims. It is all very well for him to read high sounding phrases about votes being accorded to persons, not to acres or trees, and that sort of thing. That rather tickles the ears, but it is not very convincing when one looks at the case itself and studies the background against which the action was brought. It is worth examining the background and having a look at some of the judgment. I shall read the relevant part of the report on the case to indicate the background. I ask honorable senators particularly to note the numbers mentioned. The report states -

Taxpayers and registered voters of two urban Alabama counties brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, challenging the validity of (1) the existing apportionment provisions for the Alabama legislature, which created a 35-member state senate elected from 35 districts varying in population from 15,417 to 634,864, and a 106-member state house of representatives with populationperrepresentative variances from 6,731 to 104,767; . . .

This is the background of the case which Senator McKenna brings along here in an attempt to persuade us that it is comparable with the Australian situation. The figures, of course, completely dispose of any such argument. There is nothing in Australia - there is probably nothing anywhere else - that compares with that sort of thing.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Not yet.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Senator O’Byrne interjects: “ Not yet “, rather suggesting that it might happen here. I say to him quite definitely and quite soberly that if he thinks that it might happen here he just does not know what day it is. In giving this judgment, it is worth noting that one of the things which was said by the Court was this -

By holding that as a federal constitutional requisite both houses of a State legislature must be apportioned on a population basis, we . . .

That is, the Justices - . . mean that the Equal Protection Clause requires that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable. We realise that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement.

If we take that argument and those figures, I suggest that the argument based on the American comparison just does not exist. This Bill, Sir, that is before the Senate is an accomplishment in updating a piece of legislation which has been in operation for many years. It is realistic, it is equitable and it is fair. In confers no favour, and the Government presents it in the expectation that it will receive the support of all those who, about this sort of thing, have an equitable outlook and judgment.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 24

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Pursuant to Standing Order No. 196a I move -

  1. That the Bill be referred to a select committee to consist of seven senators, four to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  2. That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to move from place to place.
  3. That the committee report to the Senate on or before the 30th September next.

This is not an opportune moment to traverse the arguments which have been bandied backwards and forward before the Senate. I do not intend to do that, butI point out that already the Senate has seen a complete divergence of view on the inter- . pretation to be placed upon the new provisions to be inserted by clause 3 of the Bill. There is a deep and strong conflict of opinion as to interpretation.

I think it unwise to accept the proposition which has been put to us that the Minister, in this doubtful situation, shall direct the Chief Electoral Officer to arrange for consultations between the Distribution Commissioners appointed for the several States for the purpose of obtaining uniformity in procedures and to ensure the proper interpretation of the law by the Commissioners. Whatever power the separate Commissioners have is vested in them by the Act. They are not dependent upon the Minister for advice. We have heard that they are to be kept independent of pressure, ministerial or otherwise. That is not public. I would say that it is completely wrong for the Government to seek to direct the independent Commissioners as to the interpretation of the law. The law should be clear and definite.

What interpretation will the Minister put upon the law? Will it be the view expressed by the Opposition? Of course not. Will it be the view of the Government? Of course. Is not that a blatant interference with the Commissioners right at the outset? This Senate will do itself a disservice if it allows this legislation to leave this place with the possibility of any doubt as to its main purpose. For that reason I have moved a motion for the appointment of a select committee.

This is not a bill about which there is any hurry. It is most unfortunate that, as happens in respect of so many important bills when they come before the Parliament in the dying hours of a sessional period, ample time cannot be taken over this Bill. Obviously, it ought to be referred to a select committee in order to have clarified the interpretation that should stand out stark and clear in a bill of this nature. There is no hurry about this Bill so far as the public is concerned or so far as the administration of the principal Act is concerned. As far as one can foresee, there is not to be a Federal election until the end of next year; the next Federal election is more than 18 months away. There would be no hurry if this Bill were stood over until we come back for the August sessional period.

In the interim, the select committee that the Senate might appoint would, I am certain, be able to render a real service to the Parliament and to the nation by putting clarity into what is so demonstrably a subject on which there is complete conflict between the two sides of the Senate. I believe that the Senate would be well advised to address itself to a consideration of this Bill away from the heat and dispute of this chamber, where it is impossible at the second reading stage, or even at the Committee stage, to get to real grips with the points at issue and where the whole situation is clouded by political considerations on both sides. An objective approach can be made to this Bill in a select committee. Recommendations which will clarify what is now doubtful can be submitted by a select committee.

The very suggestion made by the Government itself - namely, that it will get the various Distribution Commissioners together and tell them what the law is - is the height of impropriety. The fact that that suggestion can be made at all shows that there is a possibility of misconception and doubt. It is the duty of the Senate not to allow legislation to go away from it until such doubts have been eliminated. I strongly commend the motion to the Senate and trust that it will be carried, in the light of the fact that there is no hurry at all, from any kind of administrative viewpoint, in respect of this Bill.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for the appointment of a Senate select committee to consider this Bill. I agree with the arguments that he has advanced in favour of the motion. It is perfectly obvious from the debate that has taken place here today that as the Senate we are far from clear on the circumstances under which this Bill comes before the Senate and on what is in the mind of the Government in introducing it.

My mind goes back to the first occasion on which this legislation was foreshadowed, which was in the Speech of His Excellency, the Governor-General, in opening the first session of the Twenty-fifth Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia on 25th February 1964. On that occasion, in speaking of the proposed introduction of this legislation, His Excellency said -

No fixed quota differential is proposed.

In other words, at that stage, the GovernorGeneral - speaking, no doubt, with the ad vice of the Government - said that in the amending legislation there would be no quota differential.

Senator Webster:

– No fixed quota differential.

Senator COHEN:

– That is so. In other words, the quota differential might be 20 per cent., 40 per cent, or 100 per cent. For reasons which have not been given in the debate on this Bill, the -Government apparently has abandoned that principle of not fixing the quota differential, no doubt because the Country Party was unable to persuade the Liberal Party that the abandonment of that principle was justified or, at any rate, was politically practicable from the point of view of the Government parties.

The Government now brings before us a different type of bill. Two arguments have been advanced in favour of this Bill. On the one hand we have the argument: “Well, look, this really does not do very much to the existing legislation so there is no point in suggesting any improper motive. Why allege that there is to be a gerrymander, when this only sets the legislative seal upon what is already the practice under existing legislation “? Side by side with that argument we have had a view put forward, especially by Country Party Senators, to justify a greater departure from the principle of one vote one value than we have under existing legislation.

I believe that there are two particular reasons, in addition to those already advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, why this Bill should go to a select committee. First, I strongly disagree with what the Leader of the Government had to say in winding up the second reading debate. I think that American precedents are instructive because at the same time as our Government is sounding a retreat from democracy by expanding the possibility that the quota differential will be applied - the Bill adds new factors that can be taken into account - the reverse process is proceeding in the United States where the courts are strenuously upholding the one vote one value principle. So, there are two opposite tendencies. Here, instead of getting closer ‘to the one vote one value principle, this legislation gets further away from it. In the United States the whole trend of judicial pronouncement upon the problem - and this comes from the supreme United

States judicial body, the Supreme Court - is in favour of clamping down on these maladjustments in “ districting “ or “ apportionment “ as they call it in the United States.

With respect to the Leader of the Government, I do not agree with him when he says that the view of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Baker v. Carr is the one quoted with most approval. His was the dissenting judgment. In Wesberry v. Sanders, which was decided early in 1964, the Supreme Court rejected the Frankfurter view and laid down in very explicit terms the propositions that were central to this problem. The decision was expressed in this way - lt would defeat the principle solemnly embodied in the Great Compromise - equal representation in the House of equal numbers of people- for us to hold that, within the states, legislatures may draw the lines of congressional districts in such a way as to give some voters a greater choice in choosing a Congressman than others.

Again, the decision stated -

No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.

Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right. . .

While it may not be possible to draw Congressional districts with mathematical precision, that “is no excuse for ignoring our Constitution’s plain objective of mak,n.g equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives. That is the high standard of justice and common sense which the founders set for us.

That view, put by the majority of the Supreme Court,” rejects the approach of the very respected Mr. Justice Frankfurter. I have the profoundest respect for the contribution made by Mr. Justice Frankfurter to the development of AngloAmerican jurisprudence, but I still say that his is now a view which is not now being followed in the United States.

Senator Cormack:

– He is a great humanist, surely?

Senator COHEN:

– I said that I paid the greatest tribute to Mr. Justice Frankfurter. But his view which once prevailed - that the courts could not interfere in these matters of appointment which he thought belonged to the “ political “ sphere - has now been replaced by another view. I quote from a volume entitled “ Essays on the American Constitution “, published in 1964, with a chapter on representative equality. This is a volume by a number of learned scholars in honour of Professor Alpheus T. Mason, a distinguished American political scientist and jurist. It deals with the problem in this way -

While it is difficult to predict the precise future direction of judicial action on various questions of representative apportionment, one conclusion does seem clear, that the doctrine of judicial non-involvement -

That is to say, the court abstaining from adjudicating on these questions of apportionment - expounded so eloquently by Mr. Justice Frankfurter is not likely to be revived.

My point is that there is in the United States a growing number of decisions on this question. They are concerned with the very problem we are dealing with in this legislation. A select committee would have the opportunity to study all the material that is available on this matter. I do not believe that in the course of this hurried debate at this stage of the parliamentary sitting it is possible for all of these complicated matters to be fully considered; but since the decision in Baker v. Carr in 1962 there have been scores of State laws dealing with apportionment which have been invalidated as a result of the principles that were formulated in that decision.

Senator Wright:

– But on the basis of a provision that is not on all fours with this situation.

Senator COHEN:

– The constitutional provision is very similar. It depends on the representatives being chosen directly by the people and on the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal rights to the people of the States. I believe that the problem is very similar. I believe that the precedents are instructive and that consideration cannot be mature and complete without the benefit of the reasoning and the factual situations underlying the American experience.

Senator Wright:

– With what exactness did the American court require equality in that decision?

Senator COHEN:

– These decisions do not establish that with any finality, but what the American courts have done is to beat the retreat from the old days where there was malapportionment. In some cases there was scandalous inequality, but the principle that the courts invoke to disallow such legislation - to strike down such legislation, as they put it - is the principle of one vote one value.

Senator Wright:

– Which we have been practising for the last 60 years.

Senator COHEN:

– Well, we have been practising it somewhat imperfectly for the last 60 years. I am indebted to Senator Wright for his interjection because it leads me from my first point, upon which I had perhaps dwelt too long, to my second point. The honorable senator said that we have been giving effect to the principle of one vote one value for 60 years. In our 56th year of Federation we appointed a joint Constitutional Review Committee. That Committee was presided over by the Attorney-General of the day - a member of a party which still forms the Government. The Committee comprised members of all parties from both Houses of the Parliament. It agreed unanimously on a particular approach to the problem, namely that in attempting to get as close as possible to the principle of one vote one value there was a lowest common denominator of agreement - the 10 per cent, variation from the quota. I want to know why the Government has taken us further away from the principle of one vote one value than the present situation and much further away than the recommendation of the Constitutional Review Committee. Four of the twelve members of the Committee were senators and the Committee was unanimous. In this situation, I think the Government has a very real responsibility to tell us why it has departed from these recommendations and has in fact rejected them.

The Committee warned specifically about certain dangers in the present system. With the extra elbow room, if I may use that phrase, that is granted by this amending legislation, I suggest that the Committee would have entertained even graver doubts about the problem. At paragraph 316 of its report, the Select Committee said -

The Committee feels constrained to say, however, that the one-fifth margin on either side of the quota for a State which the Act allows may disturb quite seriously a principle which the Committee believes to be beyond question in the election of members of the national Parliament of a Federation, namely, that the votes of the electors should, as far as possible, be accorded equal value. The full application of the margin each way to two divisions in a State could result in the number of electors in one division totalling 50 per cent, more than the number of electors in the other division. Such a possible disparity in the value of votes is inconsistent with the full realisation of democracy.

What is involved here is a further departure from that principle, because nobody would say that this will lead to a less frequent use of the 20 per cent, differential. Because of these new factors that are being considered by the Commissioners and because of the arguments that were put by Senator Prowse and Senator Webster, it is more likely that the differential will be pushed out closer to the 20 per cent, in rural areas.

Senator Prowse:

– Is the honorable senator arguing that no other factor but numbers has any bearing on the quality of votes?

Senator COHEN:

– No, 1 have not said that. What I have said is that in principle it should be one vote one value. For practical reasons-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - Order! I think I have given the honorable senator fair latitude and I draw his attention to the fact that the motion seeks to appoint a select committee.

Senator COHEN:

– Thank you, Mr. Deputy President. I had no intention of transgressing. I wanted to put this argument because to my mind it is fundamental. We of this Senate were represented on the Select Committee and the Committee deliberated for a long time and had representations made to it from all quarters. I believe that we have not yet been shown why it was necessary to depart from the standards set by the Committee and the recommendations that it made. To my mind, all this, together with the great volume of material from the United States which we have not had an opportunity to consider and which ought to be studied and evaluated, is a proper ground for supporting the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– Despite his disclaimer to the contrary, what Senator Cohen has in fact been arguing and what has been argued consistently by his party is the simple proposition that nothing other than numbers should be taken into consideration. We shall have an opportunity to debate that point at a later stage. However, I have been particularly interested in what the honorable senator has had to say, and I say that this is the proposition he is arguing now, despite the fact that on other occasions he has said: “ We accept 10 per cent.”.

The other point I want to refer to is this: I found it desirable to refer to the American cases because they were quoted by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). I would not have done so if he had not mentioned them. I do not want the Senate to be led off on a false trail into believing for a moment that the situation in America is in any way parallel, let alone comparable, with the situation we are dealing with here. I have quoted numbers and the Leader of the Opposition himself quoted numbers to indicate that their Constitution is a completely different one. So I put it to the Senate that, as this debate proceeds, we may find some resort to the old debating trick of talking about anything other than the business in hand, for the purpose of masking the real issues, and we will get this American proposition over and over again. I want it to be clearly understood that there is no comparison whatever between the situation here and that in America. Coming now to the amendment, I say at once that the Government rejects it. It asks for the appointment of a select committee to consist of seven honorable senators. I would be the last one in this chamber to deny its importance or its interest in these matters. But I put it to the Senate: This Bill has not been before a select committee of the House of Representatives. It has been through the mill of the House of Representatives itself in the last two or three days and was passed there in the last 24 hours. Every member of the House of Representatives - more directly concerned with this than we, as senators, are - had opportunity to examine it and the majority of them have expressed their approval of it within the last 24 hours. For that reason and the others I have given the Government rejects the amendment.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– As apparently no other honorable senator wants to speak on this matter I will close the debate. I was interested to hear what the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) said about the importation of any element of comparison with the United States of America. 1 make it quite clear that my main purpose in adverting to that was to draw attention to the legal comparison between their Constitution and our own. I referred to the fact that the American Constitution provided that representatives in the Federal sphere should be chosen by the people of the States, whereas our Constitution provides that they shall be chosen by the people of the Commonwealth. There is very little difference in the terms, and no difference in the significance. All I indicated was that the terms had relevance in showing that the factors which influenced the American Supreme Court operated here.

If I may mention it for one moment, in view of the matter being raised on this motion by the Minister, the reference I made to the case of Baker and Carr was in terms that it had initiated a flood of cases. That was not the case upon which the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with the merits of apportionment in Tennessee. The only question there before the court was whether a Tennessee State court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for a declaration of invalidity in relation to redistribution in that State. The judgment in the Baker and Carr case did no more than decide that the State Court of Tennessee had the power to deal with the matter. It reversed the lower court’s decision on that point. I am surprised, in a case of that type decided by the court, to find the Leader of the Government invoking not the judgment of the court - and the case was decided by six to two - but the comments of one of the judges, who was in a minority. I merely want to say that at no stage did I suggest that what was happening electorally in Australia was anything like the extreme condition that I described in relation to the United States. My comment, on giving the figures, was that once a gerrymander commences it becomes cemented in and it extends and grows until you get a distortion of the type I put before the Senate.

Coming directly back to the motion, I think that Senator Cohen in the course of his remarks has furnished two more powerful reasons why the Senate should refer this matter to a select committee. In the first place, there has been no proper consideration at all of the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee. The members of that Committee gave months of their time to a consideration of this and allied matters, and there has been no adequate debate, and it is not possible to have an adequate debate either in the Senate or in the Committee stage of our discussions, on this topic. That is an additional reason why, in calmness and objectivity, our representatives on a select committee should consider this matter and be in a position to inform the whole Committee on it at a later stage.

The second point is this: There have been references to cases backwards and forwards in the United States in America. I venture to suggest that most honorable senators are not even aware that cases of such a kind were pending. Yet they are legion, as Senator Cohen has explained. It is desirable that the great principles covering the point we have been discussing which have been established by the United States Supreme Courtin their relation to a Constitution comparable with our own should be analysed and understood and that the concise form and effect of the judgments in the cases which established those principles should be presented to this Senate by the suggested committee. I think I have outlined two additional reasons for which the Senate is indebted to Senator Cohen.

The Leader of the Government addressed an argument to the Senate a moment ago to the effect that there is no need for us in this Senate to worry about this matter because the whole thing has been debated in the House of Representatives by people who are concerned in the subject matter of clause 3 of this Bill, which refers to the division of States into electoral divisions. Well, I never thought I would live to see the day when a Leader of a Government in the Senate would so demean this House as to suggest that because there had been an adequate debate elsewhere on a subject the Senate should abdicate its responsibilities.

Senator Henty:

– The Minister did not say that.

Senator McKENNA:

– I know perfectly well what he said. What other conclusion is to be drawn from a statement that the matter has already been defeated adequately, according to the honorable senator, by people who are more interested than we are? Those were the propositions that he put.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– He said it was more in their interests.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is nothing of the kind. The House of Representatives is only one portion of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and this House has powers co-extensive with those of another place. I regret to see the day when the Leader of the Government in this Senate is prepared to address to honorable senators an argument such as he addressed this afternoon. I think it is in complete derogation of the dignity of this place and of its rights. I think that, in saying what he said, the Leader of the Government merely gave the Senate an additional reason why it should take the time to refer this Bill to a select committee. I commend that course.

Question put -

That the motion (Senator McKenna’s)be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

In Committee.

Clauses1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3.

Sections 19 to 23 (inclusive) of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - “ 19. - (1.) In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall so determine the proposed Divisions that each Division contains a number of electors not exceeding, or falling short of, the quota of electors by more than one-fifth of the quota. “ (2.) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration, in relation to each proposed Division, to-

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In proposed section 19, leave out sub-section (1.) insert the following sub-section: - “ (1.) In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall take the quota of electors as the basis for the distribution and may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, but in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one tenth more or one tenth less.”.

That proposed sub-section is to replace the provision in the Bill which reads as follows -

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall so determine the proposed Divisions that each Division contains a number of electors not exceeding, or falling short of, the quota of electors by more than one fifth of the quota.

At another stage of the debate on this Bill I pointed out the difference between section 19 of the Act and the proposed new section 19 that we are now considering. In drafting this amendment what I have done, in effect, is to retain the provision in the existing Act, making only one substantial change in it, namely, that the variation from the quota may be made to the extent of one tenth more or one tenth less and not, as both the present Act and the proposal in the Bill make it, one fifth more or one fifth less. Except for that cutting down of the margin of allowance there is no difference in substance between what I propose in the amendment I have moved and what is in the principal Act.

If there is substance in the Government’s proposition that the Bill makes no change of any substance in relation to the existing Act, will the Government please tell the Opposition what is wrong with the amendment that I propose? It seeks to re-enact the provision that is already in section 19 of the Act. I direct attention to two important things that are in the Act and in my amendment but which are omitted from the present Bill. I remind the Committee for the first time, if I may, that after providing that the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to some five factors section 19 goes on to provide -

  1. and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution. . .

That idea and that phrase have been deleted deliberately by the draftsman in the provision in the Bill. That is a particular form of words which ensures that when the number of members who represent a particular State are divided into the total number of electors there will be divisions with equal numbers. That is the focal starting point. The form of words that ensures that are the very words that have been left out of the new section. I repeat the words - “ the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution “. Those words have been thrown into the waste paper basket, as it were, by the Government in redrafting the provision.

As regards the allowance that the Commissioners may make over and below the quota, two further words have been deleted. The section provides that the Distribution Commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance to be used “ whenever necessary “. Nothing of that nature appears in the redraft that the Government has presented to us - nothing about the qualification that a necessity must arise before there can be any variation of what is the principle of equality, the quota for the whole State. I repeat the questions I asked when this matter was before the Senate and to which I received no specific answers. Why should these two sets of words drop out of the new enactment to which the Government asks the Committee to agree? If there is substance in the Government’s claim that there is no real change in substance by what it proposes in proposed new section 19(1.), what is the objection of the Government to going back to the original Act and its wording? If the Government does this, there will be no difference between it and the Opposition except as to the quantum of variation which can be effected up or down from the quota.

I point out the power and the virtue of, firstly, putting the emphasis on the principle which demands equality between the divisions in the States; secondly, of stating that the quota is not to be departed from except under the pressures of necessity; and, thirdly, of slating that the quota is not to be departed from to the extent of more than 10 per cent, up or down. On all that has been said, the Government and the Opposition are reputed to be in agreement. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Paltridge) claims that the viewpoint for which we contend is expressed in his amending legislation. We say that it is not. The Leader of the Government claims that the provision he puts up does not alter what was in the original Act. Let us get together now on the proposition of acceptance of the amendment now proposed by the Opposition. Let us differ, if we must, on whether the maximum variation is to be one-tenth or one-fifth. But who controverts the fairness of my proposition that there must be written into the Act the principle that there is to be equality, as far as that can be arranged, between the different divisions, and that that principle - -acceptance of the quota determined by dividing the number of electors by the number of members - should be the beginning, the highlight and the beacon light for the Distribution Commissioners, not to be lightly departed from, but to be departed from only when necessary. If we can agree to express that thought in the Act, then we can argue about whether the margin of movement is to be one-fifth or one-tenth.

It seems to me that we can test the sincerity of the Government in its contention that there is no change of substance between the principal Act and the Bill it is now sponsoring by putting before the Committee a form of words which will reconcile our two viewpoints, except upon the question of the margin of allowance. I hope that the Minister wi’l consider accepting that proposal. We will be very content to have that one principle set up.

I emphasise again how undesirable it is that this Bill should go to different sets of Distribution Commissioners and perhaps have different interpretations put upon it by those Commissioners in different States. It is highly desirable that the Distribution Commissioners be given one clear principle. The Government has discarded what was a clearly defined principle. Now, by its amendment, the Government says in effect to the Distribution Commissioners: “ Forget about the quota altogether as the broad basis of distribution. You now have at your disposal a formula that will enable you to range from 20 per cent, below the quota to 20 per cent, above it.” The Government substitutes a long line of choices for the Commissioners without saying to them: “First, try to adhere to the quota. Only when necessary may you depart from it.”

If that principle is accepted, the Government ought to have no difficulty in agreeing to our amendment. If it does not accept that principle, then there is complete justification for the Opposition saying that this legislation will open the door to a gerrymander. Distribution Commissioners, seeing the change will say: “ Now we are not confined to the quota as the first principle. We have a wide discretion which enables us to have 80,000 people in one electorate and 120,000 people in another without offending the law.” They have great elbow room. They are not answerable in detailed argument for what they do. Their redistribution comes before the Parliament in due course and is liable for disallowance. That is the only sanction upon them. They do not have to state their reasons for what they do. It is on that point that the Opposition feels so strongly.

It is on that point that we have centred all our attack because the time to stop the evil of gerrymandering is when the barest possibility of it first emerges. We see it emerging here in the form of the change that is to be effected in this section. We have seen it from the utterances of honorable senators on the Government side during the day. Above all, we saw it from the effervescent thought of the new Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) almost immediately he was appointed when he indicated that he was going to have fewer people in the country to elect a representative to this Parliament. It is not merely suspicion. We have evidence of the desire to bring about that result.

Area is important, but population is the thing under the Constitution and under democratic principles. We must concentrate on population. Area is merely incidental to that in marking out the boundaries to accommodate the requisite number of people for a quota or thereabouts, but it is not the primary consideration as the Minister expressed it to be when he called for territorial representation - representation of territory. I do not say any more at this stage; I leave it to the Committee.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) will not be disappointed when I tell him that we do not propose to accept his new provision as to the tolerance in the allowance each side of the quota. I hope also that he is not terribly disappointed when I tell him that I do not propose to accept for the Government the other proposition that he has advanced. I believe that the honorable senator in presenting this case has quite consciously read into it a meaning which is not there. He has said that it opens the door to gerrymander. He used that phrase. He wanted to have established first and foremost in the clause, presumably, consideration of the quota. I invite the attention of the Senate to section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which states -

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to-

Then a number of factors are stated, quota not being mentioned. The matters to which consideration are to be given under the Act do not include the quota but include the factors with which we are all familiar and, subject thereto, the quota of electors establishes the basis of distribution.

Proposed section 19 (1.) of the Bill provides for the matters to -be considered in the distribution of a State. The proposed subsection states -

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall so determine the proposed Divisions that each Division contains a number of electors not exceeding, or falling short of, the quota of electors by more than one-fifth of the quota.

In a separate proposed sub-section the Bill very logically goes on to list the factors which are to be taken into consideration, in addition to maintaining that tolerance each way of the quota. I believe that the effect of the proposed new section will be not only to reinforce the existing provision but also to state it in a much clearer, much simpler and much more readily understood manner.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. Temporary Chairman, I am disappointed but not surprised that the Minister for Defence did not accept any phase of the amendment. It is quite clear that the Government has set its mind upon the achievement of its new proposal. I deplore very sincerely the fact that the Government will not establish the principle that the quota should bc the first and dominant factor and should not be departed from except in exceptional circumstances but instead is discarding that principle, which formerly was written into the Act. The Government will now say to the Distribution Commissioners: “ Fix the size of the division at any figure you like between 20 per cent, below and 20 per cent, above the quota “. In other words, the Government is presenting the Commissioners with a wide open door to do exactly what they like. The Commissioners cannot be blamed if they adopt the easy, lazy way of attending to the matter. The Government’s proposal is regrettable, it is undemocratic and, as Senator Murphy said earlier today, when put into operation it may well be demonstrably unconstitutional. In the meantime, we think it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to subvert a principle that is sound, that is Australian, that is democratic, and that has stood for many years.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– The amendment that has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) is aimed at obtaining equal representation. No objection has been raised by the Government to the content of the amendment. Indeed, no objection could be raised-, because the amendment aims at obtaining equal representation by ensuring that the quota shall be the basis of distribution. Then the amendment provides for a margin of allowance where necessary and sets the limit of that margin. The margin of tolerance arises from the fact that in a changing population one cannot get exactly equal representation. If one must have regard to physical boundaries in the drawing of electorates, it is only common sense that there should be some departure from exact equality. But such departures are, one might say, accidental departures; they are quite different from deliberate departures. Senator McKenna’s amendment is designed to achieve equality of electorates so far as numbers are concerned. It may be that at one point of time a country electorate will contain fewer persons than the average. The same thing might happen in a city electorate, because of one of these accidental factors. But the Government will not accept the amendment, because it is designed to achieve equal representation.

What is the Government’s reply to the amendment? The Government says: “ Look at our proposals. It is possible to have democracy under them. It is possible to have equal representation under them.” Yes, it is possible, if the Distribution Commissioners do their duty, if they apply the equal representation principle, if they ignore the instructions that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) has said he intends to give them, if they ignore all the pressure that will be brought to bear upon them, and if they ignore the intentions of the Government in putting forward its current proposals. If they do their duty then democracy is still possible. But if they listen to what is told them by the Minister for the Interior, if they listen to what the Government tells them, if they yield to the pressure that is brought upon them, then it will be possible to have a departure from democracy in this community and there will be more representation given to some sectional interests than should be given.

There ought to be equality of representation as is designed in the motion moved by Senator McKenna. There ought to be no distinction between the country and the city. Each section plays its part. We ought never to introduce distinctions such as are sought to be brought into the electoral system by the practice which the Government envisages will be operated under this Act and in its pressure upon the Distribution Commissioners. I favour the amendment.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I rise also to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). The Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge), when replying to Senator McKenna, said he believed that in Senator McKenna’s presentation of the case he had quite consciously read into the Bill a meaning which was not there. He suggested that Senator McKenna had said that it opened the door to a gerrymander. As I understand the Minister’s reply to the proposal put up by the Leader of the Opposition, what he in fact is saying is that there is no real departure from the previous principle laid down in the principal Act. If that be so, then I ask him: What is the reason for the present amendments being put through Parliament in this Bill? Of course,, one cannot blame the Leader of the Opposition or any member of the Opposition for reading into this Bill something which is sinister.

We base our suspicions in this regard on that statement that was made by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) in June of last year at Murwillumbah when he said that in carrying out the proposed redistribution of Federal seats he would make sure that fewer people were required to elect representatives in country areas than in the cities. If this is the reason for the Bill it is nothing less than a gerrymander. I am sure that if the Government did not intend to do this it would have no objection at all to the amendment that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

I make use of the discussion on this clause to raise another matter. The Minister for the Interior, in his statement at Murwillumbah, suggested that Australia’s electoral system was the best in the world but lacked territorial representation. It could well be that under the proposals for Distribution Commissioners under this Bill, if it becomes law, some members of the House of Representatives will be elected by fewer people than those in the Australian Capital Territory who elect a representative to the House of Representatives. Of course, the member for the Australian Capita] Territory has not full voting rights, as the Minister for Defence well knows. I suggest that the Government, it it intends to proceed with this legislation, should explain what it means to do about giving the honorable member for the Northern Territory and the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory full voting rights in accordance with the principles that it is laying down under this Bill. I suggest that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate ensures the preservation of the democratic system of government which operates in this country. 1 believe that it should be supported by all honorable senators.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I enter this debate now when I can hear the engines of the 5 o’clock aircraft starting up. I realise the hopelessness of my earlier quest and recklessly abandon it now to enter the debate. 1 agree with what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna). The important question is not whether it will be the immediate intention of the Distribution Commissioners to achieve the purposes expressed by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) in his publicity. The important aspect of the legislation is that it is a new departure. While the provision in the Bill with respect to the quota is the same as that contained in the old Act, the way is left open for a gerrymander, the limits of which we are unable to guess. It could reach the proportions of the gerrymander perpetrated in South Australia by a State Government of the same political beliefs as the present Federal Government. The boundaries set up by that gerrymander still exist in South Australia. As an illustration of its extent, the honorable member for Enfield in the last South Australian Parliament represented more electors than did the Premier together with four of his Cabinet Ministers. That gerrymander has operated for a considerable time. If the Distribution Commissioners decide, or are directed, first, to consider the density of the population in a State, the easiest way out of their difficult problem may be by allowing to country areas - where there would be big electorates - 20 per cent, less than the quota, and allowing to metropolitan areas 20 per cent, more than the quota, using the difference only as a basis for finding the boundaries. A quota of 50,000 in a country electorate would thus be reduced to 40,000. A quota of 50,000 in a metropolitan electorate would be increased to 60,000. Irrespective of whether this legislation carries the seeds of a gerrymander, the extent of which may make us ashamed of the electoral system, it introduces various arguments as between city and country areas. Australia is one of the most united nations of the world with little distinction drawn between residential areas, but during this debate attempts have been made to justify different electoral treatment for city and country people because of the difficulties of representation of country people. It is expected that every Australian will do his best for the welfare of the community and that, accordingly, he will receive proper representation.

I have toured almost all of the residential area in the electorate of Grey, the biggest Federal electorate in South Australia. References have been made here today to other big electorates. Not all the electorate of Grey is covered by residences. The elected representative would not have to cover the whole of the electorate to interview all his constituents. It is possible to travel for miles in the Grey electorate where few, if any, people reside. The area of the electorate could be extended to some extent even now without increasing the number of electors in that electorate. These things must be taken into account. If country electorates tend to become unwieldy and their areas become so great that, despite the improvement in modern transport, the electors cannot be properly represented by their member, we ought to consider decreasing the sizes of electorates or redistributing boundaries in such a way as to incorporate more thickly populated regions with sparsely populated ones so that the areas may be smaller but the number of electors the same as before.

We have heard both the supporters and the opponents of the proposal that the electoral quota for one electorate shall be different from that for another electorate. The campaign began immediately this proposal was heard of, and we have been told that it is justified because one electorate may have peculiarities not found in another. There is also the fight between city and country interests. We have seen this in South Australia for a long time. This has acted to the detriment of country people, because the State Government considered that it could not establish a proper system of decentralisation without making some safe Government seats insecure. As a result, the real needs of outback areas have tended to be ignored and country people have been put at a disadvantage compared to city residents who enjoy all the city amenities. In many instances, country people should have received more consideration than has been extended to them. This sort of situation tends to hold back the development of country areas and does a great disservice to country people, as experience in South Australia has shown. However, I hope for two things - first, that the present situation in South Australia will soon be rectified now that a more just Government has taken office there, and, secondly, that a system of gerrymandering akin to that existing in the State sphere in South Australia will not enter into the Federal sphere.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Mr. Temporary Chairman, like Senator Cavanagh, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly, but I wish to make some comments at this stage. 1 believe that the proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) represents the real test in this debate. We have heard all the reasons that have been advanced in support of the Government’s proposals with great persuasion. We have been told that there is really no great change to be made by this Bill with respect to the requirement that the Distribution Commissioners shall take into account population trends and other developments. But the Opposition still contends that something new is introduced in proposed new section 19 (2.) of the principal Act, for it mentions two other classes of special features to which the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration. So it is well established that there is something new to be embodied in the principal Act by this Bill.

The Opposition has not yet heard the Minister explain why the prescription in the existing law, which the Government says will not be radically changed, cannot be allowed to continue as it stands. The present situation was established from the very beginnings of the Commonwealth and is fundamental to our parliamentary system in providing for the determination of electoral quotas, which are to be taken into account in the redistribution of electoral boundaries. There has been a common trend in electoral legislation towards quotas with permissible variations where special circumstances exist. Senator Murphy specially pointed out - 1 agree with him - that we cannot adopt the practice oi setting a specific quota and requiring it to be adhered to. We cannot neatly apply fixed quotas. So the Commonwealth Electoral Act has made provision for permissible variations from quotas, and this is fundamental to our electoral system. If this has been considered right over the years, why has not the Government answered the proposition put by the Leader of the Opposition, who said, in effect: “ Let us have the same system in the future as in the past “?

Senator Paltridge:

– I have answered it.

Senator BISHOP:

– I heard the Minister’s earlier comments, and I am anxious to hear what he has to say on this point now.

Senator Paltridge:

– I have already said it once.

Senator BISHOP:

– It has been said several times. I know that the Minister maintains, and that spokesmen for the Government elsewhere have stated, that no radical change will be made by this Bill. But I put the proposition: If no radical change is being made, why bother to submit the present proposal to us? Why is it necessary for the Opposition to relate its arguments to statements which have been made publicly outside the Parliament and which have appeared in newspapers and which tend to strengthen our point of view? It is suggested that the provisions of proposed section 19 (2) are, when all is said and done, not of great importance, that they are added incidentally to the electoral law and that the real basis of the gerrymander is in the change in the expressions used in the provision. Opposition speakers, and the Leader of the Opposition particularly, have said that the old section 19 has been the basis of democracy in our country. This has never been challenged. This is the provision for uniformity, and the question of marginal allowances is only incidental. This provision makes it possible for the quota system to work.

The Bill provides a completely new prescription, with new expressions. It states that the Commissioners “ shall determine “. What will happen, of course, is that when they have their programme and when they get their instructions they will take these as a guide. They will be required to determine the quota as it is now proposed to be prescribed, and not in accordance with the existing Act. The other most important matter relates to what Senator Cohen and Senator Murphy said in connection with decisions of courts in other countries. Nobody can escape the fact that in this part of the world the parliamentary system is not strongly staked. We are trying to preserve it because we believe in parliamentary democracy. We believe in the opportunities of groups and individuals in the community to have representation in the Parliament based as nearly as possible on mathematical equality. If this parliamentary system is to prevail in this country we must have a basis of democracy. Unless we have this basis we cannot sustain the parliamentary system in a changing world. With other Opposition senators I want to know why the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is not satisfactory. If there are no reasons why it cannot be accepted let the Government be big enough to admit that what we have been saying is true and agree to accept the old prescription.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I put three questions quite specifically to the Minister for him to answer, if he intends to reply again. Can he give the Committee the reason why the requirement in the Act that quota should be the basis of distribution has been dropped? Can he tell the committee why the requirement in the Act that there is to be no variation except in case of necessity should be dropped? Will he say what was meant by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony), when he said that he wanted fewer people in rural areas to elect members? Perhaps I might add a fourth question. How far does this Bill go to effectuate the purpose of that Minister?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I have given the reasons that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) sought in his first two questions. In regard to the final matter that he raised, he would be the last to ask me sincerely how to interpret the mind of another man. Indeed, I am not altogether sure that the quotation so frequently used by the honorable senator and members of his party is an accurate quotation.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Honorable senators will notice that amendments 2, 3 and 4 on the list which I have circulated all relate to sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 19. I ask leave of the Committee to propose the three of them together and to have them adjudicated upon together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator McKENNA:

– I move-

In paragraph (b) of sub-section (2.) of proposed section 1 9, leave out “ with special reference to disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance”.

In proposed section 19, sub-section (2.), leave out paragraph (d).

In proposed section 19, sub-section (2.), leave out paragraph (e).

Sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 19 states that for the purposes of the subsection that we have just debated, the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration in relation to each proposed division, to a number of factors. These are set out in paragraphs (a) to (g). A number of them are taken over unchanged from the principal Act, but three new elements are introduced. To one of them we have no objection and to two of them we do have objection. One factor is being varied; we object to the variation. Dealing with the variation first, paragraph (a) invites the Distribution Commissioners to give due consideration - I take that to be such consideration as they think to be due - to community of interests within the division, including economic, social and regional interests. I do not contest that.

Paragraph (b) relates to means of communication and travel within the division. The Government has added the words, “ with special reference to disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance “. I invite the Government to tell the Committee the reason for adding those words. Is not the expression already there - “ means of communication and travel within the division “ - adequate? Will not that encompass all questions of disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance? Having regard to what we conceive to be the purpose of this whole exercise on the part of the Government, we are very -suspicious about the addition of those words. From our viewpoint it calls for a full explanation from the Government.

In paragraph (c) the Commissioners are told to have regard to the trend of population changes within the State. That is completely rational. We approve that. It is inevitable that with the dramatic changes that are taking place in the vicinity of great cities, the population will change quite frequently. We face the factual position that if you make a distribution today it will be wrong next week and changed again the week after that, and that it is proper, in fixing a distribution which it is hoped will endure for a number of years, that the trend be taken into account.

I believe the Commissioners would be entitled to have regard to the fact that a satellite town is about to be built in the vicinity, that slum clearances are taking place in the hearts of capital cities and that multiple flats are being erected. Developments of that nature can be foreseen by reference to Government departments and ought to be provided for. It is for that reason we have acquiesced in a variation from the quota in a case in which it is proper - it would be a proper case in the circumstances I have outlined - to vary from the quota.

I think it is true to say that no one in the Parliament wants frequent redistributions. They would be exceedingly inconvenient not only to members of Parliament but to the electors. Giving that much elbow room is adequate. We have demonstrated, through the Constitutional Review Committee, that it does not need a margin of allowance. It need not be more than 10 per cent, above or below the quota. We have already contended for that situation and have lost the argument.

Whilst we approve paragraph (c), we disapprove the two new elements which have been injected into this sub-clause by which the Commissioners are required to give due consideration to the density or sparsity of population of the division, and the area of the division. The truth is that electorates are to be determined by a consideration of numbers of people. That is the primary consideration. Other things, including even area, are incidental. The mere fact that a State has to be divided involves the physical act of drawing lines. To that extent, the question of the area in which the requisite number of people to constitute the quota may be found is completely relevant. But it is relevant without it being written into the Act. A division cannot be declared without creating an area of some kind. We would not want a whole system of disjointed areas, if that could be avoided. Area is implicit in the whole proposal to create divisions.

So, first, there is no need to write area into the Act; and secondly, our suspicions regarding the proposed addition of paragraph (d) - “ the density or sparsity of population of the Division “ - and paragraph (e) - “ the area of the Division “ - are only sharpened by the inclusion of those matters in the list of matters to which the Distribution Commissioners are required to direct their attention. Those matters do not need to be written into the Act. They are all part of what we are convinced is the design of the Government; namely, to open the door to the widest possible divergence, within the limits that it has set, namely 20 per cent, more or less than the quota - we do not approve of those limits - as between one electorate and another.

I indicate to the Committee through you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, that we are opposed to the addition of the proposed new words to paragraph (b), and we are completely opposed to the concepts set out in paragraphs (d) and (e). We shall certainly record our vote against them. But, in the meantime, I will be interested to hear from the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge), who is in charge of the Bill, the justification for the changes that are being made to section 19 of the principal Act.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– In a general way one might say that there is complete justification for these changes. The rewriting of these factors is no more than a modernisation of section 19 of the principal Act. Let me take communications as an example. The present Act refers to “ means of communication “. I understand that that provision has stood for very many years. It was written into the Act when the word “ communications “ implied a considerably different thing or set of things from what it means today. The advances of science alone recall to the minds of all of us what has been effected in this very important area of transport and communications. You see, I automatically use the words “ transport and communications “ rather than just the word “ communications “ which, in some senses, can be rather restrictive.

The Bill refers to “ means of communication and travel within the Division, with special reference to disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance “. First of all, I draw the attention of the Committee to the addition of the words “ and travel “. I ask the Committee to consider the special impact that improved roads and aircraft, in particular, make on travel within a particular area. The use of the words “ communication and travel “ merely carries into the Act situations that exist today and takes out of the Act the restrictive word “ communication “ which, as I said, was put into it many years ago.

The other two matters about which the Opposition complains are paragraph (d) - “ the density or sparsity of population of the Division “ - and (e) “ the area of the Division “. 1 submit that those two matters must be taken into account in any distribution. This afternoon honorable senators heard some figures. J. hope I quote the figures accurately. In the electorate of Darling in New South Wales there is .6 of a person to the square mile. Dalley, in New South Wales, has over 11,000 persons per square mile. I think, too, of the district of Kalgoorlie which comprises 900,000 square miles. 1 do not suggest it is any great concession to this large electorate that in fixing its boundaries some notice should be taken of the fact that it is 900,000 square miles in extent and that it comprises nine-tenths of the total area of Western Australia, particularly when one has regard to all the exciting things that are happening in the area.

Senator Ormonde:

– Does the member ever go through the area?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I do not know what Mr. Collard does in the area, but when Kalgoorlie was represented by Mr. Peter Browne of the Liberal Party it was certainly well attended. He travelled around it twice a year and went to many of the remote places. I am told he visited them for the first time since it had been an electorate. However, I do not wish to be diverted from my train of argument. Senator Ormonde makes good speeches, but unfortunately, he makes most of them by interjection. I was pointing out that Kalgoorlie is an electorate which is presently undergoing vast development. This alone should be taken into account when regard is being had to the factors that go into the determination of electoral borders. Those are the reasons why these particular factors are being carried into the Act. I suggest there is every justification that they should be.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendments) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 14 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

New clause 14a.

Senator MCKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · TASMANIA · ALP

– I move -

After clause 14 insert the following new clause: - “ 14a. Section 106 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - 106. In printing the ballot-papers to be used in a House of Representatives election -

the order of the names of the candidates on the ballot-papers shall be determined as follows: -

the Divisional Returning Officer shall, at the place of nomination, immediately after the close of nominations and before all persons present, make out in respect of each candidate a slip bearing the name of the candidate, enclose each slip in a separate blank envelope of exact similarity and deposit the several envelopes in a locked ballot-box;

the Divisional Returning Officer shall then shake and rotate the ballot-box and shall permit any other person present, if he so desires, to do the same;

the ballot-box shall then be unlocked and an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service, other than the Divisional Returning Officer, shall take out and open the envelopes from the ballot-box one by one; and

the candidate whose name appears on the slip enclosed in the envelope first taken from the ballot-box shall be placed first on the ballotpapers, the candidate whose name appears on the slip enclosed in the envelope next taken from the ballot-box shall be placed next on the ballotpapers and so on until the placing of all the names has been determined;

where similarity in the names of two or more candidates is likely to cause confusion, the names of those candidates may be arranged with such description or addition as will distinguish them from one another; and

except as otherwise provided by the regulations, a square shall be printed opposite the name of each candidate.’.”.

In effect, the amendment repeats section 106 of the Act, with one exception. Instead of the names on ballot papers for House of Representatives elections being placed in alphabetical order according to the surname of the candidate, the candidates would participate in a lot determined by the machinery mentioned in the amendment I have proposed. It would be much more equitable that the position on the ballot paper should be determined in this way rather than by the mere chance of name. The mere fact that the Act provides that the names shall be placed in alphabetical order induces political parties to select candidates with surnames the capital letter of which precedes that of the surname of the sitting member. It is undoubted that this is done without hesitation. Certainly, this does not produce the right type of candidate. It is a wrong principle and it is far better that those who nominate should take their chance as to where they figure on the ballot paper.

Those who are at the top of the ballot paper have the advantage of what is known as the donkey vote. This is the vote of people who simply start at the top of a ballot paper, with no interest in it, and go straight down from the first candidate to the last. This is quite a factor in elections, particularly in close elections. The position on the ballot paper should not depend on the name of the candidate; it is a matter that should clearly be determined by some fair process such as the process I have outlined in the amendment.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). The amendment provides that a draw shall be made to determine the position of candidates on ballot papers for House of Representatives elections. There is no support for the belief, recently expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, that some advantage accrues to the person who holds the first position on a ballot paper. It is well recognised that there is an advantage in Senate elections, but this does not occur in House of Representatives elections. An analysis of past elections shows that there is not really any advantage in being in the first position. In fact, in the 1958 House of Representatives election in New South Wales, the Australian Labour Party candidate was in first position on seven occasions and the respective candidates polled 46.74 per cent, of the votes. In respect of other positions on the ballot papers in that election, the Labour candidates obtained 47.22 per cent, of the votes. At the last three House of Representatives elections, candidates in the first position were elected on 108 occasions as against 102 occasions for the second position and 103 occasions for the third position.

The question of making a draw for positions on House of Representatives ballot papers has been considered on several occasions, but there is no evidence that any advantage is given to the candidate at the top of the ballot paper. I present an analysis showing the position on the ballot papers of the elected candidates at the 1958 and 1961 House of Representatives elections. This shows that, of candidates in the first position, 41 were successful; 40 were successful from the second position; 31 were successful from the third position; 9 were successful from the fourth position; and one was successful from the fifth position. At the subsequent election in 1961, 32 were successful from the first position; 45 from the second position, 32 from the third position; and 13 from the fourth position. It seems that this does not support the case that there is an advantage, and therefore the Government does not propose to make any alteration to the existing provision.

Question put -

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be inserted.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1289

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a very minor bill and it is consequential upon the Bill introduced by me to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Some sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act apply to a referendum as if it were an election, while other sections do not. One of the new sections which it is proposed to insert in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, namely section 105b, does not apply to a referendum and this Bill merely adds that section to the list of other inapplicable sections in paragraph (f) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition does not object to the proposal in this Bill. It is a purely machinery amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1289

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) - by leave - agreed to -

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

page 1289

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1289

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment -

Defence Bill 1965.

Naval Defence Bill 1965.

Air Force Bill 1965.

National Service Bill 1965.

page 1289

QUESTION

PENSIONS

(Question No. 447.)

Senator DITTMER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. How many additional persons would receive age pensions if the moans test were abolished, and how much would it cost for each of the groups: (a) men 70 years of age or over, (b) men 65 and over, (c) women 60 and over and (d) women 55 and over?
  2. What would be the return by way of income tax if the pension money in the hands of these various groups were taxable in the ordinary way, and what, through extra spending, would be the approximate amount of additional tax paid by companies and business men and women?
  3. Through the extra spending, what would be the estimated amount paid by the various groups in indirect taxes such as Sales Tax, Customs and Excise, etc., and what would be the increased amount of wages tax?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers -

  1. It is estimated that the number of additional persons who would receive age pensions if the means test were abolished would approach 500,000. The following are the estimated annual costs of abolishing the means test for - (a) men 70 years of age and over - approximately £20 million; (b) and (c) men 65 years of age and over and for women 60 years and over - approximately £150 million, of which about £50 million would be for men and about £100 million for women; (d) women 55 years and over - insufficient data is available to allow a reliable estimate to be made; but if the qualifying age for women were reduced from 60 to 55 years, the cost could be very broadly £160 to £170 million. 2 and 3. The amount of income tax that would be payable annually if the means test were abolished for the groups mentioned above and their pensions were taxable in the ordinary way is estimated to be- (a) £3.5 million; (b) £8.75 million; (c) £12.5 million; (d) £20.0 million. No data is available which could be used as a reliable guide to the various ways in which any additional income granted by way of pension to the groups mentioned would be disbursed. Consequently it is not possible to estimate the amount of additional tax which, because of higher turnovers arising from any extra spending of these groups, might be paid by companies and business men and women. Nor is it possible to estimate the additional amounts of indirect taxes that would be paid by the groups mentioned.

page 1290

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

(Question No. 481.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What is being done by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to discharge its function under section 9 (1.) (f) of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 in regard to the collection and dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters, apart from the discharge of its function under section 9 (l.)(g) with regard to the publication of scientific and technical reports, periodicals and papers?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

Activities of the C.S.I.R.O. covering the collection and dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters include the following -

The library services of the C.S.I.R.O. collect scientific and technological information from throughout the world. This information is contained in books, scientific journals, trade magazines, etc., and these are housed in the C.S.I.R.O. Head Office and Divisional libraries, as appropriate to their subject. This library material is available to, and is widely used by, industry, universities, and the public. In addition, the C.S.I.R.O. libraries pay special attention to dissemination of information published from within the C.S.I.R.O., through circulation of indexes of Australian scientific publications and abstracts of C.S.I.R.O. publications. The material held is made readily available by the publication of Scientific Serials in Australian Libraries, which is an up to date union catalogue of the holdings in science and technology, not only in the C.S.I.R.O. libraries, but in 319 other libraries throughout the Commonwealth.

The translation service of the C.S.I. R.O., although a relatively small group, maintains a steady output of English translations of important articles originally published in the foreign scientific press. The titles of articles translated are reported regularly in the library publications referred to above; copies of material that has been translated are available on request. The Organisation also holds the deposit set of the Index of Translations prepared by the Commonwealth Scientific Office, through which translations are made obtainable on request.

Each of the C.S.I.R.O. Divisions and Sections handles inquiries from industry, State departments, and the public, on subjects within its own field of specialised competence. In preparing answers to questions received, the Divisions draw upon the collection of information contained in the C.S.I.R.O. libraries to supplement local knowledge and experience. In the case of inquiries on agricultural and pastoral subjects, the extension services operated by the Slate departments are generally the first point of contact with the enquirers, and the dissemination of information from the C.S.I.R.O. on their subjects is normally channelled through the extension services. No corresponding service exists to serve secondary industry, and the various Divisions and Sections of the C.S.I.R.O. operating in areas of interest to secondary industry handle inquiries direct from industry and the public.

A small film unit in the C.S.I.R.O. prepares films on scientific subjects; these are mainly intended to assist in the dissemination of new scientific and technological information.

The scientific and technical reports that fall within the scope of C.S.I.R.O. activities under section 9 (1.) (g) of the Science and Industry Research Act are chiefly intended for the information of scientists. These are specialist publications and are supplemented by a wide range of other publications prepared in the C.S.I.R.O., in which new scientific information is reported in the context of information available from other sources. The potential application of such information is also described in these publications, which are generally written for the non-specialist reader. These include, for example, Rural Research in the C.S.I.R.O., Industrial Research News, Food Preservation Quarterly, Coal Research in the C.S.I.R.O., Wool Textile News, and many others.

To foster further the exchange of new scientific information, the C.S.I.R.O. organises a number of scientific and technical conferences. At these meetings the results of latest scientific research from within the C.S.I.R.O. and from elsewhere are described. Reports are also given by people who are dealing with the problems that are relevant to the new information, and in this way the effectiveness of the dissemination and application of research results are greatly enhanced.

page 1290

QUESTION

RESEARCH

(Question No. 482.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. In each of the last three years and in the current year -

    1. What has been done by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to train research workers; and
    2. What numbers were being trained and are being trained as research workers, and in what fields?

  2. In each of the last three years what grants in aid of pure scientific research have been made by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows - 1. (a) The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation assists in the training of research workers by the award of studentships and traineeships and by direct assistance to Universities. Details are as follows -

Postgraduate Studentships and Traineeships: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation awards a number of postgraduate studentships each year to enable graduates to proceed to postgraduate research degrees. The number of postgraduate studentships awarded by the Organisation during recent years is tabulated below together with the fields of study in which the graduates were studying. The awards are made primarily on the academic records of the applicants, irrespective of the fields of science in which they are interested.

Three levels of postgraduate studentships are awarded to cover appropriate phases of postgraduate training -

Junior Postgraduate Studentships:

Awarded for one year only to pass graduates and to students proceeding to their final examinations for their pass degree to cover training during their first year of postgraduate study - usually the Honours year in an Australian University.

Senior Postgraduate Studentships:

Awarded for two or three years to graduates who have completed at least one year of full-time postgraduate research, to enable them to proceed with further research training in Australian universities.

Overseas Postgraduate Studentships:

Awarded for one year to students who have qualified for a Ph.D. degree, to enable them to obtain overseas post doctoral training and experience in appropriate research centres.

Postgraduate Divisional Traineeships: Awarded to officers of the Organisation to enable them to obtain specialised postgraduate training at selected Australian or overseas research centres. Divisional traineeships are awarded under similar conditions to the Organisation’s studentships.

Assistance to Universities: Many C.S.I.R.O. divisions and sections work in close collaboration with universities on particular research programmes and officers of the Organisation assist with university lecturing demonstrating and supervision in specialised fields. The Organisation regularly makes available to specific Universities, equipment, services and other facilities essential in specialised fields of research.

The Organisation has helped to establish and has supported for many years, various grant making bodies such as the Radio Research Board and the Electrical Research Board which were created solely for the purpose of assisting promising university graduates to proceed with postgraduate research training in specialised fields.

The following tabulation is a summary of C.S.I.R.O. postgraduate studentships and traineeships awarded over the period 1962-65: -

  1. The following is a list of grants made in aid of pure scientific research by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64-

page 1292

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

(Question No. 487.)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What are the names of the 30 countries other than Australia mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement on Vietnam which are giving aid to the South Vietnam Government, and what type of aid is being given by each country?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

The following countries have provided assistance to the Republic of Vietnam in addition to Australia -

Brazil - medical supplies and coffee.

Canada - economic aid, technical assistance, experts in civil field, training facilities and flood relief.

Republic of China - economic aid, technical assistance, experts in civil and military field, training facilities and flood relief.

Equador - medical supplies.

France - economic aid, technical assistance, experts in civil field, training facilities and flood relief.

Germany - economic aid, technical assistance, experts in civil field, training facilities and flood relief.

Greece - medical assistance.

Guatemala - medical assistance.

Iran - petroleum products.

Israel - medical assistance and training facilities.

Italy - experts in medical field and training facilities.

Japan - economic aid, technical assistance, experts in civil field, training facilities and flood relief.

Korea - military units and experts in military field.

Malaysia - technical assistance and training facilities.

Netherlands- medical team, flood relief.

New Zealand - economic aid, technical assistance, experts in civil field, including military engineers working on reconstruction tasks, and training facilities.

Philippines - experts in civil and military field and medical assistance.

Spain - medical supplies.

Sweden - civilian relief funds.

Switzerland - science equipment.

Thailand - economic aid, experts and training in military field.

Turkey - medical supplies.

United Kingdom - economic aid, technical assistance training, experts in civil fields, including specialist police training, training facilities and flood relief.

United States - military units, economic aid, technical assistance, experts in military and civil field, training facilities and flood relief.

There have also been promises of aid from a number of other countries.

page 1292

QUESTION

NATURAL RESOURCES

(Question No. 500.)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minis ter representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the Federal Council of the Australian Country Party requested the Government to study ways and means of safeguarding Australia’s mineral and other natural resources from undue external ownership; if so, what has the Government done about this?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

There is no record of a request in these terms having been submitted to the Government by the Federal Council of the Australian Country Party.

The Government’s general attitude to overseas investment is as stated by the Prime Minister in his Policy Speech of November 1963, when he said: - “ This investment has produced great advantages, but under some circumstances produces problems which need to be handled with care and understanding. As, from a national Australian point of view, we would wish to see new capital from overseas employed for the great purpose of developing new industries or extending existing ones with all the benefit of overseas skills and experience, we will always have a particularly warm welcome for new capital designed to these ends. We also believe that fears and misunderstandings are least where there is an Australian participation in share-holding and management, and most when there is no more than a mere change of ownership without more. There is, we believe, a growing recognition of this in the minds of intending investors.”

page 1293

RETIREMENT OF THE CLERK OF THE SENATE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - I have received the following statement by the President of the Senate (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) on the pending retirement of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. R. H. C. Loof- “ I regret that I am unable to be present at this time as I would have liked to have personally made the following remarks. However, as this cannot be, I have asked the Deputy President, Senator DrakeBrockman, to read this statement for me. “Before the Senate rises for the winter adjournment, I wish to inform honorable senators that the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. R. H. C. Loof, will retire on 14th August next, a date prior to the anticipated resumption of the sittings of the Parliament in August. “ This may be the last occasion on which he will be present in this chamber in the capacity of Clerk of the Senate, and I cannot let the opportunity pass without recording my sincere thanks for the assistance and courtesies that Mr. Loof has extended to me during the period in which I have been a senator, and particularly since I have been President of the Senate. It has been a long and very pleasant association. “ I thank Mr. Loof for his ever ready assistance and his advice which has always been sound in logic and supported by his vast knowledge and experience in parliamentary matters. “In tendering this advice, he has never relied simply on the standard authorities, such as the Standing Orders, Presidents’ Rulings, precedents which have become the unwritten practice and procedure of the chamber, “ May “ and the many other parliamentary authorities to which a parliamentary officer refers. His inbuilt understanding of the parliamentary machine and its workings has ever been present and the functioning of our parliamentary institution has been paramount in his mind at all times. One does not have to be associated with Mr. Loof for any length of time to become aware of his real concern for the upholding of the dignity, powers and functions of the Senate, a concern which I commend to all honorable senators. “ I pay tribute to his industrious work in the formative stages of the Australian Branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Without his untiring devotion and tremendous enthusiasm, the work of the Union would not have been so widely known in this Parliament, and I am sure that his continued interest and help have materially assisted all delegates and contributed in no small degree to the presentation of the views of the Australian Branch to the Council and Conference meetings of the Union each year. “ Mr. Loof entered the Commonwealth Public Service on 1st February 1919 and now, after 46 years of splendid service rendered to the Commonwealth and the Parliament, he will retire on the eve of his 65th birthday. “I sincerely thank you, Mr. Loof, and I am sure that with my thanks go the good wishes of all members of the Senate to yourself and Mrs. Loof that you may enjoy many years of good health and happiness in your retirement.”

I should like to endorse the remarks of the President and I thank you on my own behalf, Mr. Loof, for the assistance you have given me and the courtesies you have extended to me both as a senator and as Chairman of Committees. Particularly I should like to thank you for the assistance you have given me while I have been acting in the capacity of Deputy President.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– by leave - I would be lacking in my duty if I did not pay tribute to the work and service to the Commonwealth, and particularly to this Parliament, of Mr. Loof over a period of more than 46 years. Mr. Deputy President, I endorse the remarks of the President and also your own remarks. I am sure that all honorable senators wish to be associated with the tributes paid to Mr. Loof.

Mr. Loof commenced his career in the service of the Commonwealth on 1st February 1919 as clerk in the Department of Defence, in which Department he served for seven years until his appointment to the Senate as clerk and shorthand writer on 21st October 1926. At that time the Commonwealth Parliament was still meeting in Melbourne. It was not until May of the following year that the Parliament met for the first time in Canberra. So, with the retirement of Mr. Loof, we are losing also a rather important link with the past as he is the last member of the Senate staff who has served this Parliament both in Melbourne and Canberra.

Over a period of nearly 39 years with the Senate he occupied each of the positions in the Senate Department, and was appointed to the high office of Clerk of the Senate on 21st July 1955. Senators, on being newly elected to the Parliament, have found a courteous and friendly welcome and have gained much benefit from the kindly advice which has been so readily given on their first meeting with Mr. Loof. Such advice has assisted many of us during the early days of settling in in our new and strange surroundings. It has made the hard road of experience so much easier to travel, and has saved us much embarrassment along the way.

Mr. Loof is a remarkable man and, may I say, a fortunate man. The onerous work and long hours of duty have not precluded him from having outside interests and hobbies, and in his retirement no doubt much of his time will be spent in the pursuit of these interests. The arts have attracted him all his life and it has not only been from an observer’s point of view. He has a fond appreciation of music and is an accomplished musician. He has dabbled in painting and also spins the potter’s wheel.

During his long association with the Senate he has witnessed many historic and notable events which live richly in his memory. He was present at the swearing-in of a number of Governors-General in this chamber, the announcement of Australia’s entry into World War II, and the historic opening of a session of the Parliament by the reigning Monarch. He has seen the ebb and flow, over the years, of the political tide and has served eight Presidents during the terms of nine Prime Ministers in more than 16 Parliaments. The membership of the Senate during this time was increased from 36 to the present number of 60, and he has seen the seams of this building stretch and some additions made.

While Mr. Loof was the Deputy Clerk in this Chamber he also carried out the duties of Secretary of the Joint House Department, and it was during this time that it fell on his shoulders to make the necessary arrangements for all formal functions in Parliament House in connection with the first visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Australia in 1954.

Mr. Deputy President, I am sure that we will all remember Mr. Loof with a very deep sense of gratitude and, similarly, with very great affection. I move -

That on the occasion of the retirement of Rupert Harry Colin Loof, C.B.E., from the position of Clerk of the Senate, the Senate places on record its appreciation of the long and valuable service rendered by him to the Commonwealth Parliament, and conveys to him good wishes for many happy years of retirement.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I second the motion. I do so on behalf of the 27 members of the Australian Labour Party who constitute the Opposition in this chamber. I support and endorse all that has been said by the President in the statement which, with gracious forethought he asked you, Mr. Deputy President, to present. I applaud all that you, Sir, and the Leader of the Government have said. We have all known Mr. Loof in his several capacities as adviser to the President, adviser to the Chairman of Committees, guardian of the rights of each senator under the Standing Orders and friend and adviser to us all. But not all of us have noted the keenness with which Mr. Loof sees that the Standing

Orders are observed in the Senate. The fact that the Senate runs so smoothly is largely because of Mr. Loof’s unobtrusive efficiency and dedication to his task.

In the grand tradition of his predecessor, Mr. Edwards, who bequeathed to us Mr. Loof as his highly experienced successor, Mr. Loof leaves behind him a highly trained, competent staff all of whom are models of courtesy and cheerful helpfulness. The Senate owes, and will not forget, a great debt to Mr. Loof for thus assuring the future smooth and effective functioning of the Senate. I think it proper to record the feelings towards Mr. Loof expressed to me down the years by members of his staff. They may be too diffident to do so themselves. Each of them has for Mr. Loof respect, admiration, a great affection and much gratitude. Each of them regards him as a truly remarkable man of extraordinary versatility with many talents and interests. That he should be so regarded by his staff, who know him intimately, is a most eloquent testimonial of his worth. I personally thank Mr. Loof for innumerable courtesies and much help in my several capacities as senator, Minister, Deputy Leader and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate down the past 21. years.

T trust that in the years ahead I may be privileged to see Mr. Loof often and to get to know the unofficial side as well as I know the official side of this very remarkable man. Whilst his departure leaves us with a sense of great personal loss, I hope and believe that it will open for him new avenues of achievement and fulfilment. I am delighted to see that he retires exceedingly fit with very many years of full mental and physical activity ahead of him. My colleagues and I wish him and his family long life, good health and, above all, peace of mind.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1295

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

In moving this motion I recall to the Senate that this, in a way, is a day of goodbyes. We say goodbye to a number of senators who, for one reason or another are leaving us today, some of them, I hope, to come back in due course. From my own side of the Parliament we say goodbye to Senator Buttfield who, I think everyone would agree, has served her State of South Australia extremely faithfully and well during her stay here. She made herself well informed on Senate matters. She took an interest in a number of topics, in addition to her interest in her State. She also managed to keep up an association with a number of outside bodies which, as we all know, is rather difficult. She has been associated with bodies such as the Good Neighbour Council, the Council of Children’s Films and Television, the Council of Social Services, the Mothers and Babies Health Association and, in addition to this, she has been interested in playing golf and tennis. More recently she has taken an active interest in farming. I understand from a member of the Australian Country Party that she is a most successful, well trained and well performed farmer. Senator Buttfield will probably come back among us.

Next, we say goodbye to our very good friend, Senator George Hannan of Victoria who, over the years of his stay here, has delighted us all from time to time when he has addressed the Senate on those subjects to which he has particularly devoted himself. He almost made me understand what “ F.M.” and “ Hi-Fi “ meant. I applaud the interest that he took in these subjects and the practical and businesslike manner in which he presented the views of those most interested in the subject who were working in the community. He was a radar officer in the Royal Australian Navy and possibly this was either the ground work or the early stimulus for the interest which he subsequently showed in these technical matters. Not the least of his accomplishments is that he is a professional actor. He holds a union ticket in Actors Equity Association of Australia and, through the medium of television in which he always displayed so much interest, we saw all too infrequently another side of our good friend, Senator George Hannan.

We say goodbye to Senator Roy Kendall who has been here since 1949 representing Queensland. Senator Kendall came to us with a long and distinguished record of service in the Royal Australian Navy. His record is one which proved of great value to me, if I may strike a personal note, when 1 was Minister for Shipping and Transport and, later, when I wanted to know of certain aspects of Papua and New Guinea and of the Administration of that Territory. I take this opportunity of placing on record my personal thanks for what Senator Kendall has done for me and, I believe, for the Senate. He has been the Sea Scout Commissioner for Queensland and New Guinea since 1954, and I understand that he will retain his very long interest in that activity.

The next retiring senator is Senator Ted Maher, who is known and I genuinely believe loved by us all. Ted Maher has had a long and colourful record in public life, first in the Queensland Parliament where he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Opposition, and since 1949 as a senator representing Queensland in this place. I am sure that each of us in his turn has been regaled by Ted with a number of incidents that have occurred during his parliamentary career. I am delighted to find that contemporary historians are now becoming aware of the importance and the outstanding characteristics of this man. In recent times my attention has been directed to two volumes in which are recounted stories of Ted’s earlier political career in Queensland. I always used to say that I knew of only one mistake that he made during his life. He was in Western Australia for some time and then decided that he should go to Queensland. He made the greatest mistake of his life when he did so.

Senator Stan Amour is to retire. He has served in this Parliament since 1937 and has served his party faithfully over many years. He is a returned soldier, and in earlier days in this Parliament he took a very active and predominant interest in the affairs of returned soldiers. He has been bedevilled by indifferent health for many years. One came to admire the dogged courage with which he carried on. I was interested and delighted to learn from the Leader of the Opposition only quite recently that despite his handicaps Senator Amour was extremely proud of the fact that he had not missed a division for very many years.

We say goodbye also to Senator Jim Arnold, another member of the Australian Labour Party, who has earned the respect of us all in this place. Jim Arnold was a contact I made when I was administering the portfolio of Shipping and Transport. As in the case of Roy Kendall, I found that his record as a member of the Australian Shipping Board and his association with shipping and shipbuilding generally throughout the years were greatly admired. In recent times he has not enjoyed the best of health. It is hoped that in his retirement he will have what he deserves - better health, as a result of less strain perhaps, and a long life with his wife and family.

The next retiring senator is another colourful character in the person of Senator Gordon Brown. This man really has become somewhat of a story in his own lifetime. It would be more appropriate if Senator McKenna rather than I were to develop it. He himself has written part of the story of his life in a book which he published some years ago. I was only a new member of the Senate at the time. I was rather horrified at the title that he gave to the book - “ My Descent From the Soap Box to the Senate “. But notwithstanding this title, I found - as I think everyone who read it found - that it was a most enjoyable and interesting account of his life.

Senator Aylett of Tasmania says goodbye to us as we adjourn on this occasion. He has been well known to all honorable senators for many years. He has represented Tasmania since 1937. He has experienced the ups and downs of political life, as most of us do from time to time. He leaves us now with our best wishes and our hopes that he will enjoy his retirement very very much indeed.

Senator Joe Cooke of Western Australia says goodbye to us or rather we say goodbye to him, on rather a sad note. He is at present in hospital. I am comforted to be able to state that he is improving and that he will not be there much longer. If I may speak personally, Senator Cooke and I had something of a personal acquaintance, beginning with my entry into this Parliament in 1951. That was the occasion of the election following the double dissolution, as everyone will recall, and it is with mixed feelings that I put on record that on that occasion I displaced Senator Joe Cooke. I think much more pleasurably of the fact that it was only one and a half years later that he came back here. Senator Cooke has done a good job for Western Australia and a very sincere job. He has the respect of everyone throughout that vast State. In his earlier days he was in the Western Australian Government Railways and was president of the railway officers union for some time. In sport - and some honorable senators may hear this with surprise - he hit the high spot when he rowed in 1924 in Western Australia’s King’s Cup crew.

Senator George Cole says goodbye to us. His has been a particularly difficult task over the last few years. Defeated at the last election, he now goes into retirement. I am sure all of us will remember him as a man who carried out a most difficult job in a way which brought great credit to himself. In earlier years he was a prominent footballer in Tasmania. I think he represented Tasmania at football at one time, but I am not sure of that. After he passed his peak he was prominently associated with coaching juniors in that State. I am sure all of us join in wishing good luck and the best of health to all those of our members who are saying goodbye today.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. Deputy President, I am obliged to the Leader of the Government (Senator Paltridge) for his expressions of goodwill towards retiring senators on this side of the chamber. He has been very good, at this late stage of the sittings, to devote so much time to mention-‘ ing each of them as well as each of the other senators on his side who are retiring. For two reasons I feel excused from devoting myself at any great length to the subject of retirement. One is that Senator Paltridge had very adequately covered it. The second is that senators on this side of the chamber held a function in Canberra to farewell the retiring senators on our side. It was a memorable occasion for many reasons, but in particular for the farewell speeches that were made by the four senators who were able to attend. Senator Brown unfortunately was in hospital but he sent his usual cheery message to meet the occasion. Senator Brown has been with us for 33 years; Senator Amour for 27 years; Senator Aylett for 27 years; Senator Arnold for 24 years; Senator Cooke - with a brief interlude - for 18 years. Between them they have a total of 129 years of service and a batting average of 26 years. Of the other senators who are to retire, Senator Maher has been with us for 15i years; Senator Buttfield for 10 years; Senator Kendall for’ 15i years; Senator Hannan for 9 years; and Senator Cole for 15i years. Between them they have 65i years of service, or an average of 13 years. So, the withdrawal of the 10 senators means that the Senate is to lose men and women whose parliamentary experience totals 194 years. That is a very notable contribution to public life. I regret that my colleagues, Senator Brown and Senator Cooke, are unwell. 1 convey to them on behalf of their colleagues - and I think I can speak for everybody here in this respect - our regards on the occasion of the departure of truly fine men and colourful personalities with wonderful records. I thank them for the great contributions they have made to the cause of our Party and for the personal co-operation and loyalty that I have had from them. Of honorable senators on the other side, I also speak with real feeling as they go out. I have been exceedingly friendly with them all and have particularly warm personal feelings towards them. I regret their departure. I believe some of them may well be back.

I join with the Leader of the Government in wishing all those who are retiring good health for the future and the best of luck. We hope that they will have either a thoroughly happy retirement to which they are reconciled or that they will find fresh activities, whether in politics, public life or elsewhere, that will stimulate them and interest them right until the end.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

.- First I would like to thank the Leader of the Government (Senator Paltridge) and Senator McKenna, my own leader, for their good wishes. I appreciate them very much indeed. Secondly, I would not feel that my duty had been fulfilled if I left this Senate without replying to a foul mis-statement which appeared in the Press in connection with the statement I made in the Senate last week. Although this may not be an opportune time to make this reference, it is the only opportunity I shall have. I refer to a statement by Mr. J. J. Rowell of the Law Society of Queensland, and Mr. W. B. Campbell Q.C., President of the Queensland Bar Association. I think I have met Mr. Campbell, for whom I have a very high regard. Unfortunately, he does not know the facts, and even more unfortunately for Mr. Rowell, he does not know the facts. Evidently Mr. Rowell does not wish to know the facts, judging by his statement. He has said that my statement in the Senate was ridiculous. When 1 spoke here, I spoke from cold, hard facts. I spoke the truth and I think I was doing a public duty in doing so.

Neither Mr. Rowell nor Mr. Campbell has the facts. Therefore I consider that neither is in a position to pass any comment whatsoever. I wish to make that perfectly clear to them both and to tell them at the same time that I have not the slightest intention of being a silly fish and grabbing at the bait that they have thrown out to me. I know as well as Mr. Rowell does, and certainly as well as Mr. Campbell does, that no matter how true a statement is and no matter how many facts can be produced to prove its truth, when it is made outside this Parliament it is libellous and a man can be sued for making it. Therefore, I should like to tell these gentlemen that I do not intend to grab the bait. I am as much aware of the danger of grabbing it as they are. So I have taken the opportunity to correct the mis-statement now. I repeat that I am not ‘in a position to comment except to say that, if they want the facts, I have far more facts than I gave to the Senate. They would have been amazed and the Senate would have been amazed if all these facts had been produced. I leave the matter there and conclude by expressing my thanks to all honorable senators for their good wishes. I repeat that in my retirement I shall watch the progress of this chamber with interest.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- Mr. Deputy President, the hour is late; so I shall not detain the Senate long. I think it would be churlish of me if I failed to thank the Leader of the Government (Senator Paltridge) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for all the kind things that they have said about me in wishing me and other retiring senators well. Hearing these nice things said about one when one is leaving the Senate has all the charm of novelty. Indeed, it is almost like being awake at one’s own wake. I wish to thank also all the private members on the Opposition side, as well as my own colleagues, who have expressed their regret, in one way or another, at the fact that they will not have the benefit of my attack or my support, as the case may be, in the future.

The last matter that I raise in this place, Mr. Deputy President, is something that has interested me very greatly. I make a final plea to the Government to consider urgently the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television and to seek some method of assisting the local television production industry. The evils that were brought to the notice of the Committee are more rampant today than they were 18 months ago, and the need for correction is more urgent. Unlike some of those who make public statements on important issues, I have every confidence in the good faith of the Government in its approach to this very difficult problem. I am sure that if a sympathetic attitude is adopted, and, perhaps, measures such as were recommended by the late Senator Vincent and the other members of the Committee are put into effect, the very great social, political, cultural and economic evils that face us in this field will be corrected.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5.47 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 May 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1965/19650524_senate_25_s28/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant