Senate
16 November 1965

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1965

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1505

QUESTION

KENYA

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate a question. Has his attention been drawn to a report appearing in today’s Melbourne “ Sun “ regarding an appeal by Sister M. Miriam, Superior of the Missionary Sisters of St. Peter Claver, for money to assist more than 60,000 starving people in Kenya, following the failure of the August rains? The report reveals that nearly 70,000 head of cattle have died as a result of that failure, that mothers, through lack of food, have no milk for their children and that babies have little chance of survival. Will the Minister confer with his Cabinet colleagues to see whether, as an act of humanity, some immediate assistance, financial or otherwise, can be given to these starving citizens of a sister dominion?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · TASMANIA · LP

– I think this is a matter which should be brought to the attention of the Treasurer. I shall do that and let the honorable senator know the result.

page 1505

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it a fact that a conference was held yesterday by the Minister and State Ministers to consider the question of uniform censorhip? Is the Minister able to give the Senate any further information on this matter?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes. I am grateful for an opportunity to make some comment on this matter because of the headlines in at least one of the main newspapers in Australia. The fact is that I did have a conference yesterday with State Ministers to consider proposals which they had submitted to the Commonwealth for a form of uniform censorship. The purpose of the meeting was to enable me, representing the Commonwealth, to become more informed on the details of their proposals. A very successful meeting was held. All I can say now is that, having had the opportunity to

page 1505

F.13690/63.-J.- [66]

learn their views, I indicated to the meeting that I would consider those views and would report to my Government on the proposals that were submitted.

page 1505

QUESTION

EAGLE FARM AIRPORT

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Works: Is he aware that his Department is engaged on the preliminary work of extending and improving the runways at Eagle Farm Airport, Brisbane? Does he know that one of the necessary classes of work now being performed is the cartage of metal and screenings from a quarry to the airport premises? Has he been advised that in the residential area adjacent to the airport and the selected dumping place for the metal and screenings there is a laundry business which is being seriously damaged by the heavy clouds of dust caused unnecessarily by the trucks used to transport the material? Because he believes that no person should suffer damage or grave inconvenience from the operations of his Department, will he confer with his officers in Brisbane about this matter?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– I have not received representations from representatives of the laundry concerned or anybody else in respect of the matter raised by the honorable senator. It is very likely that if the Department of Public Works is engaged in extending the runways at Eagle Farm, a number of contractors and sub-contractors are engaged in carting material in fulfilling contracts they have entered into, over which the Department of Public Works would have no control. I do not know whether a subcontractor is responsible for the situation referred to by the honorable senator. It is most likely that a sub-contractor is responsible. I am not sure whether the complaint is that the roads are too dusty, or what it is. However, I do not think the matter would come directly under my control.

page 1505

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The cause of the trouble referred to by the honorable senator was the reconstruction work which was being undertaken by the Department of Civil Aviation at Cairns. At that stage, the runways were being strengthened at Cairns in preparation for the Electra services which will run to Cairns when DC9 aircraft come into operation. The construction work has now been completed. Ansett-A.N.A. and Trans-Australia Airlines have scheduled eight north bound services and nine south bound services weekly. At least a daily service will be provided in each direction. The first Thursday flight to come into service according to the timetable was delayed because the aircraft which was being used on the service was held up at Mr Isa due to a dust storm. A positioning flight was operated on Friday, 12th November, but as there was no traffic at Ingham, the call there was omitted. I have no reason to believe that calls will not be made at Ingham in accordance with the timetables now prepared by AnsettA.N.A. and T.A.A.

page 1506

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research: Have there been any refusals by the States to avail themselves of moneys offered by the Commonwealth for the construction of buildings and halls connected with universities?. If so, which States have refused and in what circumstances?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– If the honorable senator’s question refers to the construction of university buildings during the present triennium, he will remember that the Commonwealth made available to a number of States matching grants for expenditure on the construction of various facilities.

So far all of those grants have been taken up by all of the States concerned. However, there is a Commonwealth appropriation of £220,000 for the construction during this triennium of a hall of residence at the Bedford Park University in South Australia. I understand that the South Australian Government feels that it will be unable to produce its share of the money required to attract the Commonwealth money, which was appropriated about 2i years ago. The South Australian Government will start preliminary works on the site during this triennium, but it does not expect that it will be able to attract more than £20,000 from the Commonwealth. Therefore, the Commonwealth will not be able to contribute the rest of the money that it was prepared to contribute for this purpose during this triennium.

page 1506

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MORRIS:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a question. Further to his replies to the question directed to him today by Senator Sir Walter Cooper and the two questions that I asked him last week in regard to staggered timetables for airports in north Queensland, I ask the Minister whether he is yet in a position to advise the Senate of the new timetables or whether the airlines have yet catalogued new timetables.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I am not aware that the airlines have catalogued these timetables. I am sure that they will submit the timetables to me for approval before they do that. I understand that they have been considering this matter in Tasmania, north Queensland and some parts of New South Wales. I have no further information as yet. I will let the honorable senator know as soon as I have any further information.

page 1506

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. I refer to the latest unemployment figures, which show an increase in the numbers registered for employment, contrary to the usual trend for October. Has the Minister seen today’s published comment of the economics editor of the “ Canberra Times “ that substantial unemployment is likely within the next ; six ,months unless present trends in the economy are corrected? Does the Minister agree with that comment? If. he does, what measures does the Government regard as necessary in the present circumstances?

Senator GORTON__ I’ do not think the honorable senator could reasonably expect me to express agreement or disagreement with statements made by writers in the newspapers. 1 have seen the article to which he. referred. I direct his attention to the statement issued by the Minister for Labour and National Service with the figures to which the article written by the economics editor of the “ Canberra Times “ referred. It appeared to me that that article indicated that in the economy there were trends which might lead in the direction that the honorable senator mentioned. But the article also pointed out that there were other factors, such as government spending on defence and business spending on capital projects, which might also have an effect. It appeared to me that the writer was indicating possibilities - I emphasise that word - which could be read into the latest figures’. They were his views. I think that the views of the Minister for Labour and National Service were indicated in the statement he issued with the figures to which the honorable senator has referred.

page 1507

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister, for Civil Aviation. Is it correct that the international and domestic terminals at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport will be a mile or so apart? Why must this be so? Will the Minister tell us in what other ways Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport is going to be below the standard to be expected of the nation’s No. 1 international airport?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I think that if the honorable senator refers to the constant statements which have been made on this matter he will see that the terminal building at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, which will cost somewhere in the vicinity of £11 million, is to be constructed in two phases. First, the international terminal will be erected. Mascot will be the biggest inter national airport In Australia. It will be about half as big again as any other international airport in Australia. It will have better hard standing areas and will be able to cater for more aircraft. As I have said repeatedly, it will be the No. 1 international airport in Australia. It is designed for that purpose, in regard to both the number of people it will accommodate and the number of aircraft it will cater for.

The second phase of the development at Mascot will be the removal of the two domestic airline headquarters to the international terminal building. There will be one airline based at each end of the terminal building. The reason why this phase is not being carried out at the present time is that the terminals are adequate and both airlines have asked for time because of the huge cost involved. If my memory is correct, it will cost the airlines £2 million or £3 million to transfer their facilities to the new terminal. For the time being the international terminal and the domestic terminals will be apart from one another. As the honorable senator knows, the Public Works Committee has just approved the foundations for the new international building at Mascot. It will take some little time to complete this work. I understand also that the Public Works Committee has approved the building itself. I cannot say at the moment when the domestic airlines will move over to the new terminal building, but it is planned eventually to bring them over. I will see whether I can obtain information as to when this will be done.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the Minister aware that while it is now possible to fly between Tokyo and Sydney in one day, it is not possible to reach Canberra from Perth on the same day on four days of the week, that is, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, owing to the cancellation of several’ connecting flights from Sydney to Canberra under the policy of rationalisation? Since the traveller from Perth on these days is faced with additional- expense and inconvenience in securing overnight accommodation in either Sydney or Melbourne, will the Minister investigate the position with aview to. restoring the service for mails and passengers .between Perth and Canberra?

Senator HENTY:

– I suggest that the honorable senator should place that question on the notice paper. I shall ask the airlines about the present position.

page 1508

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware of the many industrial stoppages which threaten peace, in industry throughout the Commonwealth, and which are created in the main by the huge increases in the cost of living over the past months? I further ask the Minister to request the Government, in order to avoid industrial chaos to consider the advisability of reassembling the arbitration tribunal to adjust wage claims adequately. Will he also request the Government to introduce before Christmas supplementary social service legislation to increase payments to all pensioners who have been greatly affected by the huge increases in the costs of their basic daily needs?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I am sorry, but I did not hear all of the end of the question. I understand that the honorable senator referred to this Government’s long and excellent record of industrial peace in Australia, and to the fact that there has been some sharpening of industrial difficulties in the last few weeks. I thank him for the reference - if he made it - to the long record of industrial peace which this Government has had and the very good industrial relations that the Government has been building up over many years.

Senator Hendrickson:

– As with the waterside workers?

Senator HENTY:

– I believe that we are getting to a stage of far better understanding in every way, even with the waterside workers. This is a good step forward. If there is any aspect of the honorable senator’s question that I have not answered, and in respect of which he would like an answer from the Minister for Labour and National Service, I suggest that he put on the notice paper the part that I have not answered, and I shall get the Minister to supply an answer for him.

page 1508

QUESTION

RESEARCH

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research a question which is related to ones that were asked by Senator Davidson and myself on 27th October concerning university research grants. Is it a fact that the basis of distribution of the remaining £2 million to selected individuals whose work is accepted as making a contribution to scientific progress is a new and special basis emanating directly from the Commonwealth Government’s acceptance of the Australian Research Grants Council’s suggestion? Is it a fact that the South Australian Government - or, for that matter, other State Governments - had no direct influence as to the selection or allocation of these special grants, and that the change from the assessments of the Australian Universities Commission does, in fact, constitute a new obligation upon the States? Will the Minister consider, in view of these matters and what now appears to be a national trend in relation to such special awards, the need for a revised basis of Commonwealth and State financial relations to meet the situation?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The basis of distribution is not a new basis emanating directly from the Australian Research Grants Council’s suggestion. It is a new basis which was announced in this Parliament last March - if that is the correct date - when the Martin Committee report was brought in. It was announced then that the remaining £2 million to be distributed for research grants would be paid directly to people whose research activities most contributed to the scientific advancement of the nation. The announcement, when made, elicited no suggestions, no comments, or no objections from any State or from any State Government. Of course, the actual putting into practice of that policy that was announced in March was in’ accordance with the recommendations of the Australian Research Grants Council. To the third part of the question, I would answer: “ No “. The answer to the second part of the question is that the States did not have any hand in the selection of this new method. The selection of the new method of distribution of the grants was made by an academic committee selected from all States - the chairman of which was an academic from South Australia - in accordance with the policy announced last March and to which no State Government objected.

page 1509

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the

Minister for Civil Aviation seen a recent statement that Australia’s international airline, Qantas Empire Airways Ltd., was desirous of operating two HS125 trainers part time on business charter flights, but that after this information had been published in an Australian newspaper its application in this connection was opposed by the Australian domestic airlines? Is it a fact that Trans-Australia Airlines is not allowed to operate on charter in connection with business executive flights, and does this therefore mean that the .application of Qantas was opposed by Ansett-A-N.A., thus leaving this aspect of airline operation open and available only to Ansett-A.N.A.?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I think the honorable senator overlooks the fact that a wide variety of charter services is provided by many small companies and private individuals in Australia. A very wide choice is open to people who wish to charter aircraft. It would not be ohe airline which would register such disapproval of Qantas, which is an international airline and has no authority to operate in Australia on charter. Possibly the opposition has come from a number of individuals, because in every State a large number of people operate in the charter field.

page 1509

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy indicate whether Australia’s existing naval forces are capable of effectively conducting reconnaissance operations to curb transgressions such as those recently made by Formosan fishing fleets in territorial waters controlled by Australia?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I shall have pleasure in asking the Minister for the Navy - if this matter comes within his jurisdiction, as I think it does - to comment on the point raised by the honorable senator.

page 1509

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– My question to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate relates to our moribund friend, the European Common Market. Has the Australian Government received any recent advice which would confirm overseas newspaper reports that new progress has been made towards solving problems that hinder European integration, particularly reports of the optimism expressed by the German Foreign Minister that The Six would reach an agreement soon? As these reports have some significance so far as our agricultural commodities are concerned, will the Minister, if the Government has received any up to date information, have a statement prepared giving the latest authentic information available on the subject, with particular reference to any repercussions that may be felt in Australia?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry will be returning to Australia this week but I do not know the exact day. He may have arrived this morning. The honorable senator has raised a very important matter which I believe should be directed to the Minister himself. A lot of negotiation has been going on in Europe and I have learned with interest that no decision has yet been made. Difficulties have always been encountered in. reaching a final decision. However, I think the Minister for Trade and Industry should himself consider the honorable senator’s request and make a statement if he thinks that is warranted.

page 1509

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Government act as speedily on any request from the British Government to take action against the illegal government of Rhodesia as it acted in support of America’s campaign in Vietnam?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I understand that the Prime Minister will be making a statement on this matter in another place, if not tonight then very shortly afterwards. I propose to make the same statement in the Senate.

page 1509

QUESTION

REFERENDUM

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. What is the estimate’ of the likely cost of the proposed constitutional referendum in May next?

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I have no knowledge of this but, if I can, I will obtain the information from the Minister.

page 1510

QUESTION

TOWNSVILLE AIRPORT

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation advise why a Viscount aircraft operated by a major commercial airline was directed, on 7th November 1965, to change course for the purpose of leading a Royal Australian Air Force Neptune bomber into Townsville airport? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the incident was not caused by a lack of navigation or landing aids at Townsville airport?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the incident to which the honorable senator has referred but I am quite confident that any difficulty at Townsville would not be caused by lack of navigational aids or directions. However, if the honorable senator will put the question on the notice paper I will get a report.

page 1510

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator BENN:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is the Minister aware that the subsidies paid under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act have caused a committee, appointed by the Queensland Government to examine the salaries and perquisites of members of the Queensland Parliament, to recommend that the electoral allowances of some members be reduced by £200 a year? From the Minister’s knowledge of the Act which he administers, would he say that members of the Queensland Parliament who reside in western Queensland and who use motor vehicles to tour their electorates regularly would gain approximately £200 a year in subsidies?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not in a position to estimate what parliamentarians going about their lawful business would gain as a result of the subsidy on petroleum products, but I have been fortified in my knowledge of this matter by a recent experience when I visited north Queensland while the Senate was in recess. I found that the legislation to which the honorable senator referred has earned high praise from everybody in the area. I was informed that they had derived tremendous advantage as a consequence of the big savings in the purchase of petroleum products. While I was in north Queensland, a query arose regarding the application of the subsidy at a place named Coen. We were able to resolve the difficulty expeditiously and as a result, the subsidy in that area was increased by 7id. a gallon for petrol over the conces-. sion that was already being received. Because of the very fine legislation which was introduced by the Government, the country people throughout Australia are benefiting to the extent of £6 million a year in concessions on petroleum products.

page 1510

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that high wind caused hazardous conditions for aircraft landing at Canberra today from Melbourne and Sydney and that one Viscount aircraft had some difficulty in landing although it used the Royal Australian Air Force strip? Will the Minister investigate whether the Canberra Airport should have been closed because of the wind?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– 1 will investigate the position but I am confident that officers of the Department of Civil Aviation considered the airport was safe for landing; otherwise, the Viscount aircraft to which the honorable senator has referred would not have been allowed to land.

Senator Sandford:

– It was not very- safe. We were on the aircraft.

Senator HENTY:

– If the airport had not . been safe for landing in the judgment of the officers of the Department, the aircraft would not have been permitted to land and would have been diverted to another airport. However, I shall make inquiries.

page 1510

QUESTION

CENSORHIP

Senator MURPHY:

– Will the Minister for Customs and Excise assure the Senate that he will not commit the Commonwealth to any joint Federal-State censorship until this Parliament is given an opportunity of discussing whether it is desirable and if so, upon what terms?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do not propose to give any assurances of that nature to the Senate in relation to the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise. If Senator Murphy had more experience in this chamber he would not ask me to do so. The forms of the House are always open to honorable senators to enable them to discuss any administrative acts by any Minister. That is what the Parliament is for.

That is what the Standing Orders provide. As to the substantive part of the question, any such’ scheme is a matter for consideration by the Commonwealth Government in the light of proposals that have been put to the Commonwealth by State Ministers.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Will the Minister for Customs and Excise consider the advisability of giving legislative form to the constitution of any censorship authority that is granted jurisdiction emanating both from the States and from the Commonwealth as a result of the proposals now under discussion? Will the Minister consider the point of view that greater stability and greater confidence would be bestowed on such authority if it had parliamentary foundations?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Honorable senators know - and Senator Wright probably knows better, than anyone else because he shows a keen interest in regulations and the power to make them - that the customs laws in relation to censorship are made by the Commonwealth by regulation. The Senate has never been inhibited in discussing such a regulation. Indeed, I well recall that, following a famous debate during the term of my predecessor in office, an arrangement for an alteration of the regulations was made in order to provide for the release, on a restricted basis, of censored material to specialists and certain other classes of person. I do not think that Senator Wright or Senator Murphy need have any fear in relation to the position. If any arrangement is entered into to vary the regulations, the Senate will have ample opportunity to discuss it.

page 1511

QUESTION

CUSTOMS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Customs and Excise, arises from a complaint from an elector who is aggrieved by having to wait for two hours while his wife was cleared by the customs at No. 19 Wharf Pyrmont. She had been a passenger on a vessel from New Zealand. I ask: If this complaint is factual, has any recent study been made of the time taken to clear passengers through customs and is the introduction of any plan to speed up the process expected? Secondly, how is the scale of charges compiled for the carriage of baggage and parcels from the customs area ;to the person cleared? Is it a fact that the cost to the traveller is 2s. 6d. per unit, whether the unit is a hat box, a transistor radio or a suitcase?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Several matters emerge from the honorable senator’s question. I shall need to call for specific information as to the circumstances of the particular case in order to answer the question in relation to the time taken to clear the baggage of the passenger through the customs. I could think of a thousand different circumstances - and I think the honorable senator could, too - which might have had some effect on the time taken to clear the luggage. I will make some inquiries in relation to this case.

The charges for the carriage of baggage would not be imposed by the Department of Customs and Excise but would be made by an agent for portage. I will make some inquiries in relation to that matter. I should like to say that, in general, experience has shown that the time taken at Australian ports to clear luggage compares more than favorably with the time taken in other big ports in the world. I have had personal experience of this matter recently. I received a letter within the last two months from my daughter who is overseas. Knowing my interest in these matters she wrote: “ Daddy, some passengers had to wait four hours to be cleared from the ship in the United Kingdom port”. Indeed, my daughter said that a ballot was held on the ship, in effect to determine the order in which passengers, who wanted to leave the ship by a certain time, would present their baggage to the customs authorities for clearance.

page 1511

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator TANGNEY:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast a report today that an offer to negotiate in the Vietnam war was made by North Vietnam to the United States of America, through the late Mr. Adlai Stevenson, more than a year ago, but that this offer was shelved until after the United States Presidential election, and that after this delay, the offer was withdrawn? Was the Australian Government aware of this offer before committing Australian soldiers to service in Vietnam? The announcement of this service was made at approximately the same time as the election for the Senate was held last year.

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I did not hear the broadcast to which the honorable senator referred, but I would be very interested to get a transcript of it so as to see who took responsibility for making a statement which I do not believe to be true. I would like the honorable senator to put the question on the notice paper so that she can get an answer from the Minister herself.

Senator Tangney:

– It was on the 12.30 p.m. news.

Senator GORTON:

– That does not make it true.

page 1512

QUESTION

HOUSING

(Question No. 444.)

Senator COTTON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the figures for house building approvals in the State of Victoria, from March to August 1965, show a decline of 17 per cent., compared with the same period in the previous year?
  2. What action will be taken to correct this situation, at the earliest possible date?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

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

  1. The number of houses approved to be built in Victoria from March to August 1965, did show a decline of 17 per cent, as compared with the same period in the previous year. These figures do not include the number of flats and home units approved. If they are taken into account, the number of houses and flats approved between these two periods declined by only 11 per cent.
  2. The decline was from a record level of approvals, and close watch is being maintained on developments.

page 1512

QUESTION

HOUSING

(Question No. 663.)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen a report that there is £1,000,000 less than last year for home building through building societies in New South Wales?
  2. Does this reduction in home finance threaten employment in the building industry and increase the serious housing shortage in Australia?
  3. Has the Minister any plans to overcome the present shortage of finance for home building?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Housing has provided the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. Yes. There was a decline in institutional lending to co-operative housing societies in New South Wales in the September quarter, 1965, as compared with the corresponding quarter in the previous year, but the decline was considerably less than £1,000,000.
  2. The number of houses and flats under construction in New South Wales at the end of September last was 22,814, or only11/4 per cent, fewer than the highest number of homesbeing built ever recorded in that State. Commencements of houses and flats in New South Wales in the September quarter, 1965, were higher than in any quarter since the record number commenced in the September quarter, 1964. Obviously there is no immediate threat to employment in the building industry.
  3. The Reserve Bank has receiveda virtual assurance from the savings banks, the largest institutional lenders for housing in Australia, that they would maintain their housing loan approvals at about the same levels as in recent months. The Government continues to keep a close watch on the availability of housing finance throughout Australia.

page 1512

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 706.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked, the Min ister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Has any arrangement been reached between television station TCN 9 and the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the SydneyMelbourne co-axial cable link to be used by the Commission to the extent of 30 hours a week?
  2. Is the fact that the television programme “ Four Corners “, . produced in Sydney, is videotaped in Melbourne at the other end of the. cable, and the following night played back over the cable to Sydney, indicative of the efforts needed to achieve the 30 hours usage?
  3. If any agreement has been made, how much is the Australian Broadcasting Commission being charged for use of the cable link?
  4. To what extent does the Channel 9 network itself use the cable, and what does it pay for the primary rights to use it for television purposes?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. General Television Corporation Pty. Ltd., Melbourne- GTV9 - leases the television relay facilities in the Sydney-Melbourne coaxial cable under an agreement with the Post Office. These facilities consist of a one-way vision and sound channel in the direction Sydney to Melbourne and a one-way vision and sound channel in the direction Melbourne to Sydney. The terms of the agreement provide for a maximum average usage of the facilities of 60 hours weekly in ‘ each direction. The lessee, General Television Corporation Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, is authorised to make arrangements with Television Corporation Limited, Sydney- TCN9- and the Australian Broadcasting Commission for joint use of the facilities, such arrangements to be mutually agreed upon by General Television Corporation Pty. Ltd., Television Corporation Limited, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  2. No. “Four Corners” is recorded in Sydney on Friday evenings and transmitted in all States on Saturday evenings. To facilitate the syndication of videotaped copies of the programme to other transmitting centres it is transmitted via the coaxial cable to Melbourne early on Saturday mornings where videotape copies are made for use in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.

Sydney makes and distributes the videotape copies for stations in Queensland and Western Australia.

  1. See 1., above. The charge to the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a matter of mutual negotiation between the lessee, General Television Corporation Pty. Ltd. and the Commission.
  2. During the three months ended 30th September, 1965, TCN9, Sydney, used the SydneyMelbourne link for an average period of about 24 hours weekly. The charge to TCN9 is a matter for mutual negotiation between the lessee, General Television Corporation Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, and Television Corporation Ltd., Sydney.

page 1513

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 708.)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. What is the expected serviceable life of H.M.A.S. “ Melbourne “?
  2. Is it the intention of the Government to purchase or build a new aircraft carrier in the immediate future?
  3. Will the Navy patrol boats proposed to be constructed be equal in speed and performance to similar vessels operated by other countries in the Asian area?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for the Navy has furnished the following replies to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. The latter half of the 1970’s.
  2. The Minister for the Navy announced in the House on 26th October last, the Government’s latest decisions concerning the Navy’s current programme. There is nothing included in the programme for the purchase or building of a new aircraft carrier.
  3. The Australian patrol boats have been designed with a speed and performance to fit them for the role they are to undertake. Boats of comparable size of other countries have been designed for completely different roles and consequently direct comparisons of speed and performance are meaningless.

page 1513

QUESTION

NATIONAL DISASTER FUND

Senator HENTY:
LP

– On 27th October, Senator Tangney asked in a question without notice whether further consideration would be given to the establishment of a national disaster fund. As promised at the time, the honorable senator’s question was brought to the Treasurer’s notice. The Treasurer has now provided the following reply-

As indicated in previous replies to similar questions asked by the honorable senator, the establishment of a national disaster fund has been considered on a number of occasions in recent years, and the matter has been raised at Premiers’ Conferences, but an acceptable basis for such a fund had not been found.

page 1513

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Senator GORTON:
LP

– On 27th October, Senator Branson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, the following question without notice -

Has the Government made a formal protest to the Indonesian authorities regarding the searching of the residence in Djakarta of the Australian First Secretary? Has it been forcibly pointed out that it is not the practice of Australian diplomats to store arms in diplomatic buildings? Has any discourtesy ever been shown to members of the Indonesian diplomatic corps in Australia, which could account for this unwarranted action?

I said that the answer to the. last part of the question was “No”, and that I would find out the answer to the other parts of the question and give the honorable senator an answer. I have now ascertained that, the incident being clearly a breach of diplomatic immunity, it was at the time the subject of representations which were taken up with the Indonesian Foreign Ministry by theDean of the Diplomatic Corps in Djakarta. The Foreign Ministry gave appropriate assurances. There was no occasion for complaint on our part about the behaviour of those making the search but the Australian Government attaches importance to respect for diplomatic rights and property. The Government does not consider it necessary to assure the Indonesians of what I think they will not be in any doubt: That it is not the practice to store arms in Australian diplomatic premises.

page 1514

CIVIL AVIATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

.- by leave - I am sure that all honorable senators have read of the several accidents, involving Boeing 727 aircraft, which have recently occurred in the United States of America. As the Boeing 727 is being operated on Australian air routes I considered it appropriate that I should make a few commentsfor the information of the Senate. A total of three accidents is involved. The first was an aircraft which plunged into Lake Michigan on 18th August 1965. The second was on approach to Cincinatti airport on Monday of last week, 8th November. And on last Thursday night, 11th November, a further Boeing 727 crashed while making a landing at Salt Lake City airport.

Each of these accidents is being investigated by the United States Civil Aeronautics Board. In the first accident, investigation has been hampered by the necessity to locate and retrieve wreckage from a water depth of some 250 feet. Full scale investigations are, however, already under way in relation to the two later accidents. My Department is maintaining a very close and direct liaison with the Civil Aeronautics Board and its sister organisation, the Federal Aviation Agency, on matters arising out of the investigations. At this point there is no evidence to suggest that the accidents were due to an airworthiness or controllability defect of the aircraft and, with particular regard to the last two accidents, it must be accepted as being a distinct possibility that there was an unfortunate coincidence of accidents due to operational errors.

The United States authorities have carefully considered whether any temporary restrictions should be placed on the operation of Boeing , 727 aircraft. They have concluded that there are no immediate grounds for such action. Similar consideration has been given by my Department and we also believe that, at present, there are no grounds on which operations by this very fine aircraft should be restricted. Honorable senators may be assured, however, that we will continue to maintain the closest possible liaison with the United States authorities and that appropriate action will be taken if the further development of the investigations suggests such a necessity.

page 1514

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

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

page 1514

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported -

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1965-66.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1965-66.

page 1514

HONEY INDUSTRY BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

.- I move -

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

The Australian Honey Board was established by legislation enacted late in 1962 for the twofold purpose of promoting local consumption of honey and stabilising export prices. For the latter purpose the Board was given the power to regulate Australian exports ofhoney, its main aim being to stamp out price cutting between exporters. It has always been maintained by the industry leaders that price cutting between exporters is most prevalent during the period of high production in any year and thatthe most effective means of combating this problem would be to rationalise exports of honey. However, no one organisation has been able to finance the holding of stocks and the result is that producers and packers alike are forced by lack of finance to sell their honey at low prices to overseas speculators who have traditionally reaped the profits that should rightly belong to the Australian industry.

It has become evident that the Board’s regulatory powers are. not sufficient to enable it to stabilise export prices as intended and the Board has, therefore, requested the Government to extend its powers so that it may borrow from the Reserve Bank of Australia under a Commonwealth guarantee for the purpose of financing the holding of stocks of honey with the object of rationalising exports. The Board’s proposal is supported by the industry and has been accepted by the Government. The purpose of this Bill is, therefore, to give the Board an extension of its powers by enabling it to acquire stocks of honey voluntarily offered, or to make advances against stocks owned by others, for orderly marketing purposes, and to give the Board the facility of borrowing from the Reserve Bank under Commonwealth guarantee on terms and conditions approved by the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry, in accordance with usual practice. The Board is given the right to sell or dispose of honey either acquired or placed under its control and, when it considers it desirable or necessary, to effect mortgages or other security over any honey under its control in the same manner as if the Board itself were the owner.

It will be noted that borrowings by the Board under the Commonwealth guarantee are to be applied for the purpose of financing the holding of stocks of honey and not for the Board’s promotional functions. I am convinced that the new principles introduced in this Bill, and which will enable the Australian Honey Board to obtain finance under Commonwealth guarantee to allow the Board to arrange for the holding of stocks of honey during periods of high production, will greatly benefit the industry. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 1515

HONEY LEVY BILL (No. 1) 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Levy Act (No. 1) 1962 which imposes a levy on sales of honey in Australia, the proceeds of which are made available to the Australian Honey Board to meet its financial requirements for administration, promotion and research. Since this levy became operative on 1st March 1963, it has become evident to both the Honey Board and the Department of Primary Industry that it is not economical to apply the machinery of collecting to the many people who keep a small number of hives as a hobby or to provide honey for domestic consumption.

After consultations between the Department of Primary Industry, which is responsible for the collection of the levy, and the Honey Board, which represents those persons liable to pay the levy, the Government has accepted a recommendation from the Board that the principal acts be amended to provide exemption of a person from the payment of the levy in any month if the honey he sold or used in the production of other goods in that month weighed not more than 120 lb. The quantity of 120 lb. of honey represents 5s. at the current levy rate of id. per lb. and is considered adequate to exempt most amateur beekeepers from the levy. This will lift an onerous obligation from the Department of Primary Industry and result in a saving of government expenditure in the collection of the many small levy payments. The amendment also makes provision for the exemption of prescribed classes of persons to cover contingencies which might arise. There are no specific proposals for exemptions at present; otherwise they would have been included in the amending legislation in order to allow the Parliament to consider them fully at this stage. However, in this regard I would remind honorable senators of their authority to review any regulations which may subsequently be made under the Act. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 1515

HONEY LEVY BILL (No. 2) 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Levy Act (No. 2) 1962, which imposes a levy on honey used in the manufacture of other goods. The amendment will enable the inclusion in the Act of the same exemption provisions as those to which I referred in my second reading speech on the Honey Levy Bill (No. 1) 1965. I commend the Bill.

It may suit the convenience of honorable senators if we debate these three Bills together at the second reading stage.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 1516

MEAT RESEARCH BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McKellar’ read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill and the complementary bills, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1965 and the Meat Industry Bill 1965, is to provide for the extension of the current beef research scheme to cover beef, mutton and lamb research. The general principles of the research scheme were an integral part of the joint industry proposals for meat market development which were implemented by the Government last year. However, as some reservations had been expressed by the Australian Agricultural Council on the wisdom of introducing an industry research scheme under a single authority covering all aspects of meat production the Government decided to defer the research aspects of these proposals until the issues with the Council had been resolved. This has now been done and the Council accepts that it is the policy of the meat producer organisations and the Commonwealth Government that meat research should be a responsibility of the Australian

Meat Board. The beef research scheme has now been operating satisfactorily for a number of years and mutton and lamb producers attach great importance to the implementation of similar provisions for intensified research activities in relation to the scientific, technical and economic problems of the sheep meat industry. It is clear that the industry is faced with many problems particularly in relation to breeding and stock management where research could play an important part in the development of the industry.

Honorable senators will recall that the existing beef research scheme is financed by a levy on cattle slaughterings imposed under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act and a matching Government contribution on a £1 for £1 basis in respect of expenditure undertaken on research. These moneys are paid into the Cattle and Beef Research Trust Account which is administered by the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee. The main functions of the Committee are to make recommendations to the Australian Meat Board on the rate of levy to be prescribed for beef research and to formulate plans with respect to the projects on which the trust funds may be expended. The actual research is undertaken by bodies such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,’ universities and State Departments of Agriculture. Expenditure from the Trust Account can be incurred only after recommendations by the Research Committee and after approval of such recommendations by the Minister for Primary Industry.

In the associated legislation provision has been made for an amendment to the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act to provide for the existing levy on sheep and lambs to be used for the purposes of research as well as for meat market development. The legislation provides that the prescribed rate for the purposes of mutton and lamb research shall not exceed 4d. per head. The maximum rate of 2s. for beef research is continued. The Government will provide a matching contribution on the basis of £1 for £1 with the industry in respect of expenditure undertaken for research. The research component of the levy will be prescribed on the recommendation of the Australian Meat Board after consultation with the main industry organisations concerned and the

Australian Meat Research Committee referred to in the Bill. The date of commencement of the levy for research purposes will be a matter for decision by the Government and the Australian Meat Board and will necessarily be influenced by the effects of the drought on live sheep prices.

Under the Bill the Cattle and Beef Research Trust Account is renamed the Meat Research Trust Account into which will be paid the research component of the levy on cattle, sheep and lambs and the matching Government contribution. The body hitherto known as the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee is reconstituted as the Australian Meat Research Committee. Like the Beef Research Committee it will administer the Trust Account and its powers and functions will be the same as in the present Act as widened to include mutton and lamb research.

The Australian Meat Research Committee will be deemed to be a committee of the Australian Meat Board which will make available such administrative and clerical assistance required to carry out its functions. The constitution of the Committee will comprise 12 members as at present. The seven producer representatives will be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Australian Meat Board. As in the case of the Meat Board appointments the main qualification for the selection of members is that they should be nominated for their ability and experience rather than their organisational affiliation. The Australian Meat Board will be free to consult with the producer organisations including the Australian Meat Board Selection Committee as to the availability and qualifications of persons for nomination but the decision on nominations will be the final responsibility of the Board. The nonproducer representation will be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the authority or organisation which they represent.

The other provisions of the Bill are for all practical purposes identical with those which now apply. All in all, the Bill provides for the continuance unimpaired of the present beef research scheme within a wider framework which will provide the opportunity for still greater achievement in the field of research for the meat industry. The amendment in the Meat Industry Bill is a machinery amendment which provides for the marketing component of the levy on sheep and lambs to be paid to the Australian Meat Board. This joint co-operative effort between the industry and the Government gives further recognition to the importance of research in the development of an efficient meat industry. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1517

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill has been explained in my second reading speech in relation to the Meat Research Bill. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1517

MEAT INDUSTRY BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill has been explained in my second reading speech in relation to the Meat Research Bill. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

It might suit the convenience of the Senate to debate the Meat Research Bill, the Livestock Slaughter Levy Bill and the Meat Industry Bill together at the second reading stage.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Debate (on motion by Senator. Cant) adjourned.

page 1518

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the standing appropriation in the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1960 from £5,000 to £10,000. The next Bill on the notice paper contains a proposal to increase similarly the appropriation in the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951. As the purpose of the amendments is the same in each case I propose, in the remarks which follow, to address myself to both Bills.

The appropriations are contained in section 37 of the Public Works Committee Act and section 23 of the Public Accounts Committee Act. They have been provided to meet the expenses of the Committees. The major expenses of the Committees are represented by the cost of travel for members when on Committee business. The other expenses met from the appropriations are for the sitting fees and travelling allowances payable to the members under the relevant regulations. During last financial year - 1964-65 - the expenses of both Committees were within a few pounds of the standing appropriation of £5,000 provided in each Act. Both Committees have advised that they expect the expenses which will result from their programme of work in 1965-66 to be in excess of £5,000, and they have accordingly sought increases in the standing appropriation.

I am sure that all honorable senators will appreciate the valuable work which these two Committees have done in extending the scrutiny of Parliament in the fields of public works and of finance. The regular and comprehensive reports which each Committee presents to the Parliament are in themselves evidence of the time spent by the members on the business of the Committees, and their influence on the administration of government extends considerably beyond the immediate scope of their reports. I am sure that there will be no objection among honorable senators to increasing the standing appropriations available to these Committees to permit them to continuetheir activities in the future.

The present standing appropriations of £5,000 have remained unaltered since 1951, except for a special increase to £6,500 which Parliament approved for expenditure by the Public Works Committee in 1962-63 only. Despite the increase in costs since 1951, the appropriations have thus stood sufficient to meet the requirements of the Committees for some 14 years. In proposing that the new amount be set at £10,000 the Governmenthas in mind that it should not be necessary to approach Parliament frequently for minor increases in the standing appropriation. In our view, it is important that the Committees should have the assurance of adequate finance. It therefore seems best to propose an amount which can reasonably be expected to cover the relatively small expenses of the Committees for a further period of some years.

I should add that the passing of these Bills will not have any immediate effect on the fees and allowances paid to the members of the two Committees. However, as soon as possible after the two Bills are enacted, the Government proposes to issue regulations to provide for increased rates of sitting fees and travelling allowances for the members of the Committees. The new rates to be prescribed will be in conformity with the increases approved by Parliament late last year in the Parliamentary Allowances Act, and associated Acts, and it will be proposed that, as in the case of those allowances, the new rates should apply with effect from 1st November 1964. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Fitzgerald) adjourned.

page 1518

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As I mentioned when introducing the Public Works Committee Bill, the purpose of this Bill is to increase from £5,000 to £10,000 the standing appropriation in the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 which is available to meet the expenses of the Public Accounts Committee. The reasons for proposing the amendment are the same as in the case of the Public Works Committee Bill and I do not propose to add to the comments I made when introducing that Bill. I commend this Bill to honorable senators.

I suggest, Mr. Deputy President, that it might suit the convenience of the Senate if we debate this Bill and the Public Works Committee Bill together at the second reading stage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - There being no objection, that course will be followed.

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

page 1519

STATES GRANTS BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the new arrangements agreed at the Premiers’ Conference held on 1st to 2nd June for the payment of financial assistance grants to the States.

Before outlining the detail of the arrangements I think it would be helpful to describe in general terms the nature and extent of the financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth to the States. Generally this assumes two main forms - assistance for general revenue purposes, which the States are free to use as they see fit, and assistance for a variety of specific purposes, where the money is provided specifically for use on a particular purpose or project. In addition, of course, the Commonwealth accepts responsibility for ensuring that sufficient funds are made available to the States for the works and housing programmes agreed by the Loan Council. Assistance for general revenue and specific purposes has increased very significantly in recent years. In this year’s Budget provision has been made for payments to or for the States amounting to £555,000,000. This represents more than 20 per cent, of estimated total expenditure by the Commonwealth in 1965-66.

Of the amount of £555 million nearly £400 million consists of grants for general revenue purposes - the financial assistance grants and the special grants paid to the claimant States on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Honorable senators will recall that the former system of tax reimbursement and supplementary grants which were intended to compensate the States for loss of income tax revenue arising from the adoption of the uniform tax system was replaced by the arrangements for the payment of financial assistance grants which were agreed in 1959. Under these arrangements the financial assistance grants were varied from year to year by reference to the two main factors affecting current expenditures of State Governments - changes in population and wages. In consequence, as State populations grew and as wage costs rose, the grants increased proportionately. In addition, over and above these increases related to population and wages, there was a “betterment” factor in the form of a 10 per cent, addition to the percentage increase in average wages. This addition was intended to help the States to raise the standard and extend the range of services they give to the community.

I think it is fair to say that the arrangements that were agreed in 1959 have worked satisfactorily from the viewpoint of the States and the Commonwealth. It is not often appreciated that in recent years approximately one-half of total annual net budgetary expenditure by the States has been financed by way of general revenue grants paid by the Commonwealth. In other words, by medium of these grants the Commonwealth has, indirectly, been making a very significant contribution to the provision of basic community services in fields such as education and public health; that is additional, of course, to the contribution which is made through specific grants to the States and direct expenditure by the Commonwealth in such fields.

From the Commonwealth’s viewpoint, the arrangements, though adding to its budgetary problems - the financial assistance grants increased from £244.5 million in 1959-60 to £340.7 million in 1964-65- resolved the annual wrangles between the States and the Commonwealth as to the size of the grants for each year. There has thus, I believe, been a notable improvement in the relations between the Commonwealth and the States in financial matters. The States for their part have known fairly accurately the size of their grants for the year ahead and with that knowledge have been able to plan their activities on an assured basis. It was against this background that the financial assistance arrangements were reviewed at two Premiers’ Conferences, one held in April and one in June earlier this year.

At the April conference, Premiers submitted their views on the working of the existing financial assistance arrangements. The consensus of opinion was that the 1959 arrangements had worked considerably better than the preceding tax reimbursement arrangements. The Premiers expressed the view, however, that the annual rate of growth of the grants had been too slow in relation to the rate of growth of their expenditure, commitments for important Government services. They then submitted various proposals designed to increase the rate of growth of the grants. A number of variations was also suggested for increasing the shares of grants going to particular States. After close examination and detailed consideration of the views expressed by Premiers at the April Conference, the Commonwealth put forward a series of proposals at the June Premiers’ Conference designed to maintain the broad framework of the 1959 arrangements but, at the same time, to effect certain changes which it was thought would improve those arrangements.

In the first place, the escalation of the grant payable to each State each year by reference to increases in population and average wages had proved satisfactory and it was therefore proposed to continue these elements of the formula in the new arrangements. However, an important change was proposed in relation to the betterment factor. During the currency of the 1959 arrangements, the betterment factor had the effect of increasing the grants by an average of about 0.4 per cent, per annum although, because it was related to the increase in average wages, it had fluctuated from year to year with movements in wages. In the light of the continuing need to improve the standards of State Government services, the Commonwealth proposed to make the betterment factor independent of the increase in average wages and in effect to treble its size by fixing it at a constant 1.2 per cent, per annum.

We also proposed adjustments to the formula to reduce the time lag before changes in State population and wages are reflected in the grants. Under the 1959 arrangements, the grants for a financial year were calculated by reference to the increase in State populations and average wages in the preceding financial year. We suggested that under the new formula the grants for a financial year be determined on the basis of the increase in State populations during the 12 months ending in December of that financial year and the increase in average wages during the 12 months ending in March of that financial year. Under this proposal the time lag before movements in State population were taken into account in the formula would be reduced to six months and the time lag before movements in average wages were similarly reflected would be reduced to three months.

The Premiers found the proposals to improve the operation of the formula generally acceptable but most of them did not wish to see the reduction in the time lag for average wages take effect in 1965-66. We were not prepared to delay the switch to the use of more up to date statistics until 1966-67 solely because this would give the States the assurance of a substantial rise in the grant in 1965-66 due to the steep increase in average wages that occurred in 1964-65. Finally, it was agreed that the increase in average wages would continue to be calculated as under the 1959 arrangements but that the increase in population be as proposed; that is, by comparing December of the year of the grant with December 12 months earlier.

On the question of the distribution of the grants, a careful examination was made of the proposals by particular States for increases in their shares. Largely in recognition of Queensland’s large area and relatively small population we proposed, and the other States agreed, to increase Queensland’s share of the grants by adding £1,000,000 to the amount on which Queensland’s grant would be calculated for each of the five years 1965-66 to 1969-70. This will have the effect of progressively increasing Queensland’s share of the grants relative to the other States. lt was also agreed to add an extra amount of £600,000 to the grant which Victoria would receive in 1965-66 under the new formula. The effect of this addition will be to reduce the difference between the per capita grants for Victoria and New South Wales to about the same level as it was in 1959-60, the first year of the previous financial assistance grants arrangements. Apart from the cases of Queensland and Victoria, it was considered that no further changes in the existing distribution of the grants were warranted.

Thus, under the agreed arrangements which are incorporated in the Bill before the Senate, the grant payable to each State in 1965-66 and each subsequent year will be determined by taking the grant for the previous year, with the addition of £1,000,000 each year for five years in the case of Queensland, and increasing it by the percentage change in the population of that State during the year ending 31st December in the year of payment. The amount so obtained will be increased by the percentage increase in average wages for Australia as a whole for the financial year immediately preceding the year of payment. This last mentioned amount will be further increased by the betterment factor of 1.2 per cent. Tn the case of Victoria, the grant determined under the formula for 1965-66 will be increased by £600,000 and the resulting amount will form the base for calculating Victoria’s grant for subsequent years.

Honorable senators will note that the Bill provides that these arrangements agreed with the States will be subject to review by the Commonwealth if there occurs, or is proposed, a substantial change in the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. A similar provision was made in 1959. This provision makes it clear that in the event of a change in, for example, the distribution of taxation powers the Commonwealth can review the arrangements. A change in the present system of uniform taxation, for instance, would clearly require a revision of the arrangements. However, I should mention that, following further discussions at the Premiers’ Conference on the initiative of the Premier of Victoria, it seems unlikely that any arrangement can be agreed for the modification of the present uniform tax system that would be acceptable to all the States and safeguard the interests of taxpayers.

It is intended that the new arrangements will operate for a period of at least five years- from 1965-66 to 1969-70- and be reviewed at the end of that period. However, there is no time limit specifically laid down in the Bill and, if the arrangements prove satisfactory to all the parties concerned, they can run on beyond 1969-70. I should add that, as in 1959, there are one or two matters which form part of the new arrangements but which are not actually incorporated in the legislation before the Senate. The most important of these matters concerns the eligibility of States to apply to the Grants Commission for special grants in addition to the financial assistance grants determined in accordance with the formula I have described. Honorable senators will recall that, in 1959, South Australia ceased to be a claimant State, although it was agreed that both it and Queensland would have right of access to the Commission in special or unexpected circumstances which endangered their budgetary position.

At the Conference in June of this year it was agreed that both Western Australia and Tasmania would continue to be eligible to apply for special grants, but it was made clear that, so far as the other States are concerned, it would be a condition of the new arrangements that .they remain non claimant for the period of the arrangements. In the light of the special arrangements made to increase Queensland’s share of financial assistance grants, and of the demonstrated ability of South Australia to progress as a non claimant State, it does not seem appropriate to continue to discriminate as between the four non claimant States. Of course, should a State run into major financial difficulties through circumstances beyond its control, the Commonwealth is ready to review its position under the financial assistance arrangements.

I now propose to discuss briefly some details of the new arrangements. Firstly, the population figures to be used in calculating the grants for each year will include full blooded Aboriginal natives, who were specifically excluded under the previous Act. This will be of particular interest to States such as Queensland and Western Australia which have relatively large numbers of full blooded Aborigines. Secondly, the Bill is drafted so as to ensure that there will be no uncertainty, as occurred following the 1961 census, as to which estimates of population will be used following the 1966 census in determining the grants for 1966-67. Thus, the population figures to be used in determining each year’s grant will be the latest statistics available to the Commonwealth Statistician at the time he makes his determination. There will be no question of retrospective adjustments to the grants on the ground of subsequent revisions to the estimates of population of a particular State.

As under the previous legislation, all statistical calculations under this Bill are to be performed by the Commonwealth Statistician after consulting, where practicable, with the official State Statisticians. The Statistician is required to perform his calculations of the grants payable in any year before 1st June of that year. On the basis of the Statistician’s preliminary estimates, the financial assistance grants payable to the. States in 1965-66 under the new formula will be £377.5 million or £36.9 million more than the grants paid in 1964-65. This represents a considerably larger increase in the grants than in any year under the operation of the previous formula.

With the concurrence of honorable senators I incorporate in “Hansard” the following table which compares the estimated financial assistance grantspayable to the States in 1965-66 with those paid last year -

I feel confident that the improvements in the financial assistance arrangements which were agreed with the States in June, and which I have outlined to the Senate today, will make an important contribution to assisting the States, both individually and collectively, to continue to raise the standards of their services. We are all aware of the important role which the States play in providing such basic community services as education and public health.

Let me say in conclusion that by accepting the increased financial commitments to the States under the new agreement, the Commonwealth has placed a not inconsiderable burden on its own budget, particularly as this happens at a time when we are faced with heavy and increasing expenditure commitments in other directions. We have been prepared to accept these burdens in recognition of the important role played by the States in the belief that the new agreement will provide a sound basis for financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States. I therefore commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 1522

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose’ of this Bill is to authorise the, payment in 1965-66 of special grants totalling £20,885,000 to the States of Western Australia and Tasmania. The payment of these amounts has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its thirty-second report which has already been tabled. The Bill also authorises the payment of advances to Western Australia and Tasmania in the early months of 1966-67 pending the receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and the enactment of new legislation. A similar provision has been included for a number of years in the legislation authorising the payment of special grants to the claimant States.

In arriving at its recommendations for 1965-66 the Commission has continued to apply the principle of “ financial need “ under which special grants are designed to enable the claimant States to provide services at a standard not appreciably below that of the standard States, provided they make comparable efforts in raising revenue and controlling expenditure. As in the four preceding years the Commission has taken New South Wales and Victoria as the standard States for the purpose of these comparisons. The Commission has also adhered to the method of recommending grants composed of two parts. One part represents an advance payment based on the Commission’s assessment of a claimant State’s financial needs for 1965-66 and is subject to final adjustment two years later when the Commission has completed its examination of the audited budget results of the States for that year. The other part of the grant represents a final adjustment of the advance payment made two years earlier - in this case, in 1963-64. The special grants recommended for payment in 1965-66 are compared with the grants paid in 1963-64 and 1964-65 in a table which, with the concurrence of the honorable senators, I incorporate in Hansard.

As honorable senators will see from this table, the recommended final adjustments to the advance payments made in 1963-64 are higher than the final adjustments recommended last year. Normally the Commission’s advance payments are designed so as to leave only a relatively small adjusting payment to be made two years later. However, when recommending the amount of the advance payments for 1963-64 the Commission worked on the basis that the budgets of the standard States for that year would reflect large deficits and consequently that the claimant States should be left with budget deficits that would be relatively comparable. In fact, the budget results of the standard States were better than anticipated and the Commission has adopted as the budget standard for 1963-64 a deficit of only 10s. 6d. per head so that the recommended adjustments to the advance payments made in 1963-64 are rather larger than normal. These adjustments reflect the Commission’s assessment that, taking the budgetary position in 1963-64 as a whole, Western Australia made abovestandard efforts to raise revenue and control expenditure, while Tasmania’s efforts were about on a par with those in the standard States.

The effect of adopting the Commission’s recommended final adjustments for 1,963-64 would be to give Western Australia a total final special grant for that year of £7,419,000, an increase of £859,000, or 13 per cent., on the final special grant paid for 1962-63. Tasmania would receive a total final special grant of £5,766,000, for 1963- 64, an increase of £375,000, or 7 per cent., on the final special grant paid for 1962-63. In the case of both States this rate of increase in special grants is considerably faster than that of the financial assistance grants paid to them under the formula laid down in the States Grants Act 1959.

The advance payments recommended for 1965-66 are based on the Commission’s forecast of the amount of financial assistance likely to be required for this year. After examining the budget prospects of the two standard States of New South Wales and Victoria the Commission concluded that, in order to place the claimant States in a comparable financial position, a small deficit budget standard would be appropriate for 1965-66. Consequently, the advance payments recommended by the Commission would, on the basis of preliminary estimates submitted to it by the claimant States, leave both of them with the prospect of budget deficits for 1965-66. These payments will, of course, be subject to adjustment in 1967-68 when the budget results of the claimant and standard States for 1965-66 have been reviewed.

The advance payments recommended for 1965-66 are nearly £4,000,000 greater than the advance payments made last year. This follows the comparatively large increase of £3,700,000 in these payments for 1964-65 which now, however, seems to .have been inadequate to meet the needs of the claimant States in that year. Tentative estimates published in the report of the Commission suggest that the final adjustment to the advance payment made in 1964-65, which will form part of the Commission’s recommendations next year, may be as much as £3,000,000. If this should prove to be the case, the advance payments recommended for 1965-66 will show only a small effective increase. In addition, of the total increase of £4,000,000 in the advance payments recommended for 1965-66, £1,200,000 is on account of payments by the claimant States to the Commonwealth in respect of their shares of capital losses under the war service land settlement scheme.

Under the war service land settlement arrangements with the agent States - South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania - the States are required to pay their shares of any capital losses under the scheme to the Commonwealth. The claimant States have, in recent years, met these payments from their budgets and in consequence they have, in effect, been included in the special grants recommended by the Commission. It is expected that substantial capital losses will be determined in the next few years under the war service land settlement scheme; and to avoid unduly inflating the special grants in any single year, the Treasurer has agreed with the Treasurers of the claimant States on arrangements under which each claimant State will pay, from its budget, its share of the estimated total capital losses in approximately equal yearly instalments during the period of the new financial assistance arrangements. On the latest estimates available, this would require total annual payments by the claimant States of about £1,700,000 in each of the years 1965-66 to 1969-70. The advance payments recommended by the Commission for 1965-66 reflect the first of these instalments.

In my speech introducing the States Grants Bill 1965, 1 referred to the fact that, under the new financial assistance grants arrangements agreed at the Premiers’ Conference in June, both Western Australia and Tasmania are to continue to be eligible to apply for special grants. Over the five years 1965-66 to 1969-70 in addition to the financial assistance grants payable under the improved formula incorporated in the new arrangements, these two States may therefore continue to receive special grants as recommended by the Grants Commission.

In conclusion, I would like to pay a tribute to the work of Professor Wilfred Prest and Sir Alexander Reid, C.M.G., I.S.O., the termination of whose appointments as members of the Commission was announced recently. Professor Prest and Sir Alexander Reid both served four terms on the Commission and both made significant contributions to its work. Both undoubtedly assisted materially in maintaining the respect which the Grants Commission enjoys at both the Commonwealth and State levels. Honorable senators will agree, I am sure, that the appointment of Sir Leslie Melville, K.B.E., and Mr. H. J. Goodes, C.B.E., to replace Sir Alexander Reid and Professor Prest will ensure that the high standards of the Commission are maintained.

The Grants Commission’s recommendations have been adopted without amendments in each year since the Commission was established in 1933, and the Government considers that they should again be adopted this year. I therefore commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 1525

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19th October (vide page 994), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

The Senate has before it for discussion a Bill to amend the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1962. Before I resume my seat I shall move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The measure proposes two amendments. The first amendment relates to the personnel of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. At present, the Council comprises the Administrator, six official members - that is, six members of the Commonwealth Public Service residing in the Northern Territory and appointed to the Legislative Council by the Governor-General - and eight elected members, who are elected in a way similar to that in which members of the House of Representatives are elected. In addition, there are three non-official members of the Council. They are appointed by the Governor-General, which means that they are appointed by the Government.

The effect of the first amendment proposed by the Bill is that the Administrator will be extirpated from the Legislative Council altogether. He will not be a member of the Council; he will not be the President. The Legislative Council, of course, will still function and there will be eight elected members, as there are at present. There will also be three non-official members and six official members. The amendment provides for one of the nonofficial members to be elected as President by the six official members, eight elected members and three non-official members. In future, this legislation will not make much difference to the Legislative Council.

For a number of years - within my memory, in the past 15 or 16 years - the Commonwealth has had efficient Administrators in the Northern Territory. By the amendment we are discussing, the Government is saying: “No longer shall the

Administrator be the President of the Council or a member of the Council “. One of the non-official members of the council will be elected as President, leaving the Government with a majority - nine against eight. It has been stated that the best argument to have in politics at any time is a majority. The Government of the day will have a majority because it has appointed three non-official members. I am not saying that before the non-official members were appointed the Government approached them and asked how they voted, what were their political opinions, whether they were likely to favour a declaration by the Northern Territory of its independence in the Commonwealth, or anything of that nature. The Government was probably aware that they were men of good character and good standing who would take an interest in their work. Therefore they were appointed to the positions. It is very difficult to impress with this type of legislation members of Parliament who have had to campaign on several occasions to be elected, or even to impress them with the workings of the Legislative Council. The Council has the semblance of a parliament. It has adopted the procedures of a parliament, but it is shorn of any power. It cannot raise funds nor authorise their expenditure.

There is another amendment of some note in the legislation before us. Until September 1964 there was in existence a fund which entitled the Government to make contributions to wards in the Northern Territory. Amending legislation passed in September 1964 created the position that there are no wards in the Northern Territory. Perhaps this is of some significance. Under legislation that was passed, a fund was created for royalties collected from minerals mined in the Northern Territory. I do not know what royalties are being paid at present, or whether royalties must be paid on all minerals mined in future in the Territory. Perhaps I will ask a question about the matter and it will take the Minister some time to discover the answer.

The only persons in the Territory who were declared to be wards were Aborigines. The Social Welfare Ordinance, which repealed the law under which wards were declared, came into operation in September 1964. Since then there have been no wards in the Territory. We have been told that, in the circumstances, it is necessary to change the name of the fund and to direct that payments from it shall be made for the benefit of Aborigines. Section 21 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act provides that royalties from mining and timber operations on land reserved for wards shall be paid into the Wards Benefits Trust Fund. It therefore appears that royalties paid in respect of mining and timber operations in the future will be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth and an amount similar to that paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be made available for the welfare of Aborigines in the Northern Territory.

The scheme is quite all right and no fault can be found with the financial arrangements; but when we are dealing with such legislation I think it is advisable to ask: Where is the Northern Territory? What kind of place is it? Who is inhabiting the Territory at present? The Northern Territory covers 520,280 square miles, an area equal to about one-sixth of the total area of the Commonwealth. Its communications, when compared with those of the rest of Australia, are poor. It is not thickly populated. Transport is not good. The distance from the southern border to the northern border is about 1,000 miles and the coastline extends for about 580 miles. About 51,000 whites and Aborigines live in the Territory. Honorable senators may think, in view of the facts I have given, that a tremendous amount of money should be made available to improve the Northern Territory.

On the coastline of about 580 miles are harbours, river outlets, mangrove swamps and goodness knows what else. It is sad to think that the Northern Territory has made so little progress over the years. Not so long ago I said here that when the Northern Territory was a part of the State of South Australia, it had contained 1,000,000 cattle. Today the position has not improved very much, because I understand that that number has increased very little.

The 51,000 souls living in the Territory are dispersed as follows: In Darwin, 17,000; in Alice Springs, 6,000; in Tennant Creek, 900; in Katherine, 700; and in Batchelor, 500. It is odd that although there are innumerable cattle stations throughout the Territory, the figures I have given show that there are only about 11,000 people living in the pastoral areas. Perhaps that is a situation that the Northern Territory Legislative Council cannot deal with, but I have an opinion as to whether some action should be taken by the Commonwealth Government through a long term policy to improve the Northern Territory so that it could support very easily a population of 10 times its present size.

It is idle . for anyone to say that the Northern Territory does not contain fertile areas. Anyone who has travelled over the Barkly Tableland in a good season has seen a stretch of grazing country that cannot be equalled in any other part of the Commonwealth. But are there any water facilities? Is there any way in which water for irrigation could be supplied on a large scale? I do not wish to enter into argument on those matters. I raise them only because in this Bill we are dealing with the Legislative Council, which is the governmental authority in the Northern Territory up to a point. Now and again the elected members of the Council must feel that they have a responsibility to discuss these matters.

They represent the people of the Northern Territory, but they are frustrated because they have no funds to spend. The expenditure of funds is authorised by this Parliament in a kind of block vote, and the sum that is appropriated goes to the credit of the Department of Territories. Under the existing arrangements, the Department is in constant touch with the Administrator, who lives in Darwin. The Department makes funds available as the accountant in Darwin says they are necessary. The expenditure of funds is controlled from Canberra, although there is a structure of government in the Territory. There is nothing elaborate about it, but it is necessary to departmentalise the work that has to be done in the Territory. The Post Office functions there in the same way as it does in Papua and New Guinea. So does the Commonwealth Bank. Darwin has a good hospital. It is well administered and has a good medical staff and good nursing sisters. Darwin has a transport service. Buses take the children to school. Whether we pay for the running of the buses does not concern me very much. The Territory also has an Agriculture Branch. That is essential when a little over one million head of cattle are dispersed around the Territory, which is subject to certain cattle diseases.

Senator Morris:

– The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation does some very good work in the Territory.

Senator BENN:

– I know that it has done some good work on its research stations. I think there is one at Tennant Creek. The scientists grow tobacco, cotton and other things; but they never get much beyond the experimental stage. I have never seen a cotton crop or tobacco crop grown there for marketing.

Senator Morris:

– Surely the honorable senator has seen a lot of pasture improvement.

Senator BENN:

– We see pasture improvement up to a point. I have examined the stock on which the scientists have carried out their tests. I do not want to go into the details of this matter. I have seen the effects of dry ‘spear’ grass on the fat cattle on the’ research stations. For some years I advocated that the C.S.I.R.O. concentrate on breeding a grass which would be a cross between spear grass and Mitchell or Flinders grass and which would become the native grass of the Territory. Senator Morris is fully aware that it is difficult to cultivate legumes in the Territory because of the long periods of drought there.

Senator Morris:

– But that is being done.

Senator BENN:

– In some parts it is; but in the Territory there is a huge tract of arid country which could properly be described as desert. However, there is a fair amount of land with good, rich soil which could be cultivated.

The Northern Territory Administration also gives consideration to water resources and native welfare. When I have travelled through the Territory I have found that the welfare officers are highly trained and do their work conscientiously. I was surprised to’ see the things that they were trying to train the Aborigines to do, but I was dismayed when I examined some of the figures of expenditure on Aboriginal welfare in the Territory. Last year this Parliament appropriated £225,000 for expenditure on victuals for welfare and other establishments in the Territory. I was sad when I read that only £148,781 of that amount was spent; leaving £76.219 unspent. I know of the room for improvement in Aboriginal welfare. So I was. sad when I found that the Administration could not spend that £76,219. The Parliament also appropriated £35,000 for technical stores; but only £8,832 was spent. I do not blame anybody in the Northern .Territory for that. I do not blame the Administrator, the accountant in Darwin or the officers of the Welfare Branch. I blame the Secretary of the Department of Territories, because one of his functions is to watch the expenditure of funds by his Department. If he failed to do that, he failed to carry out his duty. The Northern Territory is crying out for expenditure on Aboriginal welfare.

I am interested in some of the work that the welfare officers are doing. Perhaps it is worth mentioning - that a very highly qualified chef was trying to coax Aborigines in the Territory to eat cheese. But it did not appeal to them at all. As a matter of fact, they disliked it until he got the idea of putting some cheese on the coals and giving it the flavour of the fire. When he did that he succeeded. But any honorable senator who has ever watched Aborigines on a cattle station eat their meagre lunch of bread, and sometimes jam, half cooked meat, tea and other things, would say that there is little hope for the Aborigines during the next few years. More should be done in the field of Aboriginal welfare in the Territory. One of the things that make me sick is to be near an Aboriginal stockman who has not washed his trousers or shirt for two or three weeks and, perhaps, has not had a shower for a few days.

We should start with the young Aborigines. They can be taught many things which .it would be hopeless to attempt to teach to the older Aborigines. This is the Aborigines’ country. There is no reason why an area of land somewhere near Darwin should not be selected for vegetable growing. The area should be capable of growing sufficient vegetables for 19,000 Aborigines. We should teach the Aborigines to grow their own vegetables. It does not matter what it costs. The children should be taught at school how to grow certain vegetables and plants so that finally they can turn to providing their own nutritious food. I will not go into any more . detail. I could say much about Aboriginal welfare and the lack of a good Aboriginal welfare policy in the Government’s approach to the Northern Territory.

Getting back to the amendments contained in the Bill, it is the policy of the Labour Party to grant the member for the Northern Territory full voting rights in the House of Representatives. The Labour Party is working towards that end. Of course, while it is in opposition it is not in a position to pass the necessary legislation to provide for the holding of a referendum. But there is no reason why the member for the. Northern Territory, who represents 51,000 people, should not have the right to vote on all matters that come, before the Parliament.

Senator Morris:

– Would that require a constitutional amendment?

Senator BENN:

– I think that it would require alteration of the Constitution. If the Labour Party was in office, we would pass the necesary legislation. We believe that the people of the Northern Territory should have a voice in this Parliament.

The position in the Northern Territory at the present time is most unsatisfactory. As I said previously, the Legislative Council has the semblance of being a Parliament. If we take a steam boiler we find that it has a fire, box, tubes, water and a regulator. We are able to read on a meter the poundage of steam that is in the boiler. There is also a safety valve, and when the steam pressure goes beyond the maximum permissible pressure, the safety valve is released and the steam disappears. The Legislative Council is nothing more than a place where people who live in the Northern Territory may let off steam. Their representatives may go there and discuss many things that should be provided by the Government. They may advance good policies regarding the development of the Northern Territory. In this way the Government knows how the people are thinking and what they say ought to be done. But the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory is nothing more than the House of Assembly in Papua and New Guinea. It is a chamber in which people may let off steam. I said previously that I proposed to move an amendment. 1 now move -

That the following words be added to the motion - “ but the Senate is of opinion that a Joint Committee of Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives should be appointed to investigate and report on constitutional reform of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory so as’ to provide a greater measure of selfdetermination by the people of the Territory”.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Kennelly:

– I second the amendment.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– I think that most of the points that were raised by Senator Benn in the course of his speech were really answered in advance in the second reading speech which I delivered to this chamber. The two amendments proposed in the Bill have not been disputed or opposed. The first amendment is that the Administrator should no longer be President of the Legislative Council- or a member of the Council. The purpose of the second amendment is to change the name of the Wards Benefits Trust Fund in order that funds may be paid to Aborigines from, revenues referred to in the Bill. As I understand it, neither of those amendments has been opposed by the Opposition.

The points raised rather suggest that more ought to be done than is in fact being done. When considering the Northern Territory, I do not think that we can get away from the fact that there are only 16,000 electors in the Territory which is rather less than half the number of electors in the smallest Federal electorate in Australia. As Senator Benn pointed out, they are scattered over an area of 523,000 square miles, which is one of the biggest areas in Australia. More importantly, the Northern Territory is financed overwhelmingly from funds appropriated by this Parliament. Since this Parliament has to bear the responsibility for raising those funds, it should be the one to consider how they should be spent. One example of the way in which the people of Australia generally, ‘ through the medium of this Parliament and the Government, help the Northern Territory, is the fact, as was pointed out in the second reading speech, that the Commonwealth provides an amount of £319 per head of population out of Federal revenue for the people of the Northern Territory. The greatest grant made to a State is approximately £200 per head, I think in the case of Western Australia. I may be wrong there, but the amount paid to Western Australia is not nearly comparable with that paid to the Northern Territory.

I should have thought that one of the first steps which the people in this area would wish to take would be to obtain local government. Indeed, that is the policy of the Opposition, which Senator Benn represents. I understand that there is a local government body in Darwin, but that in Alice Springs, which offers the opportunity for this system of government to be introduced, there is opposition from the local people and, indeed, from the local branch of the Australian Labour Party to the introduction of local government. This appears to me to be the first step to take along the path to self-government.

Senator Kennelly:

– Can the Minister tell us the basis for that statement?

Senator GORTON:

– I have been informed of it. I can get the details for the honorable senator. I understand that a petition opposing the introduction of local government in Alice Springs was sent to the Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes). 1 should have thought that local government would have been the first step to be taken. I do not think that the steps which were envisaged by Senator Benn could, within reason, be expected to be carried out until such time as the development of the Territory, which depends entirely on funds raised in the rest of Australia by this Parliament, has progressed to the stage where the revenue raised locally has some faint resemblance to the amount of revenue which is made available to this area by the people in other parts of Australia. Therefore, I ask the Senate not to accept the amendment which has been moved.

Question put -

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . -

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1529

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19th October (vide page 996), on motion by Senator Henry -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

–

The Senate will recall that the Export Payments Insurance Act was enacted only a few years ago. It is now found necessary to amend the Act in certain respects. I wondered, when the original bill was brought in, how the Government would fix the rate of premium to be paid under the legislation, because there was no orthodox method of determining it. It is well known that the legislation operates only in respect of insurance that is not acceptable to the typical insurance company. If the insurance for which this legislation provides ever comes into the same grade as that which is carried by ordinary insurance companies, this legislation will not be necessary at all. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide more capital for the Export Payments Insurance

Corporation, which has functioned since the legislation was first introduced. Perhaps it is appropriate that I should mention’ now why the Corporation was instituted and why the Government now finds it necessary to amend the legislation to provide additional capital for the Corporation.

A few years ago Australia reached a stage at which it was necessary to have as much export trade as possible to maintain its solvency, to provide employment for all the people, and to keep on the proper side of the balance of payments. One way of solving the associated problems was to adopt a vigorous export policy and to export goods that were being manufactured in Australia’s secondary industries. Ever since Australia commenced as a producing country it has been able to export primary products and for a ‘number of years it lived almost entirely upon the income which was obtained from them. Now, with a population in excess of 11 million, it is found essential, in order to provide employment for the juveniles leaving school and to maintain employment for the working population generally, to expand secondary industries, and to do this goods have to be exported. The Government took action to build up our export trade. It has not been wholly successful, not because of the inadequacy of its own efforts but because of the attitudes adopted by other countries. They, of course, have the right to say whether they will accept the goods Australia has to export. lt is rather remarkable to read the excuses that are put forward from time to time by some advanced countries as to why they should curtail the inflow of goods from poor old Australia.

Last year we collected a huge sum in customs duties on goods that were brought into Australia, t will not cite the amount. I have no doubt that other countries can point to the sums that they collected from duties imposed on commodities imported from Australia. So it goes on. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the result of a proposal by the United Nations, came into operation and tried to level up transactions in a fair manner. Australia was doing her best to import many of her requirements from developing countries. I do not think any country is in a worse situation than is a country which is trying to win its way into the world’s markets. There is not much difficulty in ‘ this for a highly industrialised country which has the use’ of electronic equipment and appliances which enable it to manufacture goods at the lowest possible cost, but the poor developing countries which do not have the trained employees, the equipment and the technical knowledge to manufacture goods cheaply, although they may have a wealth of resources, are under a positive handicap.

We have the capacity to manufacture more goods than we require. We have the capacity to produce more primary products than we can consume in Australia. That is perhaps a fortunate position to be in, but there comes a time when a country must expand its export. trade by getting away from the countries which are good safe markets. Then the trouble arises. One cannot induce an exporter to export to a country where he runs the risk of losing the goods when they are landed because a civil war may be going on there and the importer may be faced with bankruptcy. For this reason, amongst others, the exports insurance scheme was devised. I think everyone in the community supports it. Something had to be done to maintain production at a level suitable for all requirements while at the same time maintaining a policy of full employment. Some scheme was necessary to protect our exporters.

When I mention some of the countries to which our goods are exported honorable senators will understand why this insurance scheme is so essential. We exported to Western Europe 27.3 per cent, of our total exportable goods. One may say that there is no grave risk in exporting to Western Europe. That may be so. But we exported also 6.6 per cent, of our total exportable goods to Africa, 6.8 per cent, to the Middle East, 29.9 per cent, to South East and East Asia, 9.3 per cent, to North America, 10.1 per cent, to Central and South America and 10 per cent, to islands in the Pacific. As was expected, we experienced difficulty in at least some of those countries.

The Export Payments Insurance Corporation asked the exporting interests to pay certain premiums for the insurance that was to be afforded. A total premium income of £193,703 was received in 1964-65, compared with £164,000 in 1963-64. I com,menced my remarks by saying that I never knew how the Government decided upon the insurance premiums that should be paid, lt was unable to calculate the total risk involved. Nevertheless, it has introduced this scheme and its calculations have turned out to be fairly accurate and fairly satisfactory. The Government now says it believes that the capital of the Corporation should be increased by £1 million. We will raise no opposition to that, because over the years the Australian Labour Party has done its best to increase industrial development and to get away as much as possible from the old primary production era. Let us have primary production but let us also have secondary industries and our export trade. Much has been done already. The insurance scheme which is administered by the Export Payments Insurance Corporation is an integral part of our export system. I do not think anyone in the community would say that £1 million should be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and paid into this account only to allow some exporters to export their goods to other countries. We do not say that. That is not our attitude towards this matter. We say that great oaks from little acorns grow. Although Australia is starting out in a small way in the export business, with the insurance scheme to give it the impetus that is. necessary we will reach the stage when our exports will be very large and when our industries will be greater and sounder than they are at present. Then will be able to use to full advantage the considerable resources which Australia has at her disposal. We have nothing to say in opposition to this proposal.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

.- We are dealing with a Bill to amend the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956-1964. The Bill now before us is the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill 1965. It is a pleasure to know that the Opposition agrees with the Government’s proposal in this matter, but I would suggest that the terms of the Bill are somewhat wider than those mentioned by Senator Benn.

The Export Payments Insurance Corporation was established by Act of Parliament in 1956. Its basic function at that time was to promote trade with overseas countries by providing insurance against certain risks arising out of that trade not normally insured by commercial insurance houses. The Corporation carries out in Australia a function which is akin to the insurance functions carried out in the more advanced countries of the world. Even now many countries do not have this particular kind of insurance, which the present Government has provided during its term of office. To date, the Exports Payments Insurance Corporation has directed its attention to contracts of insurance against monetary loss or other monetary detriments attributable to circumstances outside the control of the person who suffered the loss and which resulted from failure to receive payments in connection with transactions in the course of trade outside Australia.

The Corporation has had certain limits placed on its functions. It has had limits in relation to capital. There have been maximum contingent liability limits and minimum contract volume limits placed upon it. The Bill now before the Senate provides for an increase in capital from £1 million to £2 million and an increase in the contingent liability maximum from £75 million to £100 million. An important provision is a reduction in the minimum value of the export transactions in respect of which the Corporation may provide insurance. Previously this was £100,000. It is to be reduced to £25,000.

In recent years there has been a marked increase in the number of policies negotiated and the number of policies taken up by the Corporation. There has been a consequent increase in the monetary value of such policies. The business figures of the Corporation reflect credit on the Corporation and indeed on the Australian business community also. The number of policies has increased from 299 in 1961-62 to 373 in 1962-63, 463 in 1963-64 and 509 in 1964-65. In four years the number of policies has been almost doubled. The face value of policies has increased accordingly from £32 million in 1961-62 to £44 million in 1962-63, £63 million 1963-64 and £80 million in 1964-65. The Government is now increasing the capital of the Corporation to take into account the considerable increase that is represented by the figures for 1964-65.

I direct attention also to the maximum liability with which the Corporation has been able to cope. In 1961-62 the maximum contingent liability undertaken by the Corporation totalled £17 million in round figures. The figure rose to £23 million in 1962-63, £33 million in 1963-64 and to £41,582,000 in 1964-65. Premium income increased from £92,922 in 1961-62 to £119,108 in 1962-63, £164,695 in 1963-64 and £193,703 in 1964-65. These are considerable advances in premium income and reflect great credit on those in charge of the Corporation. The figures show that the business community has readily taken advantage of the peculiar type of policy provided by the Corporation which is not available generally from private financial sources. The Corporation has a charter to operate overall on a non-profit basis. The policies have been offered on a keen cost basis which is comparable and sometimes more than comparable with the rates offered by major countries overseas. It is of interest to note that the recommendations of the Corporation concerning the variation of terms under which the Corporation many operate have been implemented generally by the. Government. In effect, the Corporation is very nearly free of government interference.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Mr. President,, prior to the suspension of the sitting, I said that the Export Payments Insurance Corporation carries on its duties with a minimum of interference by the Government yet with reasonable Government participation. I mentioned that, as well as the insurable risks undertaken by the Corporation- in relation to general trade policies . in overseas competition, there had been over the years a widening of insurable risks. This had developed into external trade policies for firms which, in addition to exporting goods from Australia also supplied commodities from third countries to their overseas suppliers. Business was insured on this basis. There were also confirming house policies. There were policies of default on contract - policies issued which were in actual fact for protection against loss caused by the failure or the refusal of solvent buyers to take up shipments. These were introduced three years ago arid the cover was extended further iri the last year. Major changes in addition to those which I have mentioned are also proposed. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1532

RHODESIA

Ministerial Statement

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– by leave; - Mr. President, I am about to read a statement which is being made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) in another place. Honorable senators will note that when I use the word “I” the reference is to the Prime Minister. The statement is as follows -

Recent events in Rhodesia, and the reactions to those events in other countries, have presented all of us with acutely difficult problems. It is therefore desirable that I should, on behalf of the Government, set out for the benefit of honorable senators what we believe to be the facts and what views we take on the various suggested remedies.

First I should point out that as Great Britain is for this purpose the “ Colonial “ power, only the Parliament of Great Britain could grant independence . to Rhodesia. The Unilateral Declaration of Independence toy the Rhodesian Government was therefore illegal. The Declaration having been made, and the Governor having dismissed Mr. Smith and his government, a position arose in which the only lawful government in Rhodesia is now the Government of the United Kingdom.

The executive authority is at present in the hands of the Governor, subject to any legislative or administrative steps taken by Great Britain. We accept the view that it now becomes necessary for the Governor of Rhodesia to call, if he can, a new Government into existence. If he cannot do so, the responsibility for the Government of Rhodesia will rest with Great Britain. It is important, I think, to remember these basic facts. Rhodesia is not now without a Government at all. That is, it is not in a state of anarchy, but is subject to the direct authority and control of Great Britain. Let me emphasise this. The objective of any action now to be taken must surely be to assist the United Kingdom to bring into being a Constitutional Government, and to end the illegal situation in Rhodesia. The sooner this can be done, the better. If it cannot be done, or if it is not done with reasonable promptmess, (the risks of violence, bloodshed, and extreme action, to which I will refer later, will grow, bringing grief and suffering to millions of human beings.

The Rhodesian problem has twice been discussed at Prime Ministers’ Conferences. On each occasion, it was unanimously accepted that the authority and responsibility for leading Rhodesia to independence must continue to rest with Britain. Though this seems at present to be under some challenge in the United Nations Assembly, it still remains the central truth in the controversy. In the discharge of her responsibilities, the Government of the United Kingdom went to great pains to conduct discussions with the then Prime Minister and Government of Rhodesia. I will narrate, as objectively as possible, what the British Government did. It indicated very plainly that it was not contemplating force; that it wished to establish a basis for ultimate independence which would be fair to all the people of Rhodesia. It did not. take the extreme view, now being advocated by some, that the Constitution of Rhodesia should immediately be altered so as to provide for an immediate African majority. It realised that the people were not yet ready for this, and that to act precipitately might conceivably create what might be called a “ Congo “ situation, of unhappy memory.

The Government of the United Kingdom indicated five “ principles “ as providing the basis upon which independence could be granted. These principles were: -

  1. The principle and intention of unimpeded progress to majority rule, already enshrined in the 1961 Constitution, would have to be maintained and guaranteed.
  2. There would also have to be guarantees against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.
  3. There would have to be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population.
  4. There would have to be progress towards ending racial discrimination.
  5. The British Government would need to be satisfied that any basis proposed for independence was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

As principles these appear, as Mr. Harold Wilson has said, to have been accepted by

Mr. Smith. The real difficulties arose as to their application. The five principles, as I took an opportunity of telling Mr. Wilson, were and are completely in line with our own thinking. Having regard to what has happened, I think I should now tell the House that I sent a message to Mr. Smith just as he was entering upon his discussions in London. I said I had a natural understanding of the problems confronting the European settlers in Rhodesia, a country which has enjoyed its own substantial but technically incomplete form of selfgovernment for many years, and in which the contribution of the European settlers to the economic vigour of the country has been most substantial. I repeated my own view, which I have on several occasions expressed in Prime Ministers’ Conferences, that two extreme views that had been put forward were not practicable.

The first extreme view was that either immediately or within a few months there should be adult suffrage with, in consequence, an African majority. If this view were to prevail then, as I said to him, I could see all the elements of bad, because inexperienced, government, and possible economic disaster. The other extreme view was that the achievement of an African majority should be indefinitely resisted. This view, as I have repeatedly said, and, as I said to Mr. Smith, was in the prevailing international political climate quite impracticable.

I pointed out to Mr. Smith, as I have done in Prime Ministers’ Conferences, that in my opinion the matter was one of timetable; a matter of phasing in more and more African voters until after some reasonable period of time they found themselves in a majority. After all, the 1961 Constitution and the discussions attending it seemed to me to contemplate that ultimately the African voters would prevail. I told Mr. Smith that the working out of such a timetable should provide a good basis for agreement. I told him that should agreement fail to emerge and should there then be a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, the results, not all of which were foreseeable, could be painful and difficult. I told him, as I have since told this House, that Commonwealth countries would not recognise an independent nationhood so achieved. lt should be clearly understood that a similar line was followed with much patience and reasonableness by the British Government. Mr. Wilson himself, in. his speech to the House of Commons, put it in this way -

Although successive British Governments are deeply and irrevocably committed to guaranteed and unimpeded progress to major rule, the British Government, who alone through the British Parliament have the legal power to grant independence, do not believe that in the present and tragic and divided condition of Rhodesia, a majority can or should come today, or tomorrow. A period of time is needed, time to remove the fears and suspicions between race and race, time to show that the Constitution of Rhodesia with whatever amendments may later be made can be worked and is going to be worked and that the rule of law equally with the maintenance of essential human rights will be paramount and the time required cannot be measured by clock or calendar but only by achievement.

In spite of all these efforts, this illegal Declaration of Independence has now been made with the constitutional consequences to which I have referred. What has happened since? The British Government has done two things: First, it has, through the Governor, dismissed the Smith Government. It has prohibited exports of arms to Rhodesia. It has imposed certain exchange restrictions. It has denied Rhodesia access to the London capital market and has terminated Commonwealth preferences. Some of these clearly have more relevance to the particular position of the United Kingdom than they would have to the position of Australia. But the British Government has also imposed a ban on the import of tobacco and sugar into the United Kingdom, these two items constituting more than one-third of the total Rhodesian exports. It will be observed that the imposition of these sanctions by Great Britain has been made with what I would call constructive moderation. As I understand it, it is not aimed at ruining the total economy of Rhodesia, for that would be to punish indiscriminately, but to provide a means of persuading the European minority and its leaders to realise the gravity of the situation, to have second thoughts, and to approach the lawful Government with an expression of willingness to negotiate to finality on the basis of the five principles.

The second action taken by the British Government was to bring the matter before the notice of the Security Council. Now this may at first sight seem to be inconsistent with the sound basic proposition that this is a matter between Great Britain and Rhodesia. But I have no doubt that, the British Government felt that it was better for it to take the matter to the Security Council, to. outline the steps taken by it, and endeavour to. secure international support for its actions, than for the matter to go to the United Nations under the auspices of other people who might demand courses of action which did not recognise either the particular authority and responsibility of Great Britain in this matter or the present constitutional position of Rhodesia. Recent events seem to have justified this view on the part of the British Government, though they have at the same time presented us all with problems of the utmost gravity.

I turn now to considering our own attitude. We have, as I have previously pointed out, refused to recognise what is now an illegal administration. We have also in this House rejected any notion of the use . of armed force which would be repugnant to the people of Australia, but would also inevitably produce more ruin and disaster than any of us would be prepared to contemplate. We will not either physically or financially contribute to the use of force. Measures of enforcement need a good deal of thought. Are they to punish, or to persuade, or even to compel? We reject the idea of punishment, for it would be undiscriminating and therefore unjust. The machinery of persuasion deserves more thought. This is essentially a matter to be solved by negotiation, in the light of the principles that have been stated, and with the object of securing a peaceful and ultimately a democratic future for Rhodesia.

The demands currently being made at the United Nations for violent repression require critical examination. Suppose the United Nations directs or proposes military sanctions. What will be the object of this exercise? If it is to defeat the European Rhodesians in the field and kill a number of them, what problem will be solved? If adopted it would represent a violent course in which the innocent would suffer with the guilty, and would embitter racial relation-‘ ships in the whole African continent for generations to come. If the object is not to be punishment but persuasion, what is it that the Rhodesians will need to concede?-

What new Constitution or form of Government will be demanded? It is, alas, quite clear that if the United Nations authorised armed force, the clamour would be for an immediate adult suffrage, the immediate application of which would quite plainly have at the best hazardous, and at the worst disastrous results. What is needed in Rhodesia is a reasonable timetable, accompanied by a special educational campaign, to which all of us might well contribute something, to fit the African voters for their ultimate authority.

What I have said emphasises the nature of the deep differences which the debates in the United Nations have already disclosed, differences which are fraught with great danger and on which we are bound to express our own views with some frankness. The first difference, and I here repeat myself, concerns the position of Great Britain as the Colonial power whose legislative authority has been illegally defied by the Smith administration. That problem is one primarily for Great Britain and Rhodesia. What Great Britain is seeking at the United Nations, as we understand it, is general international support for her own measures of an economic kind. This does not satisfy what may be called the direct action or armed force views of many nations, particularly of some in the AfroAsian group. They demand armed force, and are attacking Great Britain for not employing it. If these nations had their way, the United Nations would no doubt be called upon to establish what might be somewhat ironically called a peace-keeping force. I say ironically, because the peace to be restored or kept would have been broken by the action of these nations themselves. I have already put and answered the question as to the objective of armed force which, it would appear, would be not only to punish but to create a new Constitution and system of government on a basis which we would not want to see established overnight.

My colleagues and I have had very great reservations about even economic sanctions. If we accept for ourselves some economic measure or measures, it will not be because we think them intrinsically equitable. They may bear most heavily upon the Africans themselves, and if strongly resisted by the Rhodesians themselves imposing sanc tions against, for example, Zambia, formerly Northern Rhodesia, that great copper producing country might well be ruined. But making allowances for these views, we have come to the conclusion, particularly having regard to the way in which Great Britain is being attacked for employing peaceful means that we would regard economic measures as the lesser of two evils. The greater evil would be the use of force with all its bloodshed and misery. This would be aggravated if the forces were directed by racial hatred or gave rise to political consequences of which advantage could be taken by other and more hostile nations. It might well be, and this would appear to be the judgment of the British Government, that the losses arising from the kind of economic measures they have announced will be sufficiently serious, while not involving utter disaster, to induce most Rhodesians to have second thoughts, and to come back through constitutional means to the negotiating table. We hope that this will occur and will occur before too much damage has been inflicted on people who have, as I have pointed out, been the greatest contributors to the prosperity of Rhodesia.

We will not export arms or military equipment to Rhodesia. We do not import sugar from Rhodesia, with which we have a fairly modest trade. But we do import tobacco. On this we will follow what has been done by Britain, and put a ban on the import of Rhodesian tobacco; this, of course, will not apply to tobacco in transit. Tariff preferences to Rhodesia will be suspended. We will co-operate with the Government of Britain in two other financial respects -

  1. We will amend the definition of the sterling area in the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations, so as to exclude Rhodesia, or make such other amendments as are appropriate to exclude Rhodesia from the treatment accorded to sterling area countries.
  2. We will take such action as is open to us to prevent evasion of the British exchange control measures.

We do not have any diplomatic mission in Rhodesia. We have a trade representative, whose appointment in Rhodesia will terminate. Above all things, we hope that none of these measures will be of long duration. It would be a sad commentary on the unwisdom of mankind if, through the obstinate pursuit of an illegal course, this prosperous country should be reduced economically to ruin, to the lasting unhappines of all of its people, voters or non-voters, white or black.

I present the following papers -

Rhodesia - Ministerial Statement, 16th November 1965; Documents on Rhodesia, 27th October 1964-1 1th November 1965 - and move -

That the Senate take note of the papers.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1536

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1532).

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

.- I quite imagine that the comments I have made about the application of the legislation we are discussing will have more force in the light of the statement that has just been made by the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty). It is certain that insurance of goods exported to or imported from countries where there is likely to be trouble is a particularly good piece of business for individuals trading in that way. Prior to the suspension of the sitting I referred to the variety of insurance policies that had been made available by the Export Payments Insurance Corporation over the past few years. I mentioned several policies and gave notice of my intention to refer to the fact that in respect of exported goods the Corporation provides unconditional bank guarantees. Such guarantees amount to gilt edged securities for export transactions. They are now available for capital and semi-capital goods. Obviously, Australian manufacturers must be assisted to a very large extent by the unconditional bank guarantees.

Warehousing insurance in the export field is particularly important for manufacturers who wish to improve their exporting facilities overseas. They may decide to send goods overseas, hold them in warehouses and hope to sell them in the countries where the warehouses are situated. In those circumstances, manufacturers are able to obtain warehousing insurance. This type of insu rance is not available, in general terms, in the commercial insurance field. It is of interest to note that in the last year or two the Corporation has joined an international organisation known as the International Association of Export Credit Insurance. The Association comprises representatives of about 20 different nations and includes 11 of the first 13 major trading nations of the world. It is known as the Berne Union. As Australians, we should be very proud that our country can merge into such a worldwide field in insurance and such an important field as that proposed by the Berne Union.

The legislation we are now discussing widens the scope of facilities available to exporters. Quite a new policy is brought to trading in overseas countries. We have desired to attract overseas investment. As the developing countries in the world today continue to develop, they will be looking to import goods from other countries and to welcome new processes and products available from Australia and other countries. Generally, they will also be looking to establish their own manufacturing industries. The only way that this object can be achieved is by the developed countries taking their manufacturing industries to the shores of the underdeveloped countries or, at least, by starting new industries in those underdeveloped countries. This policy will be of benefit to both the developed and the underdeveloped countries. If we are truly to consider ourselves a Christian country we should be endeavouring to encourage the manufacturers or exporters in our affluent society to attempt to establish our manufacturing industries in overseas countries.

The Export Payments Insurance Corporation is providing a type of insurance policy which has never before been provided. A person wishing to commence a business of a reasonable size in an overseas country may be able to obtain insurance from the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. By this legislation, the activities of the Corporation are to be extended. Section 16d provides that the Corporation shall provide insurance against expropriation of property which is most important; damage to or destruction of property caused by a warlike operation; and inability to transfer money to Australia from another country. I believe that by this legislation

Australia is making a major contribution to the encouragement of stabilisation of our resources to continue exports and promote trade with the new emerging countries, and also to the assistance of those countries.

The scope of the Corporation has been widened to take into account investment by Australia in overseas countries. At present leading countries such as United States of America, Germany, Japan and Denmark provide insurance policies similar to that which we are now to establish. Section 16c of the present Act provides - . . ‘ overseas investment transaction ‘ means -

  1. the acquisition of shares or stock, or any other interest, in a corporation incorporated in a country outside Australia, being a corporation that, either alone or with other persons, carries on or proposes to carry on a business in that country;
  2. the acquisition of a right to share in the income or assets, or the income and assets, of a business carried on, or proposed to be carried on, in a country outside Australia, whether under a partnership or otherwise;
  3. the lending of moneys to a person for use by him in or in connexion with a business carried on, or proposed to be carried on, by him in a country outside Australia; or
  4. the transferring of moneys to, or the importing of equipment or other goods into, a country outside Australia for use in or in connexion with a business carried on, or proposed to be carried on, in that country by the person transferring the moneys or importing the equipment or other goods;

The Bill sets out fairly concisely the wide range of insurance that it will enable to be transacted in relation to the establishment of industry in other countries. It is interesting to note that insurance in these fields will be available to Australian citizens, Commonwealth statutory bodies, Commonwealth and State marketing organisations and authorities - that is very important - semigovernmental institutions, private organisations and partnerships. It is well to note that the Government reserves the right to refuse insurance, particularly when the applicant concerned is either wholly or substantially foreign owned or is subject to some franchise involving a restriction on exports.

Undoubtedly, investment overseas should be encouraged. Markets in developing countries are very important for Australia at this time and will continue to be so in the future. It is good for Australia that this investment should be promoted. It is good that we should assist the emerging countries. Australia has placed itself in an important position in world trading affairs. The value of our exports ranks us eleventh among the trading nations of the world. Whilst 85 per cent of our exports go to established countries at the present time, that percentage is weakening. The balance of our exports is going to the developing countries. New nations will seek industrialisation. It is up to Australia to assist them. New countries will receive benefit, as we have, from increased industrial activity by major nations. One major encouragement to the establishment of industries in overseas countries is insurance against the risk that is all too evident in sending capital out of the country.

The Export Payments Insurance Corporation will use its discretion in relation to investment policies. They will be considered on their merits. No rigid criteria or set of rules will be followed. There are several general principles that the Corporation will apply. First, it will consider the activities of the company proposing the insurance on the basis of whether the insurance will bring current or potential export benefits to Australia. It will look for some direct participation by an Australian investor in an overseas enterprise as part of the deal. There is no problem whatsoever where an Australian investor establishes himself overseas. But there is some query, and probably there would be no insurance policy, when an enterprise is entered into purely by the investment of overseas capital. Then there will be instances of a joint enterprise by an Australian investor and an overseas investor. Knowing the position in Australia - generally our desire is to have that type of investment in Australia - the partnership idea certainly will be promoted. Surely this type of legislation is in line with what all Australians would wish to see.

I give great credit to the Corporation and congratulations to the Government for the introduction of export payments insurance and the gradual progression of the Corporation until today we see the enormous figures that I have quoted for the insurance of exports. This facility for industry has been very much under-publicised. I regret that. Exports will form an important prop for our society for many years. I am certain that if the coverage that the Corporation is able to offer were more widely known there would be a great deal more activity in the export field. This type of facility is not available from normal commercial sources.

The benefits that this insurance offers can be applied in many fields. Honorable senators may be interested to know the types of goods that are insured at the present time to the extent of £80.2 million. The following table shows the value of the major goods insured -

Other goods insured include dairy produce, grains and seeds, leather, hides and skins, earthmoving and agricultural equipment, building materials, meat, automotive equipment and accessories, engineering plant, light machinery, telecommunication equipment, photographic equipment, chemicals, electrical manufactures, textile piecegoods and household appliances.

Senator Wright:

– I thought the kitchen sink surely would come in there.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It was in the last category. So we see that all sections of primary industry and secondary industry are able to take advantage of this type of insurance, if they know about it. I am led to believe that the only means of publicity of which the Corporation takes advantage is the trade publication “ Overseas Trading “, which all honorable senators read. The Corporation is anxious to have discussions with leading banks. This is an important field. If a manufacturer is entering into an overseas venture, his bank should know about his insurance. The Corporation is interested in speaking to trade associations and export associations. I ask all honorable senators to invite representatives of the Corporation to explain the facilities that are available in their own electoral areas.

I note from the 9th Annual Report of the Corporation the great quality of the men who sit on its Consultative Council. If the quality of the Victorian members of that Council is representative of the quality of the members from other States, the Corporation probably has the most know ledgeable consultative council of any corporation of which I know. The Victorian members include H. W. Rowden, C. R. Darvall, C. G. McGrath and A. W. Spooner. They are accepted in industry as having great ability. There is a bright future for the Corporation. I am pleased to support this measure, which is of great importance in encouraging exporters and investors to increase the rate of exports and investment from Australia both for our own benefit and for the benefit of the developing countries. I have great pleasure in commending this Bill to the Senate.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - I wish to comment on one matter raised by Senator Benn. He referred to the fact that rates of premium are not mentioned in the Bill. They have been left out of it by design because, in the light of experience, they may be varied from time to time. If they were included in the legislation, variations would necessitate amendments of the legislation. If they were fixed a little too high originally, because of lack of experience, they might deter exporters from using the scheme. That would defeat the purpose of the legislation. I believe that it is more sound to find the rates of premium that meet the situation of both the insured and the Corporation.

The Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act has been one of the great legislative successes of this Government. The Corporation undertakes the insurance of exporters against risks against which they are unable to insure in the normal course. I think experience has shown that the Corporation has been conducted on efficient and sound business lines. I am sure that the number of claims handled by the Corporation compares favorably with that handled by similar organisations in other countries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1538

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2) 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22nd September (vide page 523), on motion by Senator McKellar-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– This is a very minor measure but, of course, it gives the Senate an opportunity to discuss the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Senate did not have an opportunity to discuss the Act when it was amended in May of this year. If my memory serves me correctly, the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1965 was introduced into the Senate at 9.31 a.m. on 26th May 1965, and the debate on it concluded at between 5 and 5.30 p.m. I think that if Senator Wright refers to the report of the debate in “ Hansard “ he will sec that those times are correct. Therefore, apart from discussing the merits of the Bill before us tonight, we are given the opportunity to raise other matters concerning the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

The Bill which we are discussing at the present time has been introduced because there was an omission in the Commonwealth Electoral Bill which we debated in May of this year. It is true that the Government had reason for great haste at that time. It was not sure what would happen when the Senate met after the Senate election because three senators held the balance of power in the Senate to a certain extent. They signified their intention to vote against the gerrymander bill, as I termed it, when it came before the Senate. That would have meant that when a vote was taken on the Bill there would have been 30 ayes and 30 noes and, of course, the gerrymander would not have seen the light of day. The Government introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Bill in May before two of those senators took their place in the Senate. The three senators to whom I allude are Senators McManus, Gair and Turnbull. Senator Turnbull said in a Press statement that he was against the gerrymander, as were the other two honorable senators whom I have mentioned. But when one remembers Senator Turnbull’s vote on the Ipec-Air Pty. Ltd. case, one might have been rather lucky if his vote had followed his word on the Commonwealth Electoral Bill. But as he is absent from the Senate at the present time, I do not want to be unfair or too harsh on him. If he were here I would say a little more than I have said.

At a later stage I propose to move an amendment. But let me first deal with two electoral matters that concern me at the present time. I am of opinion that in this day and age the minimum age of voters should be reduced from 21 years to 18 years. We see and hear advertisements in which boys of 17 are asked to join the Forces at adult rates of pay. Recently we have seen boys of 20 years of age - they are boys so far as the Commonwealth Electoral Act is concerned - being conscripted into the Army. After six months’ service they could find themselves in actual combat in other countries. One would have expected the Government to do what was done in World War II when those who saw service overseas were given a vote. Surely in this modern age the Government should consider giving a vote to 18 years olds. We hear so much about education at the present time, and when we realise what this Government and other governments have done in the field of education, one might think that the Government would say that the natural corollary to better education is that people aged 18 are entitled to a vote.

The other matter on which I hope to spend a few minutes is the very important democratic principle of one vote one value. There is nothing in either the Common^ wealth Electoral Bill that was introduced in May or in the Bill that we are discussing at the present time to alter in any way the section of the Act which provides that people who are enrolled are compelled to vote. I believe that what the nation needs is an intelligent vote. For the life of me I cannot see why we should not expect people aged 18 years to give an intelligent vote. A boy aged 18 years has many responsibilities. It is true that under the law of the country he is considered to be a minor until he attains the age of 21 years. But he can do a lot of other important things. He can engage in any occupation that he desires to follow, and he can leave it when he wishes. As I have said, he can join the Army at 17 or 18 years of age and receive the adult rate of pay. He may be conscripted for overseas service when he is 20. He may marry, with his parents’ consent, at the age of 18, and in most States he may drive a motor vehicle at that age. These things, I would say, have a much greater personal significance and import than the right to vote. When society adjudges that persons of 18 years of age are mature enough to do the things that I have mentioned, why does this Government believe that they are not mature enough to cast a vote?

This is not a plea for people who will vote one way or the other. None of us can say that voters at a certain age vote in a certain way. Elections have shown that no political party has a monopoly of any age group of voters. Today young people have greater opportunities and are better educated than they were in the distant past. They are more knowledgeable about the ordinary things of life and they are as well equipped at 18 years as they are at 21 years to exercise the very important right to vote. If I do not succeed in having an amendment to the motion for the second reading adopted, I shall submit in Committee amendments to various clauses of the Bill.

A guiding democratic principle is the principle of one vote one value. Surely it cannot be argued that a vote in any portion of Australia, city or country, is more valuable than any other vote. One of the vital principles of democracy is that individuals are equal in respect of their voting rights. We should apply that principle in a way that will give equal voting power to all people, irrespective of where they live. Surely it cannot be argued that a housewife in the city is any less important than a housewife in the country. Some people who give lip service to the principle of one vote one value go out of their way at every opportunity to propose redistributions of electorates which belie that very principle, but they would be most annoyed if we accused them of being undemocratic. I think it was the great Abraham Lincoln who said that all men were created equal. I do not think that he meant that only those in cities were equal with one another or that those were more or less important than those in the country. He meant that all men everywhere were equal with one another.

We believe that the Liberal Party is not against the principle of one vote one value. Speaking from memory, I should say that its conferences have adopted the principle. In fact, one section went so far recently as to advocate a vote for 18 year old persons. So after years of being afraid to give young people a vote and of denying the principle of one vote one value, even members of that Party see the wisdom of keeping to the democratic spirit as we understand it. While it is true that members of the Australian Country Party consider that persons who live in country electorates should have more voting power than those who live in cities, they do not want that principle to be followed in the proposed wool reserve prices referendum. They say that the vote of a farmer who shears 300 sheep is just as important as the vote of one who shears 1 0 times or 100 times that number. Surely we have not come to a stage in the National Parliament at which this principle is all right in relation to a wool reserve prices referendum, but should be rejected in electing the members of this Parliament. Some people in South East Asia, with whom we are vitally concerned - and rightly so - have never had opportunities to vote for a government as we understand it. We should show the way. We should show that our system of electing a government gives equal power to all persons, irrespective of where they reside.

Surely it is just a matter of chance whether one resides in the country or in the metropolitan area. I spent some early years of my life in the country but I do not think that I was any better than my colleagues who lived in the city. According to certain people in this House, however, I was better. At times I wonder how people can think in that way. We must be honest with ourselves. I suppose the only reason that they can give in this modern age is that it suits them politically to think in that way. I believe that is wrong. As I have said, governments should be elected by people, not by broad acres.

There have been tremendous changes in Victoria over the years. I remember that many years ago, when I was first elected to the Legislative Council of Victoria, I had to produce proof that I owned property to the value of, I think in those days, £500; otherwise I could not even have stood for election. I think the only people who could vote then were rate payers and matriculated students. Bat times have changed. We are much more progressive now and that system does not operate in Victoria. I am not too sure, but I do not think South Australia has adult franchise for election to the Legislative Council. That will come in time We at least should give a lead, if we can. by according to each person a right to vote. ,

I regret the drafting error which brought about this debate, but I have always believed that it is human to err. I have no quarrel with the party whose fault that was, but in one way I am pleased that the error occurred because it has given me the opportunity to state our views on fundamental and vital questions in the democratic system under which we are supposed to live. I hope the Senate will agree to my proposed amendment. I move -

Leave out all words after “ That “, insert: - “ the Bill bc withdrawn and redrafted to provide for votes at eighteen years of age and for votes to be as nearly as possible of equal value.”

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Queensland

– I welcome this Bill for the reason that it provides me with an opportunity to make a few comments on a piece of legislation which was introduced into the Parliament of the Commonwealth with, to put it mildly, indecent haste. Probably it was because of the rush associated with the drafting and initiation of that legislation that errors occurred and the necessity arose for the amending Bill before the Senate.

In addition to dealing with a few of the aspects and clauses of the Bill, I should like to -say that the Government’s record in relation to the distribution of electoral boundaries throughout the Commonwealth since the 1961 census was taken is not a very good one. Indeed, the Government has been most dilatory and slow to proceed to distribute the electoral boundaries of this Commonwealth on the basis of the population as revealed by the census of 1961. It has been customary, in the history of our parliamentary system of government, for the census to be regarded as a guide and for electoral boundaries to be drawn in accordance with the population revealed by the census, but nothing positive has been achieved since 1961.

In 1962 proposals were presented for the redistribution of electoral boundaries in New South Wales, based on the findings of a redistribution commission appointed by the Government at that time. What happened to those proposals? They were discussed and it became readily evident that a section of the composite Government of this country was not satisfied with the suggested redistribution. The Liberal Party section of the Government was compelled to capitulate under the pressure of the Country Party element. The result was that the suggested redistribution of the electoral boundaries in New South Wales was finally treated in a cavalier fashion by no less a person than the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies).

I claim to possess a sense of humour but I fail to see that there is any place for humour when dealing with such an important subject as the redistribution of electoral boundaries. How did the Prime Minister deal with this matter in its concluding stages? He is reported on page 2888 of “ Hansard “ of 4th December 1962 in this way-

I am not in the mood to make an obituary speech about it, but the proposal is dead - “ Poor Jack is dead “, or whatever the song is. 1 am broad-minded, “ Poor Arthur is dead “, Poor Cough is dead “, but whatever it is these proposals are dead . . . I must go through the form of asking for leave to continue my remarks at a later hour, adding for good measure that I have not the faintest intention of continuing them.

If that is the attitude of the leader of the Government towards this important matter, it does not impress me, as an elector of this country. He has not the faintest intention of continuing his remarks. It is fair to ask therefore: Why did’ he commence them? Why put the taxpayers of Australia to the expense of appointing a commission which recommended that certain boundaries should be redrawn, than have the proposals submitted to Parliament and discussed at some length and then have the leader of the Government treat them in this fashion? I do not think it becomes the Parliament or the Prime Minister to deal with a matter of such importance in this fashion and I protest strongly against the delay in redistributing the Commonwealth electorates. This is 1965 and nothing has been done.

On the 1961 census Queensland, the State I represent, was to have lost a seat in the Parliament. I think Victoria also would have lost a seat. Be that as it may, we would have had to abide by the decision and put up with it. But since then, the Government has been dilatory and has handled this matter in a manner that does it no credit. There should be no further delay in redrawing the electoral boundaries. The whole thing smells of one section of the Government parties being forced to capitulate under threats and pressure. It also smells of an attempt by the Government to carry out what is, from its point of view, an excellent piece of gerrymandering and I do not hold with that.

Reference has been made to the principle of one vote one value. That is an excellent principle of democracy and I go along with it entirely but I have had sufficient experience to know that in many cases it is impracticable of implementation. I am fair enough to say that there has to be some margin above or below the quota particularly in States like Queensland where we have an area of 670,000 square miles sparsely populated. The people are distributed and decentralised in Queensland more than they are in most States of the Commonwealth. We have to be practical and we have to be accommodating but I cannot agree that there is any necessity to depart from the margin of 5 per cent, over or under the quota as is provided in the original Electoral Act. It is proposed now to provide for a margin of 20 per cent. I think there is a case for a fair margin but it should operate only in the remote places in very special circumstances and should not apply generally.

Furthermore, why does the Government propose to withhold any redistribution of electorates until after the next Federal election? I understand that is the Government’s intention. Why cannot the Government appoint more Distribution Commissioners as soon as the Bill is passed, as the Government knows it will be? The Government could then have the machinery ready and the new boundaries drawn for the next Federal election. Is it because the Government wants to be sure that the boundaries that will be drawn by the Distribution Commissioners will be suitable to its requirements? In electoral matters, all governments have an obligation to the electors to act in a manner above suspicion and beyond reproach. Of course, it will be said that every political party when in government engages in political stunts and tricks in the distribution of electorates. I am not in a position to know whether they do or do not except that in Queensland, the State I know best, I believe the redistribution of electorates throughout the State over the years was if anything slanted in favour of the country districts. This was done for reasons I have stated and because of the difficulty in getting the required quota in sparsely populated and remote parts of Queensland. The Government that succeeded my Government in Queensland realised when it took office that all the things it had said from the Opposition benches about one vote one value were not practicable. They were impossible of implementation.

I repeat that the 20 per cent, margin under or over the quota is excessive particularly in a Commonwealth election. Senator Kennelly posed the question: What do we represent? Do we represent areas or people? This question is asked repeatedly when electoral matters are discussed. It is true that we represent people but we must have regard also to the area covered by an electorate and the distribution of the people in the outback areas. I want to be reasonable and fair about this but I protest against the delay in the redistribution and also against the conduct of the Government parties in this connection. Without question, this has created suspicion in the minds of the people that an attempt is being made to gerrymander the Australian electorates.

That suspicion has been substantiated by a reported speech by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) delivered at Murwillumbah in his own electorate. The Minister bragged that there was to be a 20 per cent, margin and that the redistribution was to be slanted in favour of the Australian Country Party. To say the least of it, the Minister did not display a great measure of discretion but merely confirmed the suspicions held by a big section of the people. The people of Australia do not expect matters concerning the election of members of Parliament and governments to be handled in that way. They believe and are entitled to believe that elections should be conducted at all times properly and fairly. I think they are realistic enough to know at the same time that there have been some flagrant and blatant examples of gerrymandering and unbalanced electorates.

I want to intimate that my colleague, Senator McManus, and I propose to support the amendment moved by Senator Kennelly. We do so because our Party, the Australian Democratic Labour Party, believes in reducing from 21 to 18 years the age at which a person will become eligible to vote. We have confidence in the youth of this country. We do not share the views of some people that our young citizens are’ generally delinquent and irresponsible. Rather do we believe that the young people, with the great opportunities that they have enjoyed educationally because they are well equipped, are competent and responsible enough to exercise the franchise and to play their part in the election of the governments of this country. Furthermore, we are appreciative of the fact that young people at the age of 18 enjoy a lot of other privileges and rights as citizens of this country. Indeed, they are required to defend this country. During the last war men under 21 years of age were given the right to vote.

We believe also that a person’s capacity to exercise the franchise cannot be measured by his age. You and I know Mr. President, from the long experience we have had, that there are people much older than 21 years who know little or nothing about politics. I am sure they scarcely are capable of registering a formal vote when they go to the polling booths. Business executives have said to me since my- election as. a senator-: “ What electorate will you represent? “ I have been approached by business executives who desire to give me their votes and who asked me to explain to them how to vote at a Senate election. On the other hand, I know a number of young people at 18, and certainly under 21, who would know how to vote if given the opportunity and who would record an intelligent and a formal vote. So, we have no doubt that the reduction in the voting age not only would be fair to that section of our people but also could prove to be of great value. It would encourage young people to take a more positive role in the affairs of their country than probably many of them are taking today.

The second portion of the amendment asks for “ votes to be as nearly as possible of equal value.” That is fair enough. It complies with my ideas about the matter. I think it is impossible to obtain in a redistribution a system that will provide one vote one value. I repeat: That is impracticable. But I think that the Distribution Commissioners, whose responsibility it will be to draw the boundaries of the electorates, should never provide a margin unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. They should keep in mind as far as practicable (he necessity to have a system based on one vote one value. For those reasons, I support the amendment. I believe it is fair. 1 believe it should be acceptable to the

Government. If the principle is accepted and embodied in the Bill, it could prove an advantage to our electoral system and to the community that we aim to serve.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- Mr. President, some time ago I was interviewed by a young man who is putting in a lot of time preparing a plan for electoral reform which, he claims, will be just and equitable. He told me that he had interviewed leading personalities in the main political parties. I stopped him at that stage and said: . “1. bet I can tell, you the first question they asked you about your plan “. He said: “ What was the question?” I said: “The first question they all asked you was, Who is going to win ‘?” That, of course, merely illustrates what is the fact. That is, no major political party in this country today is interested in electoral justice. Their attitudes to electoral change are dominated toy self-interest, and unenlightened selfinterest at that.

I did not have the opportunity to speak on the previous legislation which this Bill is intended to rectify in some degree, but I want to express my disappointment with the Government which apparently is suggesting it is interested in electoral reform and constitutional reform but which shows no sign of doing anything to correct the anomalies which were revealed in the count for the Senate election early this year. The Government and the other political parties are not a scrap interested in remedying the electoral system which deprives half a million Australians of any representation in another place. If other political parties were interested in electoral justice, they would want those half a million Australians - one in eleven - to have representation in the other place. But they are so uninterested that their sole objective appears to be to emasculate the Senate where these half million people do have some representation, and increase the dominating power of the lower House.

I have some sympathy with the Australian Labour Party in its complaints about the proposed redistribution. On the other hand, I have no sympathy with it. I know a little bit about tactics. Some people have suggested that, at one stage, I knew too much about tactics. At times in this House I have heard people refer slightingly to members of the Country Party as peasants. But in the negotiations for redistribution, they could have played the Australian Labour Party off a break. The tactics of the Country Party in the struggle over redistribution were so far superior to those of the Australian Labour Party that it was a shame to witness the spectacle. As regards the complaints of the Australian Labour Party about the proposed redistribution, it had the chance of a better one, and it allowed the Country Party - and I give the Country Party full credit for its tactical skill - to inveigle it-

Senator Prowse:

– The peasants.

Senator McMANUS:

– Yes, the Australian Labour Party allowed the peasants to inveigle it into a trap. It walked into the trap with its eyes wide open. The previous redistribution was thrown out and now the Australian Labour Party has one infinitely worse. What is the good of complaining? In good Australian, when you are down you are down; and there is no use in complaining when it is your own fault.

As Senator Gair said, a lot of claptrap has been talked on the question of one vote one value. I believe in the principle of one vote one value in the terms of the amendment, where it is possible. There is no one vote one value at Australian Labour Party conferences - and I have been at plenty of them. We did not give the unions and branches representation on the principle of one vote one value, although it was practicable to give them a lot better representation than they had. Four delegates is the most that any union gets on the Trades Hall Council in Melbourne. There is not one vote one value there, nor is there on the Federal Executive of the Australian Labour Party. There are two delegates from each State on the Federal Executive of the Australian Labour Party and six delegates from each State at the Federal . Conference. The only political party that has one vote one value or anywhere near it in its federal conference is the Democratic Labour Party.

I would remind my friends in this chamber that when I was defeated in a Senate election some years ago I polled 200,000 first preference votes. In the whole of Tasmania there were 180,000 voters. The 180,000 voters in Tasmania elected 10 senators, but although I got 20,000 votes more than that, I did not get a seat. When I mentioned this in the Senate, Senator O’Byrne said: “ Hear, hear “. Apparently he strongly approves of a system whereby 180,000 Tasmanians elected 10 senators and I did not get a seat with 200,000 votes. How can members of the Labour Party say they are in favour of the one vote one value principle? I am a true Democrat. I am in favour of one vote one value as far as that can be achieved, and I can claim to have done something in this regard.

Years ago I was one of four people who arranged or engineered what is known in Victoria as the two-for-one principle. The four people who organised this were myself, the late Sir Gordon Snow, Tom Holway - to whom the Liberal Party should have erected a statue rather than expelling him from the Party for what he did - and Mr. Lovegrove. We organised a system in Victoria under which application of the principle of one vote one value was possible - or the nearest thing to it. In Victoria, there were two State seats for each Federal seat. I can only regret that what we achieved then has been thrown away by the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labour Party, in the same way as the Federal organisation of the Party has thrown it away. The peasants have inveigled them into a trap. Tactically, the Country Party has put it all over the members of the Australian Labour Party. It got them to join it in throwing out the two-for-one principle, and now there is going to be a redistribution which they call a gerrymander. How can members of the Labour Party complain when their wounds are self inflicted? It is regrettable, but they have to face the facts.

This proposed redistribution, like the proposed referendum, is based on selfishness. For the last week or so the Press has been critical of the Democratic Labour Party and has said our attitude towards the referendum has something to do with the fact that we might’ get more seats in the Senate. Nothing has been said of the fact that other major parties expect to get a lot of seats. Apparently that is all right. I am glad that the Press expects a higher standard of conduct from the Democratic Labour Party than from other parties. But I suggest to those who are engaged in organising this redistribution - which, whatever is said, is in b degree a gerrymander - that you can never be sure how these things will turn out. A system providing for an increased number of seats may not better the Country Party as much as it thinks it will. In some of the big electorates which the Country Party holds there is a big rural area and there are one or two big towns. If you cut off some of the big rural area, the influence of the big towns becomes greater. I know one prominent Liberal personality who has contended to me - not in this Parliament, but elsewhere - that the party which is going to do best out of this redistribution is the Liberal Party. He says he believes that the redistribution will result in the Liberals achieving a situation where they will be able to govern in their own right. These redistributions cannot always be managed in the way you want them to be.

Senator Kennelly:

– The honorable senator should know more about it than that. How can they govern in their own right?

Senator McMANUS:

– Senator Kennelly and I sat on an executive in 1948, and we heard a fixer say that the redistribution in that year would keep Labour in power for 20 years. We heard Mr. Fixer say very proudly: “ I will guarantee that it will keep Labour in power for 20 years “. Somebody on the executive, who was in the Federal Parliament, said that they might try, when the relevant Bill came before the House, to take a few votes from here and put them there so that certain seats could be fixed or made right. Senator Kennelly said: “ You cannot do these things. You have to be fair”. The gentleman concerned, who was on our State executive, said: “ Of course you can. I make no bones about saying that I will see to it that my seat is safe “. But he lost out the following year and has never since been able to win his seat back. So I say to the people who think this gerrymander is going to work out in the way they expect it to work out: You can never be certain. Sometimes these, things backfire and often there is a sting in the tail. In my view, it is better to play it straight.

I want to say only one thing more. There is a proposal under this redistribution measure to increase the membership of another place by a certain number, and another proposal, of which we will hear more, to improve the situation by a scheme which will give a lot more members. I fail to see the necessity for the increases which are being proposed in the membership of this Parliament. In Australia we have 720 members of Parliament to govern 11 million people. In Great Britain there are 650 members to govern 54 million people. Yet we are told that an increase in the numbers here is vital. Look at any country in the world, and we will not find anything to justify this proposed increase. We are the most over-governed and overparliamentarianised country in the world today. The reason given for what is being proposed - that it is to break the nexus between the Senate and the other place - is not the real reason. The purpose of the referendum proposals is to retain the nexus between. the Liberal Party and the Country Party. The purpose of the Bill is not to wipe out a nexus, but rather to retain a nexus. I say to members of the Labour Party that again tactically they are falling, into a trap. Their political object should be to divide. They are supporting their opponents and welding them together.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator has been trying to do a little dividing himself tonight.

Senator McMANUS:

– As I said before, I have some little knowledge of tactics. On one occasion, some people said I had too much. The redistribution early this year was based , purely upon selfishness and not upon justice. Other proposals for electoral reform which are proposed are also based upon selfishness and not upon justice. I believe that the people of Australia are entitled to something better than that.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

.- in reply - I was pleasantly surprised to find that although the debate ranged fairly wide, it did not range as wide as I thought it may have. We have heard expositions of a bill which is not yet before us. However, that was to be expected. Early in his speech, Senator Kennelly mentioned that although the Government had said it was not all right to have one vote one value, it was all right for the wool growers to act on that principle in the forthcoming referendum. Although there should be scarcely any need for me to do so, I remind the honorable senator that the Government did not lay down the scheme for the referendum. It was a recommendation of the wool growers.

Senator Kennelly:

– Ah.

Senator McKELLAR:

– That is the fact. The honorable senator does not have to believe it, but it is the truth. There is none so blind as he who will not see. The honorable senator may not like it, but he will have to lump it. I also remind Senator Kennelly that the present law permits the Distribution Commissioners to depart from the quota by 20 per cent., above or below. The honorable senator should be well aware of that fact. The Government has adhered to this principle which has been included in legislation since. 1902. The margin of 20 per cent, allows the Distribution Commissioners the necessary freedom to apply the other factors set out in section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Senator Gair:

– The 20 per cent, provision was not in the Act in 1902.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– Now I shall proceed to deal with the honorable senator who is interjecting. 1 was intrigued to hear Senator Gair adopting such a righteous attitude in view of the fact that he comes from Queensland, a State with a reputation more notorious than that of any other State for gerrymandering over the years.

Senator Morris:

– Except in the last few years.

Senator McKELLAR:

– Quite so. Just after 1949 under a Labour Government Queensland had metropolitan seats containing 10,795 electors and country seats containing 4,613 electors. The variation was not 20 per cent, but approximately 50 per cent.

Senator Gair:

– They were not seats held by the Australian Labour Party.

Senator McKELLAR:

– But now the honorable senator says what a dreadful thing it is that the Federal Government should continue to abide by the 20 per cent, variation provision in the Act. In Queensland, after 1953, one city seat had 20,823 electors and a country seat had 4,500 electors. Other times, other manners. I am wondering whether Senator Gair became so fed up with that state of affairs in Queensland that he decided to become a Federal senator.

In Western Australia, after 1955, metropolitan seats had 9,369. electors and some’ country seats had only 1,232 electors. The differential in Western Australia - under a Labour Government, as was the case in Queensland at the times I have referred to -was not 10 per cent, but about 900 per cent. It seems that honorable senators opposite believe that such practices are all right if they happen under a Labour Government. The facts I have given should be sufficient to show that if any moral is to bc drawn, it is that we have a reformed senator in our midst. We are glad to welcome him. Obviously a redistribution is necessary. Senator Gair wanted to know why we could not hold an election straight away.

Senator Gair:

– A redistribution.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I beg the honorable senator’s pardon - a redistribution. Obviously, a redistribution must be effected if the forthcoming referendum is carried. I think all honorable senators will agree on that. Why, then, should we have a redistribution now and another redistribution in 12 months’ time? That is the answer to the honorable senator. Senator McManus has said that he will vote for the amendment. However, he did support the Government by saying that union voting does not provide for one vote one value. Therefore he supports the action that the Government is taking. I might add that we are very glad to have his support.

In his proposed amendment, Senator Kennelly provides for a reduction of the voting age from 21 years to 18 years. He is quite correct in saying that in World War I and World War II the voting age was reduced so that soldiers under the age of 21 could vote. I dare say that if we were faced with the same position again, with so many men fighting in defence of this country, without doubt the same action would be taken. Although the Government believes that there may be some justification for reducing the franchise age of servicemen who . are at present on active service outside Australia, it believes that there is little justification for a general reduction in the franchise age of voters.

Senator Gair put the view that young people have a far greater knowledge of politics than many older people who are entitled to vote. I -think he is probably correct in that supposition. In most countries throughout the world, the franchise age is coincidental with the legal majority of individuals. The fixing of the voting age can never be more than an arbitrary decision. Australia is not alone in determining that that age should be 21 years. Some young citizens may reach political maturity and be capable of selecting representatives before 21 years. On the other hand, a very large body of young people are not sufficiently mature to do so before they reach the age of 21 years.

For the reasons I have stated, it is fairly obvious that the Government cannot see its way clear to accept the amendment moved by Senator Kennelly.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Senator Kennelly’s amendment) be omitted.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

ClauseI agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I wish to ask a question. I think this might be the appropriate time to ask it. Honorable senators will recall that in the second reading debate there was some discussion about men in the armed forces voting at the age of 18 years. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) said that the Government would have some sympathy with the men in uniform today. I now ask him what the practical politics of this matter would be. If men in the armed forces voted, how could anybody determine whether or not a particular voter was 21 years of age? I am wondering whether that was not the idea behind giving the vote to all people in uniform in the two world wars. I would imagine that in this situation there would not be a roll as such. If everybody in uniform did not have the right to vote, how could anybody say that this person is 20 years and 11 months and that that person is over 21 years? If the Government were facing an election now, it would have to face up to this problem in respect of the men who are serving in Malaya and Vietnam.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– In answer to Senator Willesee’s question, I say that I cannot recall whether every person in uniform in the two world wars had a vote or whether there was an age limit. In any event, I do not see that it would be beyond the bounds of possibility to check the ages of people in uniform. Their ages are given on enlistment. If it were necessary to check their ages - I am not saying that it is -I Jo not think it would be impossible.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 2a.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I move -

After clause 2, insert the following new clause- “ 2a. Section 19 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-sections: - (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. 1 (2.) For the purposes of the distribution it shall be so arranged that votes shall be as nearly as possible of equal value, but the commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, provided that in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-tenth more or one-tenth less.’.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to alter the present provision of the Act which allows the number of electors in an electorate to be one-fifth more or less than the quota. That means, in effect, that with a quota of 50,000 electors one electorate could have 60,000 electors and another one could have 40,000 electors. We believe that the allowable margin over or under the quota should be one-tenth instead of one-fifth. As the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) pointed out in his reply to the second reading debate, it is true that the provision relating to the one-fifth margin up or down has mot been altered, but, of course, the Commonwealth Electoral Bill which was introduced last May placed responsibility on the Distribution Commissioners to take greater cognisance of the one-fifth margin up or down, lt was clear indication to everyone interested in redistribution that the Parliament was telling those to whom it gave the responsibility to redistribute the boundaries, to place greater emphasis on the one-fifth margin and, in fact, to see that in certain instances the one-fifth margin up or down was applied. Although in the past this margin could have been applied, I cannot remember one case where there was such a differentiation.

It is true that as the years have gone by redistributions have been made of the original electorates. I think that two of the outer metropolitan electorates in my own State have over 100,000 electors, whereas some inner industrial electorates have 38,000 electors. When redistributions were made, the Act gave the Distribution Commissioners the right to apply the one-fifth margin if they thought fit. But they are in a different position today. The Government says that’ it has done no more than emphasise the differentiation that can be applied by those who redistribute the States into various electorates. If it is not the intention of the Government that the Commissioners use this power, why was it put into the Act? If there was a valid reason for applying this margin in an electorate, say, in Western Australia, the Commissioners could have done it, irrespective of the party membership of the candidate who represented the electorate. But now the Commissioners have the duty to take particular care in applying the one-fifth margin in the redistribution of electorates. We desire to put a proposal that can in no way affect the Commissioners in their work. We desire to reduce the margin that they have to play with from one-fifth to one-tenth. I believe that there have been very few electorates in which there has been a disparity of one-tenth. I am referring to the time when the actual redistribution has been made. The adoption of our proposal could mean that the people would have greater respect for the government in office when redistribution takes place.

If I remember correctly, the 1 2 members of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review supported the contention that there should not be a greater disparity than onetenth in any electorate in Australia. When one considers that the Committee comprised six members from the Government parties and six members from the Opposition, it seems that we are able to get more democratic thought when we are sitting around the table than when we are sitting in the Parliament.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Queensland

– I rise to support the amendment. I believe that it is a reasonable compromise between the existing provision and what is proposed in the amending Bill. In ‘the course of my remarks in the second reading debate I said that from experience I know it is utterly impossible to have a redistribution that would provide for one vote one value, particularly in States with sparse population. Victoria, which is a small State and which is heavily populated, is more likely to get near to achieving that aim than are Queensland and Western Australia where the populations are distributed. I believe that the 10 per cent, margin is a good compromise and that it should be accepted by the Government. The 5 per cent, margin may cause some difficulty to the Distribution Commissioners in drawing up boundaries,- but the 10 per cent, margin, exercised with discretion and only in cases where it was difficult to make up die numbers, could justifiably be adopted.

In the second reading debate I spoke of the necessity of having some margin, but I could not justify a 20 per cent, margin. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) in his reply referred to Queensland being notorious for its redistributions. I would like to take the opportuntiy of informing the Minister that in 1953 and 1956 when I, as Premier of Queensland, led the Australian Labour Party to the elections, we were elected with 54 per cent, and 55 per cent, of the total vote. So that result could not be credited to the redistribution. I ask the Minister: How long is it since the Federal Government has been elected with a majority of the total votes?

Senator Willesee:

– Or the Playford Government in South Australia.

Senator GAIR:

– I am concerned at the moment with the record of the present coalition Government in the Federal sphere. It is a long time since a Federal Government could claim a record such as I enjoyed, as Premier of Queensland, of having 54 or 55 per cent, of the total vote. So redistribution of boundaries in Queensland had no bearing upon the results of elections in those two years, at any rate. I believe that this amendment is reasonable. It would facilitate a proper distribution and it would refute any suggestion by the public that the Bill was being introduced for the purpose of assisting the Country Party to retain the seats that it holds and to get additional seats.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– It is true that the Constitutional Review Committee recommended that a variation of 10 per cent, be permitted, but this recommendation has never been accepted by the Government. It is not accepted now for the various reasons that have been given not only tonight but also at some length on occasions on which this matter has been debated in both chambers.

I should like to bring one matter to the notice of honorable senators. The Act as amended includes a new provision with reference to the trend of population changes within a State, and this is important. It could well be that as a result of the location of a mining area in an electorate the population of a town or district might grow very rapidly. This is a matter that the Distribution Commissioners may take into account.

As this matter has been canvassed at some length, I do not think that there is any purpose in discussing it here tonight and I suggest that we have a vote on this amendment as quickly as possible.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– It is all very well for the Minister to suggest that we do this or that. What will be done is what the Committee wants. The Minister said that this matter was discussed at length at some other time. No doubt he is referring to the episode in May, when a second reading speech was made in the Senate at 9.51 p.m. and the Bill was passed through its final stage at 5.6 a.m. the following day.

Senator Wright:

– I am very interested to be reminded of that, because I spoke on the Bill and I had not any recollection that it was a night time effort.

Senator KENNELLY:

– If the honorable senator will look up the report of his speech he will note the time at which he commenced to speak. It is of no use for the Minister to say that we should rush this measure through the chamber now. Today is 16th November and we have been told that the Senate will possibly rise on 3rd December, so we have a lot of time in which to discuss this Bill. No one can tell me of anything more important in political life than the manner in which the electorate is cut up into seats and the number of electors in this or that division. This is vital. Grave changes could be made. The Minister should have told us that the previous Bill was brought in not in order that the Commissioners would of their own free will conduct a gerrymander but more or less in order to force them to do so. I am certain that the Minister and his adviser cannot inform this Committee of any electorate in which the number of electors varied 20 per cent, either above or below the numbers in the great bulk of electorates. It was one of the great achievements of the Distribution Commissioners that the numbers of electors in various divisions, even as between country and metropolitan areas, did not vary by more than one-tenth whether the divisions were large or small, with the possible exception of Kennedy in Queensland and Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. The Labour

Party is not anxious to delete the provision as to a one-tenth variation, because it is not causing any harm and it is not doing any injustice to any section of the people. It is to the credit of governments in the past that, when redistributions were made, there was mo thought of instructing the Commissioners to take into consideration a percentage variation, as they will be asked to do now.

The Minister said that one of the reasons for the alteration is that there might be a raining boom in an electorate. The possibility of a mining boom could be taken into account only when a redistribution was being made. Unfortunately, in this country mining has been a decaying industry and large numbers of people are not employed in it. Gold mining has declined and mechanisation of coal mining has been the cause of many thousands of men going out of the industry. If the Minister has any indication of a big gold strike, in a country area of Victoria, which will result in the Country Party getting more representatives in the Parliament, I suggest that he should not keep that information to himself. He should spread the good fortune amongst his colleagues on all sides.

Senator Gair:

– Perhaps he expects an influx of gold diggers on the Gold Coast.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I suggest with great respect that Senator Gair would know more than the Minister about that. It does not help the cause which is so loudly espoused if it may be said that a proposed redistribution will be a gerrymander. All I can say is that if it is not supposed to be as I have classified it, what was the reason for the amendment of the Bill?

I hope the Senate will support my proposed amendment, which will mean that the differentiation can be only one-tenth more or one-tenth less than the quota. Even if the amendment is carried I hope that the margin discretion will be exercised in extremely few cases, and only where there is some very good reason to give an electorate that margin over or under the quota for the other electorates in the State concerned.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Kennelly’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator T.C. Drake-Brockman.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– In view of the defeat of my proposed amendment, - I withdraw my proposal to insert new clause 2b. because it was consequential on the acceptance of that amendment. I now move -

After clause 2, insert the following new clause: - “ 2c. Section 39 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) the word twenty-one’ and inserting in its stead the word eighteen ‘.”

This raises the question of people of 18 years of age being allowed to vote. I was most interested to hear the Minister say that the Government may give the right to vote to men of that age in the Services. I sincerely hope that it does. My proposal now is that everyone over the age of 18 years be allowed to vote.

I think that my proposal should be accepted because in present day society boys or girls can do very many things at 18 years of age that in years gone by they were not allowed to do until they were 21. When the first election for the Commonwealth Parliament was held the voting age was set at 21 years, and both men and women voted on that occasion. That system, however, did not operate in many States at that time. I think in some States women did not have a vote, particularly in elections for the Legislative Councils. I am trying to recall to mind the history that I learned, but one always gambles a little when doing that. I think that in one State-

Senator Gair:

– I think South Australia was the first State to give women the franchise.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, and I would think there were States in which women did not have a vote for the popular House. Because a voting age of 21 was accepted when the first election for the Federal Parliament was held in 1901, that does not mean that in this year 1965 we should be glued to the fact that a person must be 21 before he can vote. The Government should consider this matter.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator DrakeBrockman). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative. (The Chairman having reported accordingly) -

page 1551

ADJOURNMENT

Television - Vietnam

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - 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.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I wish to raise a matter which in the last two days has been the subject of litigation in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its equity jurisdiction and about which a decision was given this afternoon. Mr. Justice Myers refused to grant an injunction to television station

TCN Channel 9 to restrain television station ATN Channel 7, Sydney, from using bingo cards now used by Channel 9 for a televsion show. His Honour said the bingo game on television was illegal and therefore this was not a case in which the Court could intervene.

I have been a constant critic in this Parliament of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board because I do not believe it has been carrying out its functions according to the terms of the Broadcasting and Television Act. This game of bingo, commonly referred to as housie, is a case in point which demands a public inquiry so that it might be ascertained why the Board did not take action to stop this programme being introduced and continued by the television station.

As I have said, bingo is a form of housie. I understand that two American gentlemen recently came to Australia and sold this programme, not to the television station, but direct to the sponsor. Telecasting of the game began on Channel 9 in Sydney on 27th September, some six weeks ago. Until today, it has remained on the programme obviously because the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has done nothing about it despite the Board’s obligations under the Act and despite the standards the Board itself has laid down. The standards in this connection are set out at page 15 of the Board’s Television Programme Standards. Standard 28 states -

Any contest included in a programme or in an advertisement must offer the opportunity for all contestants to win on the basis of ability and skill, and not merely on chance.

Standard 32 states -

All programmes should be designed to attract audiences on their merits. Any programme planned to draw audiences solely in the hope of individual gain or reward is undesirable.

According to the Board’s standards, it was not a matter of illegality as Mr. Justice Myers has determined but merely a matter of the programme being of that particular type and being undesirable. But, of course, the Board has some statutory obligations under the Act itself. Section 99 (2.) of the Broadcasting and Television Act states -

If the programmes broadcast from a commercial broadcasting station or televised from a commercial television station are not, in whole or in part, in accordance with the standards determined by the

Board, the licensee shall, if so directed by the Board, vary the programmes so that they shall conform with those standards.

I should like to know what directions in fact were given by the Board to vary this programme in any way at all. What was the situation in relation to this matter? Obviously, the game of bingo on the programme was merely a game of chance. People would obtain cards from a particular service station or from a chain store and mark the cards according to the numbers called out on the television programme by the compere. In the session lasting half an hour there could be, and no doubt there were, a number of cards completely filled in. Those who took part in the programme and filled in the cards sent what they thought were the winning entries in to the television station. I think they also had to answer some simple question, for instance, relating to decimal currency conversion.

Obviously, it would be impossible for each person who had completed a card according to the numbers called out by the programme compere, to obtain a prize, so the obvious way of picking the winner would be to choose the first envelope opened. Naturally, a competitor would not send in a card unless it was completed or filled in. The selection would be merely a matter of jumbling all the envelopes submitted after the game had been played, picking one out of the heap and then saying X was the winner. This, of course, is in direct contravention of the standards I have quoted which have been laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

In fairness to the other two commercial television stations operating in Sydney - Channel 7 and Channel 10 - I can understand their attitude in not following Channel 9. First, they must have known this game of chance was contrary to the Board’s standards. Therefore, they did not present such a programme. In all probability, they were under the impression that the game was illegal. But six weeks have elapsed and nothing has been done to stop this programme either by the Chief Secretary of New South Wales or the Board. I can well understand the management of another station reaching frustration point and contemplating flouting the standards of the Board to retain an audience.

Time after time it has been suggested in this Parliament and in other places that time slots other than at peak times should be made available by stations to give Australian talent an opportunity of breaking through, but partically every time such a suggestion has been made it has been said on behalf of the stations that no time slots were available. Yet here we have a case in point where a television game of chance was brought into the country, purchased by a sponsor, and had a time slot found for it immediately. A stage has been reached when one must surely draw the inference that the Board is fearful of the influence of Sir Frank Packer, the controller of Channel 9, or is considerably influenced by what he wants to put on this television station. Last Thursday the Chief Secretary of New South Wales said in the State Parliament that he had not given approval of this show to the television station. He certainly did not disapprove either but the Board, by allowing this programme to continue for six weeks without doing anything about it, should surely be castigated for its lethargy and complacent attitude. All I ask - and all that stations which are genuinely interested in meeting the requirements of the Board’s standards ask - is that the Board maintain and rigidly enforce its own standards and rules.

It was once said that the general public could be excused for being under the impression that Mr. R. M. Ansett dictates Government policy in relation to civil aviation. I think it is fair to say that the general public can be forgiven for being under the impression that Sir Frank Packer exerts undue influence on this Government and on the Australian Broadcasting Control Board so far as television policy is concerned. Now that the game has been declared illegal, T trust that this programme will be stopped immediately by the Board. But I suggest that the matter is so serious that a public inquiry should be held into the whole affair.

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

– Mr. President, housie, or bingo as it is now called, is not new in this country. I should think that Senator McClelland knows, as we all know, that the game was played long before he and I came on the scene. It is played in the State of New South Wales particularly for the purpose of raising funds for many good causes.

Senator Webster:

– It is illegal in Victoria.

Senator McClelland:

– What was the good cause in this case?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Let me develop my argument a little. I am merely pointing out that bingo is not a new game which has come into the world. We all know that bingo has raised large sums of money for many good causes - I will not enumerate them - in New South Wales. I do not think we need to be pious about the question of the playing of housie or bingo. Indeed, as the honorable senator himself indicated in this particular instance some degree of skill was involved, I gather, because contestants had to answer a question. All of us have bought tickets in competitions. I have never purchased a ticket in a raffle. “I always buy tickets in competitions, and it is one of the facts of life that the sales of such tickets support many good causes. I merely mention that fact in passing.

It is true that TCN Channel 9 started a programme entitled “TV Bingo”. It was the game of housie called bingo. ATN Channel 7 then proposed to start a similar show. If my reading of the newspapers in my own State is accurate, Channel 7 indicated that it would increase the value of the prize which could be won in this competition, or gamble, or game, or bingo - whatever it was. TCN9 then applied to the Equity Court for an injunction to stop the ATN7 programme. The matter was before the court today. Mr. Justice Myers expressed the opinion that the game was illegal. Senator McClelland has said that the standards laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board provide that stations must not do anything contrary to the law. I think the honorable senator was on much safer ground when he was quoting other sections of :he Broadcasting and Television Act. No doubt, the stations concerned will need to have regard to their own positions now that they have been told that bingo is contrary to the law because, as I have said, the standards of the Broadcasting Control Board provide that television stations must not act contrary to law.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) has told me that he is seeking information on the matter. That is as far as I can go on the substantive issues involved in the matter raised by Senator McClelland. But I find it difficult to follow the reasoning of the honorable senator in this matter. Sir Frank Packer and Mr. Ansett were brought into the argument. I think that the honorable senator, in introducing their names, was stretching it a little. The fact is that a judgment has been given in the Equity Court on this matter. The companies concerned will have to examine their positions now. The Postmaster-General himself has said that he is seeking information on the matter. I think that, in those circumstances, there is nothing I can add to what I have said.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to give either the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, Senator Gorton, or the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Henty, the opportunity to clear up a question that surrounds the position in Vietnam at the present time. At question time today, Senator Tangney asked Senator Gorton whether peace terms had been offered some time ago to the United States of America. She had heard such a report in the lunch time radio news broadcast today. In giving his reply, the Minister said, in effect, that the fact that this report was heard in the news session did not mean that it was accurate. Of course, we all accepted that statement that this report would not be accurate. The statement was published in the “ Australian “ some weeks ago. Nothing was said because it was the statement’, 1 believe, of a radio announcer or reporter who stated that he was told something to this effect by the American Ambassador to the United Nations just before his death.

Unfortunately, in tonight’s Press this statement is somewhat confirmed from Washington. It is admitted that these peace talks were offered some 12 months ago. When we consider this matter and remember that statements have been made by the President of the United States, repeated in this House and, indeed, contained in the last statement on foreign affairs made to the Parliament, that America is prepared to negotiate anywhere at any time on the question of peace in Vietnam, it makes us wonder who is telling the truth in this affair and whether we are not engaged in a war more filthy than the words “ the dirty war “ imply.

It is a serious matter if we sent young Australian troops to Vietnam at a time when there was the possibility of avoiding this by peace talks. The Minister said in reply to a question I asked on Thursday that the casualty rate of Australian troops in Vietnam in one particular engagement was one in twenty. It seems really scandalous and criminal if we sent our troops to Vietnam at the very time when peace talks were in the offing, and we never accepted the opportunity to have those talks. We can suggest only that the Australian Government was unaware of this position. I raise the matter now to ask whether the Australian Government was aware of it. Can we get some clarity on the matter? The report in this evening’s edition of the “ Sun “ states -

Washington, Monday.-The State Department today admitted having turned down a North Vietnamese offer of peace talks. Previously it had denied having done so. The offer was made 12 months ago through the Secretary-General of the United Nations U Thant.

The offer of talks was turned down because the Americans said that they thought that North Vietnam was not interested seriously in peace talks. It is a different proposition today. They are prepared to talk unconditionally on any question. The article goes on to say that the news reporter concerned had had a long talk with Mr. Stevenson shortly before he died in London. The article continues -

Mr. Stevenson had said U Thant had privately obtained North Vietnamese agreement to send an emissary to talk with a U.S. representative in Rangoon. “ Someone in Washington insisted that this be postponed until after the Presidential election.” he wrote. “When the election was over U Thant again pursued the matter. Hanoi was still willing to send its man. “But Defence Secretary McNamara . . . flatly opposed the attempt.”

In fairness to Mr. McNamara, I think I should say that he has long been blamed for this state of affairs. It has been stated that this situation was McNamara’s fault. According to the “ Daily Mirror “, Mr. McNamara said, without denying the report of his refusal - ‘ My position has long been know*. It is that we should search in every possible way for a peaceful settlement in Vietnam and should be prepared for unconditional discussions with the Governments concerned, in large groups or small ones, at any time and any place.

From that we gain the impression that Mr. McNamara was in disagreement with his Government, in that he favoured peace talks and his Government rejected the offer of such talks. The article in the Sydney “Sun” stated, speaking of U Thant -

He proposed an outright ceasefire, with a truce line to be drawn across not only Vietnam, but neighbouring Laos.

U Thant then made a remarkable suggestion: United States officials could write the terms of the ceasefire order, exactly as they saw fit, and he would announce it exactly in those words. Again, so Mr. Stevenson said, McNamara turned this down and from Secretary of State Rusk there was no response.

Mr. McNamara stated that he never turned down the proposal, but the article in the “ Daily Mirror “ points out that this was not the proposal of U Thant. U Thant said he thought he should not discuss the proposals. The American authorities admitted that some proposals made to U Thant were offered to them, but they would not disclose their nature. The article in the “ Sun “ stated -

The State Department spokesman, Mr. Mccloskey, today confirmed that U Thant’s offer was rejected because it was thought Hanoi was not sincere.

In the same article Mr. Mccloskey was reported as saying of the proposals -

If in our view they presented no conditions, our position would be in keeping with the President’s statement of unconditional discussions.

Apparently at the end of last year there was a willingness on the part of North Vietnam to discuss peace at Rangoon in Burma, and this proposal was turned down by America because, on the statement of a columnist, an election was pending there at that time. Afterwards it was again turned down by the American Government. We are prattling about peace negotiations now, but did we reject them on that occasion and send Australian troops to fight in this war although it was possible that we could have explored the possibilities of peace? It is scandalous if a proposal for peace negotiations was made and this Parliament was not informed of the proposal at the time when it had to make a decision to confirm or otherwise the action of the Australian Government in sending Australian troops to Vietnam. We should not be called upon to make such vital decisions without a full knowledge of the facts. of the matter.

Let me ask some questions. Is America keeping us informed of. what is going on? Did the Australian Government know the position then? If it did not know the position, then a further question arises: Are we taking vital decisions without having the full confidence of the countries we support? If the Australian Government did know of this position, why was not the Senate told of it at the time when it was discussing the ministerial statement which announced the sending of Australian troops to Vietnam? The article in the Sydney “ Sun “ states that America asked U Thant not to give publicity to the offer at that particular time, because the position of the South Vietnamese Government was so shaky that publicity would demoralise it and have repercussions on the fighting forces of South Vietnam. It seems that the question of whether to negotiate a peace is not a question between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, but between North Vietnam and America. The war in Vietnam that we are supporting is recognised as America’s war.

In May the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) made a ministerial statement announcing the sending of Australian troops to Vietnam. At page 1108 of “Hansard” he is reported as saying that he was in discussion with the President of the United States of America at the end of the previous year, which was approximately the time when the peace offer was made. The Prime Minister assured the Parliament that there was complete confidence between America and Australia in the discussions on Vietnam. In March of this year the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) said in another place, in reply to a question -

The Australian Government is in the happy position of enjoying such a state of confidence with the United States Government that it enables us to be in close and constant communication with it. 1 do not propose to talk about the details of private communications, but I can assure the honorable member and the House that in every phase of the operations of South Vietnam we do have the opportunity to express a view and we are in contant communication with the United States.

The Prime Minister said that he was in communication with the President of United States and the Minister for External Affairs said that we have the complete confidence of the United States and know all that is happening on the Vietnam question. In reply to a question asked in another place by the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister, speaking on this matter, said -

What I was directing myself to on each of these occasions was a suggestion, about which some people have been quite vocal, that the United States, instead of fighting, should negotiate - negotiate with an enemy which has violated its obligations in relation to a cease fire, negotiate with a country that has ignored its international obligations; and negotiate with people who will keep on shooting when the Americans have stopped shooting. That seems to me to be a fantasy, and if I am the only Prime Minister left to denounce it, I denounce it.

We had the statement that there is complete confidence between Australia and United States. The Prime Minister said that he was not prepared to negotiate a peace treaty with North Vietnam, which was confirmation of the action of the United States in rejecting the North Vietnamese proposal. Our troops are serving in Vietnam today, and it seems that we sent them there without knowing that there was an offer of peace negotiations. There has been a loss of Australian lives which could have been unnecessary if there was a possibility of negotiating a peace settlement. If there was a proposal for a peace settlement and we did not know of it, I say we should hesitate before becoming further involved in this war, because it would seem that we have not the complete confidence of the Governments that we are supporting. We should know of moves for peace which are made from time to time.

The article I have referred to explains what would be the attitude of America if the opportunity for peace negotiations occurred again. I say that Australia should be taking the initiative in seeing whether something cannot be done to bring tha opposing parties around the conference table. Great Britain sent negotiators to the warring factions to see whether that could be done. We now have the information that opportunities for negotiations have been open to America for the last 12 months.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

.- I do not think I have ever heard a really weighty question - one which bears so heavily on the lives and property of so many people and on the actions of government - put forward on such a flimsy basis as we have heard from Senator Cavanagh tonight. At question time today Senator Tangney raised the matter of a broadcast which I had not heard, but about which I later made inquiries. From my inquiries I was led to believe that there had been a broadcast in which the broadcaster had said that a journalist had written and stated that another man, now dead, had told the journalist something before he died. Two matters of hearsay are involved, neither of which, obviously, is capable of proof because the former Ambassador involved is now dead.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is confirmed.

Senator GORTON:

– We are told it is confirmed because articles have appeared in the Sydney “ Daily Mirror “ and Sydney “ Sun “ which are regarded by Senator Cavanagh as confirmation. This is the basis of some type of statement - taking it for granted on that sort of evidence - that there might have been peace negotiations from Hanoi which were turned down. Does anybody imagine that if the Government in Hanoi had wished to conduct peace negotiations, and had made suggestions along those lines which were turned down, as a matter of the greatest propaganda value it would not then have stated that it had made the approach which was turned down? Of course it is exactly what the Hanoi Government would have done then and would do now.

What may be the basis for such nebulous suggestions is that the President of the United States of America stated that he would not accept then and will not accept now the condition that he withdraw all United States troops from Vietnam before entering into peace negotiations. President Johnson has publicly stated that he is prepared at any time unconditionally to discuss a method of bringing a just peace to Vietnam. This offer has not been accepted by the Government of Hanoi which has had every chance publicly to accept it. If it wished to do so, undoubtedly it would make that public acceptance.

The situation is now that the public statement has been made by the President of the United States, has been supported by this Government and has not been accepted by the Government of Hanoi which requires merely to make one official statement of its own if it wishes to enter into peace negotiations. The Hanoi Government has not made that statement. I suggest that these facts overbear what Senator Cavanagh may have gathered from an article reporting on an article written by somebody else in another newspaper in another country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.4 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 November 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1965/19651116_senate_25_s30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant