Senate
3 November 1967

26th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2117

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for External Affairs. I direct his attention to the following question which I asked him on 24th August:

In view of the conflicting reports of turmoil, political unrest and perhaps revolution in China, would the Government prepare and submit to the Senate a full statement of what, to the best of its knowledge, is going on in China?

The Minister indicated that he would endeavour to obtain such information as was known and would certainly bring my request to the notice of the Minister for External Affairs. Can the Minister tell us what the position is? Will a statement on this most important matter be made? If so, when will it be made?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I did bring this suggestion to the notice of the Minister for External Affairs. That, in fact, is all I did do. I would add that with such a complex and complicated situation as exists in China, with various factions fighting against each other, almost no-one could give definitive information that went beyond beliefs based on known facts. 1 imagine that the Minister for External Affairs thought that there would be no finite value in making a report to the Parliament on something that was so subject to interpretation of opinion and partial fact. There will not be time for me to take up the matter with the Minister for External Affairs before the Senate rises. Perhaps the Minister could write to the honourable senator and tell him what the position is.

page 2117

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services a question which follows upon a question I asked yesterday relating to Commonwealth grants to South Australia over the last 3 years for homes for the aged. Can the Minister now supply the details?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yesterday morning during question time Senator Laught asked for certain details relating to payments under the Aged Persons Homes Act to organisations in South Australia. In the last 3 years, 136 grants have been approved to organisations in South Australia to a total value of $7,525,129. The total number of persons for whom : accommodation has been provided by these grants is 2,315.

Individual figures for each of the three years together with details for the same period for the Commonwealth, which may be useful for comparative purposes, are as follows:

page 2117

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, relates to the statement made by the Minister for Civil Aviation yesterday to the effect that the Botany Bay runway at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport at Mascot will have to be lengthened to about 12,500 feet before it can take the Jumbo jets to be purchased by Qantas Airways Ltd. Was the Minister notified by the Australian Federation of Air

Pilots as long ago as May of last year that the runway would have to be extended to at least 12,000 feet? Was he also advised in July 1966 that a British expert on civil aviation, Mr P. G. Masefield, had stated that the newer aircraft operating in the early 1970s clearly would require runways in excess of 12,000 feet? Have New South Wales, and Sydney in particular, once again been discriminated against by the Commonwealth Government? Is it fair to say that with this latest development Sydney is really dragging the chain in its fight to maintain its supremacy as Australia’s principal international airport and main commercial city?

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

– It is true that the Minister for Civil Aviation made a statement in another place yesterday. I propose, at the appropriate time, according to the business of the Senate and with its concurrence, to repeat that statement here. The question anticipates the contents of the statement and therefore at this stage I shall not comment beyond saying that there has never been any doubt in statements made by the Minister and by other members of the Government that there is a clear intention to continue the Kingsford-Smith Airport in Sydney as the major international airport in Australia. Other matters raised in the question were put more in the form of a statement than a question. I suggest that the proper course would be to wait until the statement by the Minister for Civil Aviation is before the Senate. Discussion on the matter can then be taken up. I repeat that in the minds of members of the Government there has never been any question that Mascot Airport will remain the major international airport in Australia, and the statement that I shall make on behalf of my colleague will indicate this once more.

page 2118

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the number of Bills still to be dealt with, will the Minister advise honourable senators of the proposed programme of sitting days for the Senate, and of the day on which the sitting will end?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– That information will be given in due course.

page 2118

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I would like to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation a question. I realise that the subject of it will have to be looked into and that a reply cannot be given immediately. Will the Minister ask his colleague to let the Senate have an estimate of the capital value at today’s date of all the 2,970 aircraft registered in Australia at 30th June 1967, as set out in the latest annual report of the Minister for Civil Aviation? Will he have this information subdivided so as to show the number and value of those aircraft registered for airline purposes, which appear to total 169, and those purchased for private use by business executives and others who place a high value on their time and services?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Normally, I would ask the honourable senator to put such a question on notice. However, as I expect the Senate to rise very shortly, and certainly before I shall be able to get an answer for the honourable senator who seeks information as at today’s date, all I can say is that I shall attempt to get the information and have it conveyed to him.

page 2118

QUESTION

ORD RIVER SCHEME

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I ask whether the Minister has seen a report from Kununurra, in the Ord River area, which appeared in yesterday’s ‘West Australian’ and which referred to the recent decision on the Ord River scheme in these terms:

Townspeople and farmers alike are astounded that the decision should have come at this time when morale has never been lower. The yield from the recent cotton harvest which has just been completed was down on last year and a number of cotton farmers have been facing financial difficulties.

In view of this report direct from the Ord area, will the Minister indicate whether there are any more important reasons why the aid should be approved and made public at this time?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

– The honourable senator asks me to deal with a matter reported in the ‘West Australian’. I will not vouch for what appears in the “West Australian’. The report may or may not be correct. It has nothing to do with this Parliament although it may be of interest to some people in Western Australia. The West Australian’ is perfectly entitled to print anything it wishes, but do not ask me to comment on what it prints or does not print. Dealing with the other part of the question, I made the point yesterday that the Government made it clear prior to the last election that it was not prepared to proceed with the second stage of the Ord scheme. I do not know what better evidence of bona fides could be expected from the Government. It clearly stated before the last election that it did not propose to go ahead at that stage with the scheme. The Government had further consultations with the Western Australian Government. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was conducting experiments on its experimental farm at the Ord. We had the returns from farms on the Ord. The stub cotton figures and other figures suggested that it was now time to continue with the scheme. An announcement had to be made at some time, and the sooner the better. I know nothing about the morale of the farmers. If the ‘West Australian* thinks their morale is low, let them take up the matter with the newspaper. This Government did not make the claim.

page 2119

QUESTION

DIVORCE

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I cannot say. I do not know of any discussions taking place, but that does not mean that there have not been discussions. I simply have no information as to whether discussions have been held. I will ascertain for the honourable senator whether ‘the Attorney-General is engaged in such discussions.

page 2119

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Will he consult with his colleague in another place and endeavour to secure from him an assurance that adequate steps will be taken to guard against a repetition of the problems encountered last year when timber, primary produce, paper and substantial quantities of general cargo were held up in northern and north-western Tasmanian ports through lack of sufficient shipping space? Will the Minister also request his colleague to make known details of any plans that have been made or are to be made to meet this situation?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes, I will consult the Minister for Shipping and Transport on the matters raised by the honourable senator and I will ask my colleague to provide the honourable senator with a reply.

page 2119

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator LAUGHT:

– Will the Minister for Housing advise me of the amounts which her Department has made available through the War Service Homes Division to applicants in South Australia in the last three years? How many ex-service applicants have received loans?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

Senator Laught informed me of his interest in this matter. The Government has provided $15,862,000 for expenditure in South Australia on war service homes during the last three years, enabling 2,377 eligible ex-service men and women and eligible widows to receive benefit. The honourable senator would like to know, I am sure, that there is now no waiting time for eligible applicants seeking assistance.

page 2119

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. After many years, it appears that the Government is about to grant permission to the Australian National Line to enter into competition with overseas shipping lines. Will the Minister inform the Parliament whether it is the intention of the Government to make an announcement at an important function to be held on Monday. 6th November 1967, that the Australian National Line will in fact be allowed to compete with privately owned shipping lines, particularly between Australia and Japan?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I shall bring the points raised by the honourable senator before the Minister for Shipping and Transport and obtain an answer for him if I can.

page 2119

QUESTION

SENATE ELECTION

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question which is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by stating that on Tuesday, 7th November 1967, many Australians will be taking great interest, from motives both of profit and of pleasure, in the sporting event known as the Melbourne Cup. On 25th November another and more important event occurs. I refer to the coming Senate elections. Has the Leader of the Government read the many articles in the Press to the effect that the Government is supporting Senator Prowse of Western Australia and Senator Heatley of Queensland to the extent of $68m, to win a place at the election? If the minister has read the articles, does he agree with the authors that the return of Senator Prowse and Heatley would ensure that the alleged support of $68m will return great dividends to Australia generally and to Western Australia and Queensland in particular?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I have not read the articles to which the honourable senator refers. If I had read them, I certainly would have this to say on them: Firstly, on past records, with one exception it would appear to be quite unnecessary to offer any special inducement for the third member of the Government team in Queensland or the third member of the Government team in Western Australia to be returned to the Senate. Secondly, I would say that I do not think there is anybody who can claim - nor do I think there is anybody who is claiming - that the water conservation projects to be carried out in Western Australia and Queensland are not of great national importance and will not return great dividends to this country. We have heard no talk of that. Nor have we heard any suggestion that the projects will not do so. Therefore, this country is benefiting by the proposals. If it is suggested that the announcement as to the proposal in Western Australia is made for political purposes, I remind the Senate that before the last election was held, at which this Government was returned to office, the Government stated publicly that’ it would not at that stage provide what the Western Australian people needed so much. That would be my reply to any suggestion that there was an improper motive behind the latest announcement.

page 2120

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Minister read the article in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 2nd November in which it is claimed that a system designed 22 years ago for a small uncomplicated Public Service is unable to cope with the present problems? Is the Minister aware of the serious discontent in the Public Service caused by the outdated and inefficient methods of selection for promotion? Is the Government prepared to agree to the appointment of a committee of inquiry similar to the Bailey Committee of 1943-45 to inquire into the Public Service in order to correct the anomalies which are creating this discontent?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I think the only part of the honourable senator’s question relating to facts is that part which asks whether I have read a particular article. The answer is that I have not. The balance of the honourable senator’s question related to what the Government’s policy might or might not be in the future and that, I think, is not a matter that I should canvass at question time.

page 2120

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he is aware that on 24th September 1966 the Leader of the Australian Labour Party stated in Perth that if Labour won the Federal election in November the second stage of the Ord River scheme would automatically proceed. Could the positive action now being taken by the Government be regarded as attempted bribery of the electorate, as is now being suggested by members of the Opposition?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– As I understand it, the honourable senator has asked whether the Leader of the Opposition in another place said on 24th November 1966 - just prior to the last Federal election - that it was part of Labor’s policy to proceed with the second stage of the Ord River project. My recollection is that that statement was made. If there is any suggestion that the Government’s proposals are offered for the purpose of swaying the electorate, let me point out that the Government also made its opinion quite clear at that same time when it said that it felt that at that point there had not been sufficient investigation to make sure that the large outlay involved would return the required dividends to the country. For that reason we were not prepared to enter into the scheme until we were sure that it would return dividends, whereas the Leader of the Opposition in another place apparently was. Having made further investigations, having conferred further with the Government of Western Australia and having been able to discover the real benefits that this project will bring to Western Australia and to Australia generally, we now have been able to make a considered genuine decision on the matter instead of a hurried decision before the last election, when we took the course of making our opposite opinion quite clear, however unpopular it may then have been.

page 2121

QUESTION

DRUG ADDICTION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise by referring to proposals now before the New South Wales Parliament to have authentic films dealing with drug addiction shown to members of that Parliament. Mindful of the key role being played by the Department of Customs and Excise, will the Minister arrange for suitable films to be shown and for senior officers to address Commonwealth parliamentarians on the overall problems associated with drug addiction?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Having regard to our timetable it will not be possible to meet the honourable senator’s request during this sessional period, but I certainly will favourably consider making an officer, or a number of officers, and some documentation on the subject available so that parliamentarians, who have the responsibility of putting their minds to this subject more than has the normal person, may have an opportunity to see the nature of the problem with which we in Australia are confronted. It should be abundantly clear, however, that the problems we have in Australia are not peculiar to this country. They are world problems. They are problems to which all people of goodwill and all governments of responsibility are directing their minds. The honourable senator’s suggestion has great merit. It is only a matter of arranging a suitable timetable.

page 2121

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation aware that the findings in all investigations into air disasters, major and minor, conducted by the Department of Civil Aviation never query in any way the activities of the Department? In the interests of national safety and to protect lives, will the Minister discuss with cabinet the advisability of taking from the Director-General of Civil Aviation the supervision of accident investigations and placing it in the hands of the

Attorney-General’s Department, thereby ensuring that the spotlight will shine on every minute detail of accidents, including all matters of safety over which the DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation exercises power?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It should be appreciated that the Department is the most expert, competent and, indeed, the only possible body to learn the full lessons and the facts from any tragedy in the field of civil aviation. The officers of the Department get on the job immediately there is an accident, using the Department’s own facilities to get to the site. They must do all things necessary to gather the evidence. I could not imagine any circumstances in which it could be otherwise.

In regard to inquiries, it is my understanding that a member of the judiciary has acted as the presiding officer at inquiries into major tragedies that have occurred. Evidence is called from all available sources. The Department of Civil Aviation provides the factual background for the inquiry. But that does not in any way inhibit other known organisations and people who have an interest in these matters in coming before the inquiry and giving evidence. I do not see any merit in the proposition that has been put by the honourable senator. But I shall refer the matter, as I properly should, to the Minister for Civil Aviation;

page 2121

QUESTION

HEALTH SERVICES AT PERTH AIRPORT

Senator WILKINSON:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that unnecessarily long delays to disembarking passengers from Qantas Airways Ltd overseas flights which arrive at Perth airport at midnight on Wednesdays occur because only one health officer is on duty to examine health and vaccination certificates? As this creates a bad impression of Australia, will the Minister investigate the situation and if necessary increase the examining staff by an additional officer, thus reducing considerably the long wait in a comparatively small waiting room for some 50 or 60 people?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am not personally aware of the circumstances which the honourable senator has mentioned but I assure him that I shall direct his question to my colleague, the Minister for Health, and get a reply for him.

page 2122

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Education and Science. Have any discussions been held with universities or have other practical steps been taken with a view to preventing a recurrence of the crisis which occurred at the beginning of this year in Australian universities, particularly in Victoria, where thousands of qualified students were unable to gain enrolment because of the imposition of quotas?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– Discussions on various subjects, of course, are carried on by the Australian Universities Commission with various universities. The honourable senator’s question contained a certain amount of comment. Whether in fact what he says is true depends on his definition of qualified’. The honourable senator makes this high, wide and handsome statement which he relates to the University of Melbourne rather than to other universities. He speaks of qualified applicants. Who are qualified applicants? We have had discussions on this question before, and we have also had discussions on the question of whether, included in the socalled qualified applicants are people who have been admitted to a university, have failed in one year and applied to go to another university in the next year. Who does the honourable senator consider is a qualified applicant? What is his definition of this subject? So far as I know, the Australian Universities Commission is constantly carrying out discussions with universities not on this specific subject in relation to the next particular year but in general.

page 2122

QUESTION

RESERVE BANK

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the resignation of Dr Coombs from the position of Governor of the Reserve Bank in any way connected with a change in Government banking policy?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

- Dr Coombs would no doubt make his own statement in reply to this, but my understanding of the matter is that he had been at the Bank for a very considerable time and in his own mind thought that he would like to move to some other areas of extra-curricular activity which honourable senators would know have always engaged his attention. The areas into which he is to move are quite clearly areas in which he has a very considerable interest.

Senator Ormonde:

– It is an extraordinary contrast, is it not?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– What is?

Senator Ormonde:

– Aboriginals and banking.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I do not know. Dr Coombs is well known, for example, to have been one of the driving forces behind the Elizabethan Theatre Trust for a very considerable time. I do not know whether the honourable senator thinks there is an extraordinary contrast between a ballet line and a bank clerk in a teller’s cage. These are wide ranging interests of a particular gentleman who, I believe, is seeking at this point of time to engage his attention for the rest of his life in things which really interest him. I think that is a genuine answer to the question.

page 2122

QUESTION

ORD RIVER SCHEME

Senator DEVITT:

– I direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question that relates to a question asked by Senator Prowse concerning a statement made in Western Australia about 12 months ago, and attributed to the Leader of the Australian Labour Party in which it was made clear that the Labour Party, if elected to office, would proceed immediately to the next stage of the Ord River scheme. Does this not clearly indicate that the Labour Party is at least 12 months ahead of the Government in its thinking on matters of national development, as evidenced also by the Snowy Mountains scheme, the Bell Bay aluminium works in Tasmania and dozens of other schemes of this kind, and that its thinking in all these instances has been proved to be correct?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– On the contrary, I think that the example cited by the honourable senator indicates that the Leader of the Opposition, at a time when he was hoping to get into government, was prepared to make offers which were not at that point of time backed by full economic surveys and the full information required before public money was spent. That is all, I believe, that indicates. If the honourable senator cared to do so, he could go back over a whole raft of other proposals which were made by the Leader of the Opposition, again without sufficient groundwork, and which clearly were merely offers to do things which would never be done. I point out that the proposals of this Government which involve other water saving schemes - not the Ord River scheme, which does not come under these proposal - provide for the setting aside of $50m for water conservation throughout Australia. These proposals are being put into operation now; the fruits of them are now coming to light.

page 2123

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION

Senator COTTON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Whilst welcoming the wise decision to give financial aid for the water conservation schemes announced for Queensland and Western Australia, I ask the Minister to assure the Senate that the proposals submitted to the Commonwealth by the State with the largest population, namely New South Wales, for a major water conservation programme are under serious consideration.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– All States of the Commonwealth have been asked to submit to the Commonwealth Government proposals for the development of water conservation schemes within their States. This is in accordance with the Government’s election undertaking that $50m would be made available over the next 5 years for this purpose. Within my experience the New South Wales Government has never been backward in applying for Commonwealth funds. It is very alive and alert when funds for purposes such as this become available. I have no doubt that the New South Wales Government is making every possible examination which will enable it to submit to the Commonwealth Government proposals for assistance under this scheme. The honourable senator need not fear that the New South Wales Government will not play its part, nor would he, being a Government supporter, have any worries about the Commonwealth Government playing its part when proposals come from New South Wales, have been examined and have been approved as coming within the scheme.

page 2123

QUESTION

STATE GRANTS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to statements in the Victorian Press to the effect that the new tax legislation is imposed by the Victorian Government to assist the development of that State whilst more fortunate States are this week getting immense grants for development from the Commonwealth, and that this taxation, according to legal advice received by the Commonwealth Government, cannot be proceeded with by the Victorian Government. Are those statements true? If they are, can Victoria look forward before the Senate election to a handout similar to that given to the other States to make up the deficiency?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I have noted with interest that just recently Victoria has been included in the scheme by which assistance has been given to the States for drought relief. That assistance to Victoria is well deserved because that State, unfortunately, is at present experiencing a drought in the latter part of the period which normally is its wet season. But the grants for drought relief have nothing to do with funds made available for water conservation schemes; drought relief is a usual form of assistance given when it is needed by a State and when that State seeks aid from the Commonwealth. The honourable senator asked also for an answer to a legal question. I have no knowledge of the matter to which he refers, but I shall have great pleasure in forwarding it to the Attorney-General who would be in a much better position to provide an answer than I am.

page 2123

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MUSIC

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Has the Minister seen a statement that the Prime Minister has approved of a project which will include a survey of Australian music designed to promote the work of Australian composers? Does the Broadcasting and Television Act presently provide that at least 5% of all music played over Australian broadcasting stations shall be music composed by Australians? According to the last annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board ten commercial broadcasting stations failed last year to meet this statutory requirement and three of them have not been able to do so in the last 2 years. In order to give immediate and tangible assistance to Australian composers and musicians will the Minister ask the PostmasterGeneral to ensure that all broadcasting stations referred to meet the statutory requirement and, in view of the increasing number of Australian compositions, will the Government give consideration to increasing the overall percentage from the existing 5% to 7i%?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked a series of questions which I shall refer to the PostmasterGeneral. His last question dealt with a mutter of policy which it is not customary to answer at question time. Nevertheless I shall refer it to the Postmaster-General for consideration.

page 2124

QUESTION

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator CANT:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Are decisions with respect to national development projects made on the spot or do they require consideration by Cabinet over a considerable period of time? Has the decision to give further assistance to the Ord River scheme and the decision to grant a further $50m for beef roads been under consideration for a considerable time? If so, why was there no reference to them in the Budget? If this large amount can be plucked out of the air, when will the Government give pensioners favourable consideration?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– It is perfectly clear that matters involving developmental projects such as the Ord River scheme need to be under consideration for a considerable time not only within this Government through interdepartmental discussions but also in consultations between this Government and the State governments, which have their own responsibilities in these fields. In some cases these schemes need to be carefully examined by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Decisions should not be taken on them until all of these things have been done. The honourable senator seemed to imply that large sums of money were to be provided for these schemes in this financial year. I think it should be made clear that the sums of money mentioned are for the completion of the schemes. For example, a large sum will be provided for the completion of the second stage of the Ord Dam. The work will clearly not be completed within the next 6 months.

page 2124

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator ORMONDE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will he consider the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place that all university fees be abolished as the amount represents only a few million dollars but the fees are a deterrent to many scholars?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– This is clearly a matter entirely of policy.

page 2124

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator COHEN:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government accept that the Victorian Government has a right to impose its new tax on Commonwealth public servants?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– This matter seems to be wound up in legal and other matters of that kind. It also seems to be on a matter of policy. As the question is asked without notice I clearly am not in a position to give an answer.

Senator CANT:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it a fact that the stamp tax legislation applying in Victoria was copied from similar legislation applied in Western Australia 12 months ago? Did the Government or the AttorneyGeneral give consideration to whether the stamp tax applying in Western Australia was ultra vires the Constitution?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– That question should obviously be addressed to the Attorney-General himself. If it is addressed to the Attorney-General no doubt he will provide an answer.

page 2124

QUESTION

SMUGGLING

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. In view of the remarks made at the current airline security officers conference concerning the illegal export of Australian birds, can he tell the Senate if, in the light of recent local convictions for such offences, any success was achieved through Interpol or any other overseas agency to apprehend the overseas operators who provide the financial inducement for such illegal activities?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I decline to comment on Interpol and the relations of my Department with Interpol for reasons which I am sure will be apparent to all. I can say in a general sense that we in the Department are very conscious of the illegal traffic and convictions have been gained recently. I dealt with one conviction among my papers this morning. This is a serious matter, but the honourable senator and the Senate can be assured that my Department regards it as such. We are taking all possible steps to prevent the illegal export of Australian fauna. We will take all possible steps, will use every avenue and will cooperate with every organisation both inside and outside Australia to carry out our responsibilities in this matter.

page 2125

QUESTION

DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. I remind him that on 3rd October 1967 - one month ago - I asked the following question, upon notice:

Are old Government and departmental records transported to Melbourne for destruction because suitable incineration is not available at Canberra; if so, what is the approximate total cost to the Australian taxpayer of this method of disposal?

I now ask the Minister: If an answer to the question is not available will he indicate the cause of the delay, as taxpayers’ funds are involved?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– Can the honourable senator give me the question number?

Senator Keeffe:

– It is question No. 367 on the notice paper. It was asked a month ago today.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I will bring it to the Minister’s attention.

page 2125

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Now that we are in an harmonious mood I do not want to disrupt things. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate, without political petulance, enlarge on his answer to Senator Cant in regard to the Senate sitting next week? Many honourable senators have very urgent commitments. Some of us have even been twitted about getting back for the

Senate campaign. It is of no use for us to be told that we will be told in due course. We will have to phone and cancel appointments for next week if the Senate is to sit. We have twenty Bills on the notice paper and 8 hours today in which to debate them. I understand that 27 amendments are foreshadowed for the petroleum Bills. We cannot possibly deal with this legislation today. Does the Minister think that to deal with these Bills today would be a fair way in which to treat them? Secondly, is it fair for us to be told that we will be told in due course whether the Senate will sit next week? I think we should know now whether we are coming back next week so that we can make the necessary arrangements.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I do not think there was any trace of political petulance in my answer to Senator Cant. Indeed, what was evident was the tone of the question just directed to me. There has been no political petulance on my part at all. I will certainly enlarge on the answer that I gave to Senator Cant. I want to say two things. Firstly, the conduct of the Senate ultimately is in the hands of the Senate itself. We have seen evidence of this before. Secondly, what is proposed will be made known to the honourable senator and all other honourable senators as soon as possible.

page 2125

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Housing been drawn to an announcement by Mr J. Connor, the Executive Officer of the Association of Co-operative Building Societies, that whilst a record amount of money was lent by terminating building societies last year for home building, fewer homes were built by the societies? As a comparison, 7,260 homes were built in 1965 and only 5,600 were built last year. Does this trend clearly indicate that construction costs are rapidly rising? If so, is the allocation by the Government to the societies to be increased to maintain a high and rising rate of output?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I saw what I believe to be the same statement that Senator O’Byrne has referred to. What the honourable senator did not go on to say was that this statement made it clear that the houses were of a higher standard than previously. The people who built these homes put in more equipment. This, I think, accounted for part of the increased cost. The honourable senator referred to the amount of money that is being made available. I think the honourable senator knows that the allocation of the money made available is a matter for the States. It is for them to decide whether they will allocate to the Home Builders Account more than 30% of the money made available under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The States make this arrangement themselves. Figures that have just come to hand show that the housing trend is excellent. In the 3 months ended 30th September of this year, more than 31,500 new houses and flats were commenced. This is the highest rate of commencements ever reported for a quarter. The number of dwellings commenced in the 12 months ended 30th September 1967 also was higher than the number reported for any other 12- monthly period. I believe that these figures adequately answer the question.

page 2126

QUESTION

TRANSPORT OF RACEHORSE TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Senator ORMONDE:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Did the Government have any part in arranging for the transport of Tobin Bronze to the United States of America? If so, what part?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I presume that it is a horse that the honourable senator is talking about. This would be a matter entirely for the purchaser and the owner.

page 2126

QUESTION

AGED PERSONS HOMES

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I wish to ask the Minister for Housing a question. Has she noted that the South Australian Housing Trust, in its latest annual report, expresses alarm at the inadequacy of homes for aged persons in South Australia, despite the large grants made under the Aged Persons Homes Act? Will the Minister take note of the comment in the report to the effect that the Act is not doing sufficient to house aged persons in South Australia? Now that local government bodies are permitted by the Act to participate in the aged persons homes scheme, will the Minister’s Department discuss with local government organisations in South Australia proposals which are made for participation in the scheme by such bodies and which, to their knowledge, have been successfully adopted by other organisations participating in the scheme?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The question really concerns two Ministers. The grants made available to local government organisations under the amending measure recently passed by the Parliament are a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Social Services. I can assure the honourable senator that the Minister is most anxious that the greatest possible benefit shall be obtained from this scheme for the housing of the aged. I am certain that he will be ready to have discussions with any local government authority that wishes to discuss the matter with him. The honourable senator’s question dealt also with housing for the aged as distinct from the assistance given by way of Commonwealth grants. Earlier, I answered a question by Senator Laught concerning Commonwealth advances. I remind Senator Cavanagh that a State government can devote to the housing of the aged, if it wishes, some of the funds made available to it under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.

page 2126

QUESTION

CHOWILLA DAM

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development a question. As the Chowilla Dam project is vital to the economy of my State, South Australia, and as there is no alternative, I believe, to this Dam if South Australia is to be assured of an adequate supply of water, will the Government, on completion of current investigations, be prepared to give prompt and effective financial assistance to provide the life blood of South Australia - an assured adequate water supply?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I welcome to the Senate another good South Australian who is well aware of the difficulties of South Australia, particularly with respect to its lack of water supplies. The River Murray Commission has the Chowilla Dam project under investigation, particularly with reference to possible developments arising from the present plans. I repeat what I said yesterday: I think it is in the best interests of South Australia, and particularly of those farmers who will use for irrigation water from the Chowilla Dam, that the Commission be allowed to continue its investigations and present its findings without being subjected to political pressure. It should be able to do so in the proper time and in the way it would wish. I am sure that when the facts are known it will be seen that what has been done has been in the best interests of South Australia. I repeat what I said yesterday: The Commonwealth Government has never hesitated to say that when the full facts of the matter are known and the River Murray Commission has submitted its report, the Government will accept its share of the cost as determined between it and South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales.

page 2127

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Leader of the Government confirm or deny a rumour current in the precincts of the Parliament this morning that because of the failure of Mr Whitlam, the Leader of the Opposition in another place, to define clearly the Australian Labor Party’s policy on Vietnam, the Government plans to send to Dublin a VIP aircraft to bring Mr Calwell back to Australia to clarify Australian Labor Party policy on this very important issue?

Senator Murphy:

Mr President, I submit that on a number of grounds the question is out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question is in order. If Senator Gair’s question is out of order, then other questions asked this morning have been out of order. I call the Minister.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

-We, should be careful before we seek to have questions ruled out of order, because no matter what one side or the other may think about a question which it seeks to have ruled out of order, it may be a question genuinely seeking information. I cannot confirm or deny the rumour referred to by Senator Gair but I can state as a fact that it is not proposed to send to Dublin an aircraft to bring Mr Calwell back to elucidate Labor Party policy on Vietnam, because it is quite clear that Labor Party policy on Vietnam has not changed in the slightest degree since Mr Whitlam took over from Mr Calwell, except that where once it was a straight forward policy of pulling out our troops if

Labor were elected, now it is a policy of imposing on the Americans conditions which they cannot keep and then pulling out our troops. So there is no need to clarify Labor’s policy.

page 2127

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Is it correct that only twentyeight serving members of the Australian Army in Vietnam are to be given rest and recreation leave each month? Since this represents leave for only one serviceman each day and is contributing to the dissatisfaction of our troops in that theatre, will urgent consideration be given to extending rest and recreation leave, particularly over the Christmas period, so as to enable more servicemen to visit their families in Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I will refer the question to the Minister for the Army.

page 2127

QUESTION

TARIFF REPORTS

(Question No. 285)

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many reports have been made by the Special Advisory Authority in relation to tariff matters which contain recommendations which the Government chose to depart from in some respects?
  2. What are these reports and in what respects did the Government depart from the recommendations and for what reasons?
  3. How many reports of the Special Advisory Authority were rejected totally by the Government?
  4. What are these reports?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answer:

The Government has not chosen to depart from or reject the recommendations contained in any report made by the Special Advisory Authority. (Question No. 293)

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Does section 18a of the Tariff Board Act instruct the Special Advisory Authority to advise the need or otherwise of imposing temporary duties or temporary import licensing, but deny the Authority the opportunity of recommending temporary bounty protection?
  2. Does section 18e of the Act authorise the

Tariff Board, when reviewing a recommendation made by the Special Advisory Authority, to recommend either duties or import licensing but at the same time deny the possibility of recommending bounty protection?

  1. Did the Vernon Committee state that tariffs are more damaging to the primary producer than bounties?
Senator HENTY:

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers:

  1. Section 18a of the Tariff Board Act requires the Special Advisory Authority to report to the Minister whether urgent action for the protection of Australian industry, if necessary, can appropriately be provided by means of a temporary duty, by means of the temporary restriction of the importation of goods or by means of a combination of both measures.
  2. No. Section 18e empowers the Minister to impose temporary duties as recommended by the Special Advisory Authority, but only if he has previously referred to the Tariff Board the question of the necessity for new or increased duties. In practice, such references are made under section15 of the Act, which includes the possibility of bounty assistance.
  3. In examining the place of bounties the Vernon Committee stated: ‘In our opinion, the most important justification of bounties is that their direct cost impact on other industries is less than that of tariffs’. (Para. 14.64). The Committee also stated that ‘. . . it seems reasonable to suppose that the combined direct and indirect effects of bounties on exporters’ costs and incomes are less than those flowing from equivalent tariffs’. (Para. 14.65). The Committee confirmed the Tariff Board’s policy of being prepared to consider bounties on their merits and stated as a general conclusion on bounties that ‘special circumstances may warrant their use in place of tariffs, or combined with them, but that these must be subject to special judgment by the Tariff Board’. (Para. 14.73).

page 2128

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE

(Question No. 337)

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Does the 1966-67 report of the Commonwealth Department of Health indicate that the 41,000 pensioners who became eligible for pensions following amending legislation earlier this year are now covered by the Pensioner Medical Service?
  2. From what date did this cover become effective?
  3. Since many pensioners incurred expenses in regard to hospital and medical treatment between the time of the establishment of eligibility for a pension and their inclusion in the Pensioner Medical Service, will the Minister advise if it is intended to provide an arrangement whereby pensioners may seek compensation for the amounts so expended?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

The 1966-67 annual report of the Director General of Health stated that legislation enabling these new pensioners to become eligible for benefits under the National Health Act came into operation on 21st April 1967. The report goes on to explain that, as the general practitioner services under the Pensioner Medical Service are provided by doctors in accordance with an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Australian Medical Association, the agreement of the Association is necessary before these new pensioners are eligible for free general practitioner attention. The Australian Medical Association has not yet agreed to accept the new pensioners as Pensioner Medical Service patients. In the meantime, under arrangements between the Commonwealth and public hospitals, the new pensioners are eligible for free public ward accommodation in public hospitals. They are also eligible for free pharmaceutical benefits.

page 2128

QUESTION

PEARLING

(Question No. 344)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

In view of recent criticism by the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders of the conditions under which Torres Strait Islanders are employed in the pearling industry, is it the intention of the Government to take immediate steps, under the new constitutional powers recently granted by the Australian people, to ensure that a proper standard of wages is paid, with decent working conditions for all those engaged in the pearling industry?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answer:

The Queensland Department of Aborigines and Islanders Affairs is responsible for the welfare of Torres Strait Islanders and I understand it takes an active interest in matters having to do with their participation in the pearling industry, including arrangements regarding rates of pay and conditions. As far as I am aware steps have not been taken to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

page 2128

QUESTION

TARIFF REPORTS

(Question No. 351)

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many reports have been made by the Special Advisory Authority?
  2. How many of these reports have recom mended some form of protection?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers:

  1. Seventy-one.
  2. Sixty-five.

page 2129

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES

(Question No. 352)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has the Commonwealth Government applied for a lease of most of the office space in the Hammerson Building in Eagle Street, Brisbane?
  2. Will the Commonwealth Government be charged approximately $400,000 rent per year for the use of this office space?
  3. What are the general terms of the lease between the Commonwealth Government and the owners of the Hammerson Building?
  4. Which Commonwealth department rents a complete floor in the Carlton Centre building in Sydney, and what rent is paid for these offices?
Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. A lease of the Hammerson Building in Eagle Street, Brisbane, for the purpose of office accommodation for units for several Commonwealth departments has been approved by the Executive Council under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1966.
  2. The rental is $441,000 per year after the first year. A reduced rental is payable during the first year pending full occupancy.
  3. The lease is for ten years from 1st July 1967 at the fixed rental as in 2. above, with an option of renewal for a further 10 years at a rental to be negotiated.
  4. The PostmasterGeneral’s Department occupies floors 1 and 4 to 8, a total of 65,537 sq ft, in the Carlton Centre building, Sydney, at an annual rental of $287,067.

page 2129

QUESTION

CENSUS

(Question No. 373)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Have the Aboriginal people been included in the population figures of each State, forwarded on 17th October to honourable senators by the Chief Electoral Officer?
  2. If the Aboriginal people are not included in these figures, would this affect the number of seats allotted to New South Wales under the Representation Act 1905-1964?
  3. Will the Minister instruct the Chief Electoral Officer to re-examine this position, in view of the overwhelming vote changing the Constitu tion to include the Aboriginal people as citizens of Australia and to be counted in the census as such citizens?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. It is understood that the population figures referred to are those included in the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer dated 14th August 1967 setting out the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and of the several States. These figures include the Aboriginal people. 2 and 3. See 1.

page 2129

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 390)

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Was a decision recently made by the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council to the effect that it should be given the opportunity to consider draft proposals for all Australian Capital Territory Ordinances and Regulations before they come into effect?
  2. In view of the recent controversies which have centred about such matters as the reconstituting of the Canberra Hospital Board and the proposal to dispose of the Canberra Abattoir and other matters, does the Minister concede that there could well be merit in the suggestion that the elected representatives of Canberra residents should be consulted before firm decisions are made affecting their community?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. Last week I received the Advisory Council’s resolution of 23rd October 1967 on this subject, and it is being studied now against the background of the existing opportunities for consultation between the Minister for the Interior and the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council on matters of proposed legislation, planning and administration. I shall advise Senator Toohey later of my final reaction to the Council’s suggestion.

page 2129

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

(Question No. 399)

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. In view of the approaching Senate elections, will the Minister give consideration to employing mobile polling booths on polling day to cater for electors confined to hospitals, old people’s homes and like institutions, and thus obviate the undoubted strain which some of the inmates are subjected to by over-zealous canvassers on behalf of the political parties?
  2. Does the Minister agree that such a facility would be preferable to the postal vote system which operates throughout such institutions at present?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The establishment of mobile polling booths has been considered on several occasions but it is felt that the existing postal voting facilities adequately meet the needs of electors who are confined to bed in hospitals, homes or institutions. In practice, each Divisional Returning Officer forwards a supply of postal vote application forms to the secretary or matron of each hospital or institution in his division some weeks prior to polling day with a request that these forms be handed to each patient or inmate who will be unable to vote at a polling booth. To assist walking patients and hospital staff, polling booths have been established at most hospitals and institutions which cater for fifty or more patients.
  2. See 1. above.

page 2130

JUMBO JET AIRCRAFT

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I wish to read a statement that was made by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) in another place yesterday relating to the acquistion of aircraft.

The Government has approved a proposal by Qantas Airways Ltd, that it be authorised to order four Boeing 747 Jumbo jets for delivery in 1971 and to take options on a further two of these aircraft, to meet possible requirements beyond 1972. This approval is subject to the completion of satisfactory arrangements for financing the purchase of the aircraft.

Approval has also been granted for Qantas to pay further deposits to retain delivery positions which it has obtained, for six United States supersonic transports, the Boeing 2707. These payments, totalling $US600,000, are to be made on the clear understanding that neither the Government nor the company is committed in any way to the purchase of these aircraft at this stage. Deposits to secure delivery positions for four Concorde supersonic transports were made in 1963. Qantas has been aware for some time that overseas airlines will be introducing Boeing 747 aircraft on its routes prior to moving into the supersonic era in the mid 1970s, and it is obviously essential for the company to have comparable equipment if it is to compete effectively with them on the air routes to and from Australia. The company will, in any event, need additional aircraft as traffic increases during the next few years.

In considering this matter, the Government has reviewed its general policy on international aviation, particularly the role it contemplates for Qantas in the future. It has readily concluded that the national interest is best served by continuing to encourage the operation of fast, frequent air services to and from Australia with modern, comfortable aircraft, and by the further development of Qantas as a major operator of such services. In this respect, I need only mention the important part tourism is playing in the nation’s economic growth, contributing substantial sums in foreign exchange expenditure by tourists on accommodation, transportation and purchase of consumer goods. Rapid air services, with reasonable fares, are essential for growth in this industry, and the airlines are looking to the Jumbo jets to provide a healthy stimulus in this way. It is most desirable that Australia be in a position to participate in the worldwide expansion of tourism expected to eventuate from this next generation of jet aircraft. The Government has therefore accepted the Qantas proposition that it should plan on the introduction of Boeing 747s on its services as soon as possible, and the latter half of 1971 is the earliest this can be achieved.

The Boeing 747 is about three times the size of the large Boeing 707s now operated by Qantas, carrying over 300 passengers together with up to 27 tons of freight and mail. It will provide a greater degree of comfort for passengers and its operating economies will help the airlines to combat the effect of rising cost levels in other directions. The cost of purchasing four aircraft with associated spares and equipment will be $A123m, and another $A12m will be involved in providing special hangars and buildings necessary for the maintenance and operation of this large aircraft. As I have indicated, the purchase of the aircraft will be subject to satisfactory arrangements for their financing. If, as is usual, these involve overseas borrowings by the Commonwealth for the purpose, appropriate legislation will be introduced when required.

The airport requirements of the Boeing 747 have not yet been finally determined, but the technical advisors of my Department have concluded that a runway length of about 12,500 feet will be needed for economic operations over long stage flights. The detailed airport requirements, including estimates of cost, will be reported on by the Department of Civil Aviation and the Department of Works and will then be examined by the Government as precise proposals are developed.

page 2131

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1967

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to amendments made to this Bill by the Senate and requesting the concurrence of the Senate in a consequential amendment.

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representative;’ amendment.

Clause 9.

Until a determination by the Governor-General of the rate of salary payable to a person who. immediately before the commencement of this section, held an office referred to in section 16 or section 19 of the Principal Act takes effect, salary is payable to that person, while he continues to hold that office, at the rate fixed by th: Principal Act.

House of Representatives’ amendment -

Omit the clause.

Motion (by Senator Gorton) proposed:

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I think it most important that the Committee of the Senate should understand that, by the action of the House of Representatives in agreeing to what was done by the Senate, an important step has been taken to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the independence of those who hold quasijudicial offices. We congratulate the House of Representatives on seeing the wisdom of what was done by the Senate and we are happy to accept the consequential amendment which is not being discussed here because of the urgency of our programme.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I am glad to hear what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) says. The amend- ment which we are looking at is a consequential amendment which flows inevitably from the result of the amendments that were made in the Senate. So far as that is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition and I are on the same ground. As to the other views he expressed - that what we had done would preserve the independence of the judiciary and that it was a good thing to have done - I point out that we are not on the same ground. I do not accept that view. But we took that action - I think wrongly - and having taken it this consequential amendment flows.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2131

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

page 2131

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (ROYALTY) BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

page 2131

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (EXPLORATION PERMIT FEES) BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

page 2131

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (PRODUCTION LICENCE FEES) BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

page 2132

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (PIPELINE LICENCE FEES) BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

page 2132

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (REGISTRATION FEES) BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

page 2132

PETROLEUM (ASHMORE AND CARTIER ISLANDS) BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

page 2132

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) BILL 1967

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I do not know whether the honourable senator in ‘ charge of the Bill for the Opposition is aware of what we propose to do. The second reading speech I am about to make on this, the first of seven cognate Bills, will cover all those Bills. It is a very comprehensive speech which would take some 2 hours to read. Later, as the Minister did in another place I shall seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, as part of my second reading speech, a statement outlining the more important provisions of the Common Mining Code as set out in the seven Bills. The statement also makes appropriate cross references to relevant clauses in the CommonwealthState Agreement.

Senator Cohen:

– I do not know whether this procedure has been discussed with the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator HENTY:

– It has.

Senator Cohen:

– If it has, I will not say anything.

Senator HENTY:

– I told the Leader of the Opposition what I proposed to do.

Senator Cohen:

– I was not aware of the immediate action. If I am assured that the Leader of the Opposition has concurred in this course, I shall say no more. I had not expected that we would be deprived of the advantage of hearing the second reading speech.

Senator HENTY:

– The Senate is not being deprived of that.

Senator Cohen:

– No, but this is such an extremely important series of Bills that for my part, unless there has been some specific agreement about the procedure, I think the Senate ought to have the advantage of hearing the second reading speech instead of merely reading it.

Senator HENTY:

– I have advised the Leader of the Opposition what I proposed to do. He made no alternative suggestion to me. I point out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this procedure was followed in another place.

The purpose of this group of seven Bills is to provide a legislative framework to govern the exploration for, and the exploitation of, the petroleum resources of submerged lands adjacent to Australia and certain of the Territories of the Commonwealth. The Bill is an historic piece of legislation. It is one in which the Commonwealth Government and the several State governments have joined together in a cooperative effort for the purpose of ensuring the legal effectiveness of titles authorising the search for, or production of, petroleum in and from our offshore areas. In this cooperative effort, the States and the Commonwealth have pooled not only their respective jurisdictional powers, but also their administrative and technical resources, to produce a legislative scheme which we believe is unique in the world and which is suitable to a federal system of government.

Interest in exploring the petroleum resources of the seabed has quickened considerably in recent times. However, apart from Territory ordinances the Commonwealth has not previously had any legislation covering this sort of activity. All States as well as the Northern Territory and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea have granted exploration permits under their existing legislation and the Commonwealth, under the petroleum search subsidy scheme has subsidised exploration operations in some of these offshore areas.

In the period of nearly 2 years, since the first announcement in November 1965 by the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) and his colleagues the Mines Ministers in the States, there have been extensive negotiations between Ministers of the States and the Commonwealth. Novel, and sometimes difficult, political and legal problems have been encountered. That these problems have been overcome is highly gratifying to the Government. I am sure that this gratification will be shared by the Senate, especially when it is remembered that the governments of the States and the Commonwealth include governments drawn from both of the major political groupings in this country, and that in the case of two States, changes in government occurred in the course of the negotiations. Throughout the discussions all concerned have addressed themselves with single mindedness of purpose to the task of bringing into being a legislative scheme which will provide certainty of title without protracted litigation of the type that has occurred, and is still occurring, in other countries. Further we have sought to do this in a way that is compatible with the national interest in these important resources.

In 1965 the Minister for National Development expressed the hope that further exploration would bring fresh discoveries of both oil and natural gas. This hope has been well justified. There have been further discoveries of petroleum; and it is especially gratifying that the companies engaged in offshore operations have demonstrated their confidence in the successful outcome of these inter-governmental negotiations by engaging in a steadily expanding programme of offshore exploration in advance of the passage through the several Parliaments of the legislation which is now being presented both to the Senate and to the Parliaments of the States. It will be of interest to the Senate to know that since early 1964 when a meeting of State and Commonwealth Ministers, presided over by the late Sir William Spooner, agreed that a national solution for the problems of offshore oil exploration and exploitation was necessary, the companies engaged in offshore operations have spent of the order of $50m on offshore work. They have taken us on trust, relying on Australia’s reputation for stability and good faith.

By early next year we expect that seven offshore drilling rigs will be probing our continental shelf in the quest for petroleum. Six of these rigs, which can cost anything up to $8m each to build, have been, or are being brought to this country from overseas, while one of the largest, the ‘Ocean Digger’, has been built in the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd shipyards at Whyalla and is now engaged in drilling the first well offshore from South Australia. In just under 3 years no less than eighteen wells have been drilled, or are being drilled in Australia’s offshore areas and at least three more are programmed before the end of this year.

At the best of times searching for petroleum is a task which calls for great skill, technical resources and patience, and one where the chances of failure are generally rather higher than those of success. In the offshore environment to all this must be added a whole range of additional technical problems due to water depths, tides and weather. Offshore exploration is still comparatively in its infancy but the technological advances that have been made in the last 10 to 15 years are dramatic in the extreme. For example, 20 years ago the first offshore well had still to be drilled and for some years drilling close in shore in water depths of 40 or 50 feet was a notable achievement. Today, there have already been some overseas wells drilled in waters of 500 feet or more and a world renowned authority of offshore work, Mr Lewis G. Weeks, has foreshadowed that within 10 years operations in waters of 3,000 feet depth will not be uncommon. Today drilling is taking place in our own country in depths of more than 200 feet while a well will be spudded in later this year in water over 300 feet, which will be the greatest depth in which a well has so far been drilled on the Australian continental shelf.

Worldwide there has been an explosive spread of interest in searching for petroleum offshore in the past 8 years. A few figures will give a perspective to the rate of expansion of offshore activity. Ten years ago one could count on the fingers of one hand the countries actively interested. Now there are seventy-five; and twenty countries are producing or are about to produce offshore oil or gas. Free world offshore oil reserves are currently estimated at about 20% of the world’s total known reserves while current offshore production of about 5 million barrels per day is roughly 16% of the total daily free world output of 32 million barrels per day.

I have dealt at a little length with some of the background to this new field of activity in order that the Senate might have a general appreciation of the setting in which this legislation has been prepared. I would now like to cover, in broad terms, the legal background to this legislation. I said earlier that the purpose of the legislative scheme was to provide certainty of title to companies who risk the very substantial capital involved in offshore exploration. The question which has been a source of difficulty and uncertainty in other countries where a federal system of government operates is whether the power to grant an effective title vests in a State government or in the central or Commonwealth Government.

In the United States of America the Federal Government was held by the Supreme Court to have full and paramount authority over both the outer continental shelf - by which I mean the continental shelf beyond territorial waters - and over the territorial seabed. In actual fact the United States Federal Government, acting under an express constitutional power to dispose of territory or property of the United States, subsequently transferred to the several seaboard States its rights in the territorial seabed. The United States Federal Government continued however to exercise control over the outer continental shelf. Notwithstanding this the American scene has been complicated by protracted litigation between some of the seaboard States and the Federal Government as to the delimitation of territorial limits.

Even now, 22 years after President Truman made his historic declaration as to the rights of the United States to explore and exploit the resources of the continental shelf, litigation is still in progress in the American courts and a sum of no less than $800m is currently being held pending a determination by the courts. Even when this is settled a situation will still prevail where State laws and a State system of administration operate in territorial waters and a different administrative system and code administered by the United States Federal Government will operate in the outer continental shelf. In Canada legal argument is in progress between the Dominion Government and the Province of British Columbia. All the other Canadian provinces have been given leave to intervene in this case and some have already done so.

In Australia the governments of the Commonwealth and the States believe that they have overcome these problems without recourse to litigation between governments. To achieve this result they have mutually agreed that without abating any of their constitutional claims - that without abandoning these claims - and that without derogating from their respective constitutional powers, they would enact uniform and complementary, legislation providing for a common mining code to apply uniformly throughout offshore areas including both the territorial seabed and the outer continental shelf. The joint scheme will not apply to submerged land beneath internal waters. These are waters inside the base lines from which territorial seas are measured; for example, Sydney Harbour and Port Phillip Bay are internal waters. Administration will be in the hands of the States, but with the Commonwealth interest being properly safeguarded at essential points through consultation, and agreement ‘by the States that in appropriate areas of the Commonwealth’s constitutional responsibility effect will be given to any request or to any decisions by the Commonwealth.

The basic instrument underlying the whole of the joint legislative structure is an agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the governments of the six States. I am arranging for copies of this Agreement to be distributed to honourable senators in the form of a small booklet. The booklet includes a series of maps, prepared by the Division of National Mapping of the Department of National Development, which illustrate the areas over which the respective States and Territories will have administrative jurisdiction. The Commonwealth-State agreement and the Annex thereto are at the very heart of the administrative arrangements entered into by the several governments. The Bills, when enacted, will provide the statutory framework and guidelines for the whole offshore scheme and the agreement covers the intergovernmental arrangements as to just how the administration will be carried out. I think therefore that it will be more convenient to the Senate if I deal with the Bills and where appropriate draw attention to relevant clauses of the Agreement.

Just before doing so, however, there are one or two further general observations which I would like to make. First, as I have already mentioned, offshore work is still in its comparative infancy and there is really no such thing as an international standard of offshore legislation. The legislative regimes in those countries where offshore operations are undertaken have been developed to meet the particular circumstances of the country concerned. In devising the Australian scheme the governments of the States and of the Commonwealth have taken account of procedures in other countries, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States. However, the governments have not felt bound to follow slavishly particular features in any overseas country. Rather the aim has been to devise a scheme suitable to Australian needs - a scheme that is forwardlooking and one which will place governments in a position where they can ensure that the interests of the n: tion are secured while allowing those who face the commercial and financial risks a proper chance of legitimate gains from their enterprise.

Secondly, scientific and technological advances during the last two or three decades have made it possible to explore the continental shelf and to exploit the natural resources that may be found there. This is almost exclusively a post Second World War development stemming largely from President Truman’s proclamation to which I referred earlier. International law was presented with a completely new problem of how to allocate the rights to explore and exploit these resources. At a United Nations Conference in Geneva in 1958 agreement was reached on a convention called ‘The Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Convention has since entered into force and Australia is a party to it. This brings me to the opening sections of the preamble to both the Bill and the Commonwealth-State Agreement which refer to Australia’s rights to explore and exploit the resources of the continental shelf and to our membership of the Convention.

Although the terms of the Convention are set out in full in the First Schedule to the principal Bill the opening provisions of the Convention are so important as to be worth referring to in detail. Article I defines the continental shelf as the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to- the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of two hundred metres or beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas. Article II says that the coastal State - ‘State’ is here used in the international sense - exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. The article goes on to say that the rights referred to are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources no one else may undertake these activities, without the express consent of that coastal State. It is important to make the point here that the rights conferred by the Convention are those of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the shelf. It is quite clear that coastal States are not given any new slice of territory. A later article goes on to make clear that the rights of exploration and exploitation conferred by the Convention do not affect the status of the superjacent waters or that of the air space above those waters.

The remaining paragraphs of the preamble recite in very brief form the considerations which I described earlier which led the six State governments and the Commonwealth Government to adopt this co-operative approach - namely, that exploration and exploitation of the petroleum resources of the continental shelf would be encouraged by the adoption of uniform legislation over the areas concerned; that the governments, acting in the national interest and without raising questions concerning, or without derogating from, their respective constitutional powers, are co-operating for the purpose of ensuring the legal effectiveness of petroleum titles over offshore areas; and that accordingly the governments have agreed to submit to their respective parliaments legislation covering both the outer continental shelf and the seabed and subsoil beneath territorial waters.

There will be an adjacent area contiguous to each State or Territory. The boundaries of these adjacent areas are illustrated in the series of maps at the back of the booklet which I am making available to honourable senators. The settling of these boundaries between States has in some cases presented delicate political problems but it is a matter of great satisfaction that in all cases a solution acceptable to all the parties concerned has been achieved. While dealing with adjacent areas I should make brief mention of certain agreements which have reached in relation to the adjacent areas of Queensland and Papua and to some small islands and their continental shelves in the Coral Sea. Prior to the commencement of these negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States, Queensland and Papua had issued adjoining exploration permits with boundaries conforming to the boundary between Queensland and Papua. These permits have been accepted by the companies in good faith and work has been going on in .the areas concerned.

When it became necessary to consider these boundaries from the point of view of this joint legislation it was found that the application as between Australia and Papua of the median line principle would have resulted in part of one permit and something like half of another permit which had been issued by Papua being brought under the jurisdiction of Queensland thus resulting in a reduction of the area of continental shelf under the authority of the Territory. The Government considered that any transfer of part of these titles back to Australia - no matter how justifiable in terms of logic - might be misunderstood in Papua and New Guinea and in any case that such action would be inconsistent with the high sense of responsibility which Australia displays in working to bring this Territory towards self government.

T should also mention that at a later stage the Commonwealth proposes that this offshore legislation will be extended to islands in the Coral Sea west of 158 degrees east longitude and to their adjacent submerged lands. We have advised the Queensland Government that when this is done arrangements will be made for the administration of the offshore petroleum legislation in this area to be dealt with by Queensland and for Queensland to receive the same proportion of any revenue as the State would receive in respect of its own adjacent area.

The foregoing arrangement is, we think, a sensible one and as a result I am glad to say that both the Commonwealth and the Queensland Governments are agreed that the boundaries of the existing permits issued by Papua will be left undisturbed.

At this point, while discussing adjacent areas, I should refer to the Petroleum (Ashmore and Cartier Islands) Bill. The Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands consists of small uninhabited islands situated about 150 miles to the north-west of Australia. They are deemed by the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act to form part of the Northern Territory so that laws which apply in the Northern Territory are applied in Ashmore and Cartier Islands. Under the offshore legislation an adjacent area belonging to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands is separate from the Northern Territory adjacent area. It will be convenient for the administration of this petroleum legislation if these small reefs and islands themselves are deemed to be ‘submerged land’. This is the effect of the Petroleum (Ashmore and Cartier Islands) Bill.

I should make the point here that the areas outlined by the dotted lines on the illustrative maps are not all continental shelf. The approach which has been adopted has been to enclose comparatively large areas which are described in detail in the Second Schedule to the Bill. However, the Bill specifically applies only in relation to exploration for, and exploitation of, the petroleum resources of such submerged lands included in the areas described as have the character, either of seabed and sub-soil beneath territorial waters or of continental shelf within the meaning of the International Convention. This scheme has a dual purpose. First, it permits Australia to take advantage of the provisions of the Convention regarding exploitability. As technology advances, and exploitation in greater depths becomes possible, the outer limits of the shelf for the purpose of this Bill are automatically adjusted.

Secondly, it is essential in these adjacent areas where petroleum operations are undertaken, to have applying a general body of law such as an appropriate criminal code, provision for workers’ compensation, for navigational safety, and the like. It will be noted that Part II of the Bill deals specifically with this question of application of laws. In brief, it provides that the provisions of the laws in force in a State or Territory and as in force from time to time apply in the adjacent area. This will cover, as appropriate, not only State laws and Territory ordinances but also Commonwealth laws.

I come now to Part III of the Bill dealing with mining for petroleum. This is the Common Mining Code referred to in the CommonwealthState Agreement. It has been worked out by the States and the Commonwealth in conjunction. As I said earlier in the devising of the code we sought to be both realistic and forward-looking. We have been assisted by comments, criticisms and suggestions made by the offshore petroleum industry following the initial statement in November 1965. One of the purposes of that initial statement was to make known to the companies concerned in offshore work what ground rules the Governments had in mind. Thus not only would there be no misunderstanding when the actual legislation was introduced, but also the industry had the opportunity of expressing its views. I say at once that the legislation has been improved as a result of the co-operation which we have received from the industry.

I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, as part of my second reading speech, a statement outlining the more important provisions of the Common Mining Code as set out in the seven Bills. The statement also makes appropriate cross references to relevant clauses in the Commonwealth-State Agreement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator HENTY:

– The administration of the Mining Code in respect of each adjacent area will, as provided by clause 9 of the Agreement, be in the hands of a designated authority. Provision is made in Division 1, clause 15, of the Mining Code for the appointment of designated authorities by arrangement between the Governor-General and the Governor of a State. In the case of States it is intended that the designated authority will be the Minister for Mine* and indeed this minister is so nominated in each of the State Bills. In the case of Territories of the Commonwealth, thedesignated authority will foe my colleague, the Minister for Territories. I understand that it is my colleague’s intention to execute an instrument of delegation so that the administration of the legislation in the Northern Territory and in Papua and New Guinea will be through the Territory Administrations.

The crux of the inter-relationship between the States and the Commonwealth is contained in clause 11 of the Agreement. In brief this clause provides that in the administration of the Common Mining Code the States will consult the Commonwealth on all aspects which may affect the Commonwealth’s own special responsibilities under the Constitution. The arrangement covers matters such as defence, external affairs, trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States, immigration, customs, navigation and so on. In these matters the States will give effect to Commonwealth decisions.

All the States and the Commonwealth are at one in wishing to see the continental shelf of Australia, which covers something very close to 1 million square miles, explored as effectively as possible in endeavours to locate petroleum deposits. I am sure that all members of the Senate would be at one with this proposition. However, it could be that in some particular area there are compelling reasons, perhaps for defence purposes, or perhaps because one of our international telephone cables traverses the area, why it may be necessary to place some restriction on exploration activity. In cases such as these the Commonwealth’s interests are properly safeguarded by the terms of the Agreement.

For convenience of administration in the regulation of petroleum titles, the governments have agreed to establish over our offshore areas a graticular system of block areas. The necessary provisions for this are set out in clause 17 of the Bill. The size of each graticular block is to be 5 minutes of arc of latitude by 5 minutes of arc of longitude. In the area of northern Australia, this results in graticule blocks of about 30 square miles reducing as one moves south until south of Tasmania the blocks are just over 23 square miles in area. Reduction in size is of course brought about by the convergence of meridians of longitude between ths Equator and the South Pole. For general convenience it is reasonable to think of a block as being about 25 square miles.

Until comparatively recently the general run of State and Territory petroleum legislation provided for a threestage title system. A permit covered basic exploration, a licence over a much smaller area gave permission to carry out drilling operations, and a lease covered the production stage. In the case of the offshore legislation a twostage system of titles has been adopted. First, a permit which will cover all stages of exploration, including drilling operations. Secondly, a licencebroadly the equivalent of a lease on land will cover production of petroleum.

Division 2 of the Mining Code deals with the permit stage. A permit will authorise the holder to explore for petroleum and to carry on such operations and execute such works as are necessary for that purpose in the permit area. Save for certain special exceptions which I will deal with later this right to explore is exclusive to the holder of the permit. Clauses 20 to 27 set out in some detail the procedure which will govern the application for, and granting of, areas of permits. The maximum area of any permit will be 400 blocks, that is, about 10.000 square miles. This is somewhat smaller than many of the offshore titles currently in existence, but is regarded as a reasonable size and one which should give companies ample opportunity to explore efficiently. Moreover, there will be no statutory limitation placed on the number of permits which may be granted to any individual company. There will be a normal minimum size of a permit area of 16 blocks, that is, about 400 square miles, but the designated authority will have discretion to issue a permit over a lesser number of blocks in special circumstances.

As set out in clause 29, permits will be issued for an initial period of 6 years with rights of renewal for further successive periods of 5 years each. This right of renewal will be subject to the permittee having satisfactorily complied with the conditions of the permit and to the surrender of half of the effective permit area at the end of each period. This surrender arrangement is to encourage companies to concentrate their efforts on the most prospective areas which they discover but not at the same time hold large off-shore areas which are not being effectively explored.

Taking a simplified case the reduction provisions would operate like this in respect of a 400 block permit:

At the end of the 6th year the permit area would be reduced to 200 blocks.

At the end of the 1 1th year to 100 blocks.

At the end of the 16th year to 50 blocks.

At the end of the 21st year to 25 blocks.

In determining the number of blocks to be relinquished at the end of each successive period of the permit, proper allowance will be made for blocks excised from the permit area by the taking up of production licences, and of blocks which have become the subject of a location. This is a term with which I will deal in more detail later.

The effect of this arrangement is that a company has a firm assurance of being able to retain selected areas of its permit for a considerable number of years. In addition the designated authority is given discretion in clause 31 to modify the requirement for compulsory reduction if this would result in a permit area being reduced below sixteen blocks that is, approximately 400 square miles. The need for such a discretion could perhaps arise where a company discovers petroleum in deep water. Techniques at the time of discovery might be such that commercial production at this point was either impracticable or uneconomic. It could therefore be reasonable to permit the company to retain this area under permit while awaiting further developments in technology or a change in economic circumstances which would justify commercial production. At that point the company would be able to take out a production licence.

The reduction in permit areas must be in terms of blocks conforming to the graticule system. At each successive renewal of a permit the area retained by the permittee shall comprise groups of at least sixteen blocks and so that each block has at least one side in common with another block within the group. This is to prevent undue fragmentation of a permit area. The designated authority will however have discretion to authorise the retention of areas of less than sixteen blocks in special circumstances.

The conditions under which permits will be granted will include provision for the carrying out by the permittee of an exploration programme approved by the designated authority. In view of the lengthy periods for which permits may extend - and such lengthy periods are indeed essential if companies are to have the opportunity of mounting a satisfactory and sustained exploration programme - it is not possible to define work obligations with precision in the legislation. A programme for each permit area will be considered on its merits and settled by the designated authority who will also have power to suspend or modify the work programme in special circumstances, e.g. through the unavailability of a drilling rig or other essential equipment.

Applications for permits over areas which have not previously been the subject of permits, or over areas which have been relinquished from a permit will be called initially by advertisement in the ‘Gazette*. This is to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity of lodging an application and having it considered. However, if no application acceptable to the designated authority is received he will be free to negotiate the grant of permits in respect of such areas over the counter.

In general there will be no provision for the payment of a cash premium in respect of blocks advertised as available for permit. An exception is made in the case of blocks which become available through the surrender or cancellation of a licence, or through the excision from a permit of blocks which were in a location. In such cases provision will be made as set out in clause 23 for applicants to specify an amount which they are prepared to pay if they are granted a permit in respect of an area for which they are applying.

A discovery of petroleum is to be notified immediately to the designated authority and as provided in clause 35 the permittee may be required by the designated authority to take steps to evaluate the discovery. In the event of petroleum being discovered the permittee will have a preferential right to a licence for production. This is an important feature of the Australian off-shore legislation in that off-shore companies are given exclusive rights to search in specified areas and, in the event of discovery, have a preferred right to a production title or titles.

Clause 36 provides that following a discovery of petroleum a permittee may, or may be directed by the designated authority to, nominate a block to become the centre of a group of nine blocks which in the interests of simplicity is known as a location. Each side of the location will be three blocks in length, or put another way a location will consist of the nominated block and the eight blocks that immediately surround the nominated block. The block in which the discovery of petroleum is made must be included in the location but need not necessarily be the centre of the location.

In some circumstances a block nominated as the centre of a location may be so positioned that a full location of nine blocks cannot be established because it would encroach on areas which are already included in other locations, or are in other permit or licence areas or are outside the scope of the offshore legislation, such as blocks on land above low water mark. In such circumstances the location in question will be limited to that number of blocks which are not encumbered in any of the ways I have described.

If the permittee fails to comply with a requirement to nominate a block as the centre of a location, the designated authority may himself nominate the block so that the procedure for the allocation of licence areas may commence. This latter provision is simply a safeguard to ensure that there is no question of a permittee who has made a discovery hanging back in the traces and delaying unnecessarily moving into the production stage.

I turn now to Division 3 of the Mining Code dealing with production licences. This of course is the stage which everybody concerned, both governments and operators, wishes to reach. Where a location has been declared under clause 37 of the Bill, the permittee, if he wishes to take out production licences, has several courses open to him. For the moment and for purposes of simplicity I will speak only of a location comprising the full nine blocks. The permittees first choice is to take as a production licence any five blocks - having a total area of roughly 125 square miles - out of a location of nine blocks and pay the standard royalty rate of 10% on production therefrom. The remaining four blocks would revert to the Crown.

Another choice available to the permittee is to take not only five blocks but as well one or more of the remaining four blocks from within the location so that the initial five blocks and the additional blocks taken are in two separate production licences. In this event the permittee will pay an additional override royalty on all production from both licence areas. This additional override royalty will be negotiated between the designated authority and the permittee between a floor of 1% and a ceiling of 2i%. In effect if the permittee avails himself of the opportunity to take blocks from within his location in excess of his initial entitlement of five blocks, the total royalty rate payable on all his production will be between 1 1 % and 12i% .

The permittee will be able to select for inclusion in his initial licence the number of blocks set out in clause 40 of the Bill. This provides in effect that the initial licence may consist of half the number of blocks in the location if the total number is even, with the odd block going to the permittee if the number is uneven. For example, from a location of seven blocks the permittee would be able to select four as his initial licence. The permittee will be able to take out his initial, or primary, licence in stages over a period of two years following the declaration of the location. This period may be extended for up to a further two years at the discretion of the designated authority.

Having selected his full entitlement under his primary licence the permittee during his application period may apply for a secondary licence. If he does, he must apply for either the full balance of the blocks left in the location, that is four blocks out of a nine block location, or such number of the remaining blocks as he wants. The designated authority will then confer with the permittee as to the rate of override royalty which will apply to both the primary and secondary licences. The procedure for this is set out in clause 42.

There will be no statutory limitation on the number of licences which may be granted to any individual company. But, when a well results in the discovery of petroleum and is used as the basis for declaring a location then no other well in the same block as the original discovery well or in the eight blocks immediately surrounding that block, will qualify for a separate location unless the designated authority so approves in special circumstances. This is covered by sub-clause (5) of clause 36.

The purpose of this provision is to preclude assessment or step-out wells being used for the establishment of additional locations. There is, however, nothing against a permittee having adjoining locations if these are derived from genuine and wide spread discovery. Moreover two separate structures might be discovered quite close together so that the discovery wells in respect of each structure are in adjoining blocks. This is clearly a case where a designated authority would exercise his discretion and allow two locations to be established leading to two series of production licences.

I would also make the point that no blanket restriction will apply which would result in companies being allowed only one location in respect of a geological structure no matter how big that structure might be. For instance, if a company were fortunate enough to discover a major structure say 25 miles long by 10 miles wide, it would be entitled, following an adequate drilling programme to establish two adjoining locations. Any graticular blocks not taken up by the permittee either as a primary licence or a secondary licence, will, at the conclusion of the application period, be automatically excised from the permit area and revert to the Crown. The designated authority is empowered under clause 47 to advertise such blocks as being available and he may call for bids on a cash basis, for additional royalty bids, or for the payment of a cash reserve fixed by the designated authority plus additional royalty bids. The designated authority will have discretion as to when to offer such blocks and whether to offer them as permit or licence areas. The former permittee will be perfectly free to bid for these blocks should he so desire.

In order that companies may have an opportunity to evaluate these areas and submit realistic bids provision is made in clause 111 for the grant of short term special prospecting authorities. These special prospecting authorities would permit all exploration operations short of actual drilling and are designed to enable a potential operator to evaluate blocks that are on offer. If, as a result of calling in the Gazette’ for applications for blocks, the designated authority does not receive an acceptable tender, he will be free to readvertise the blocks either as permits or licences or to dispose of the blocks over the counter.

Clause 52 provides that a licence while it remains in force authorises the licensee to carry on operations for the recovery of petroleum in the licence area, to explore for petroleum in the licence area, and to carry on such operations and execute such works in the licence area as are necessary for these purposes. It is important to note that the second stage title, that is, the licence, authorises both exploration and exploitation. A petroleum pool having been discovered, an operator will naturally be looking to recover that petroleum, but equally importantly, he will wish to explore the whole of his licence area thoroughly in the hope that other petroleum bearing structures may be discovered.

Licensees will be allowed to transfer parts of their licence areas provided that the area transferred conforms with the graticular system and the licensee has already exercised all his rights for the selection of blocks as licence areas from within his location. The transfer will be effected under clause 51 by an application to the designated authority to exchange the original licence in return for the grant of two or more new licences. These new licences will carry the same rights and obligations and will extend only for the balance of the term of the original licence.

Licences will be issued for an initial period of 21 years. It will be seen from reading clauses 53, 54 and 55 in conjunction, that a licensee, provided he has complied with the conditions of his licence and, of course, with the Act and regulations, is entitled, as of right, to an extension for a second period of 21 years, making a total of 42 years in all. Further extensions beyond 42 years may be granted at the discretion of the designated authority.

I will deal with royalty rates in more detail when discussing the Bill imposing royalty but I should point out at this stage that the royalty for the first 21 years of a licence will be fixed by the law. With respect to renewals of licences after the first 21 years the Bill specifically contemplates the possibility that the rate of royalty may be varied by appropriate action by all the Parliaments. It will be seen that licences are granted following the discovery of petroleum and all the governments are agreed that it is at this point that there should be energetic action to exploit that discovery. Accordingly a condition of a licence will be that the licensee will be required to carry out approved work within his licence area to the value of not less than $100,000 per block per year. This does not mean that $100,000 has to be spent on each block. In the case of a five block licence it will be in order in any particular year for a licensee to concentrate his work in one block and spend the Sim there.

In most cases in the period immediately following the grant of a licence, companies will probably spend substantially in excess of this amount. For instance, it is estimated that the development of the Barracouta and Martin offshore fields will involve expenditure of the order of $150 million. However, the governments do not want to have money spent just for the sake of spending money, and once a licence area is in production the rate of expenditure that may be wisely spent in a particular area may drop off considerably. To cover this situation provision is made in sub-clause (2) of clause 57 that the value of the petroleum produced in any year may be offset against the amount of the work obligation for the following year.

A further point to be noted here is that offshore operations involve the use of equipment of a highly sophisticated nature which cannot be obtained simply by going down the street and buying it off the shelf. It is quite possible that a company is making every effort to obtain the appropriate drilling rig or production platform but that these are not available in a particular year. In cases such as this, provision is made in subclause (4) of clause 57 for the designated authority, providing he is satisfied that special justification exists, to exempt the licensee from his work expenditure in any particular year. Any exemption will be subject to such conditions as the designated authority thinks fit.

Clause 58 of the Bill empowers the designated authority to issue directions regarding the recovery of petroleum. For instance, when petroleum is not being recovered from a licence area and the designated authority is satisfied that there is recoverable petroleum in that area, the licensee may be directed to take all necssary and practicable steps to recover that petroleum. In a case where petroleum is being recovered, the licensee may be directed to increase or reduce the rate of recovery to a certain specified level.

This latter contingency of directing a reduction in the rate of recovery is looking some little distance into the future but in some areas of the world it is a very real problem. For instance, in the Gulf of Mexico, production from oil fields is restricted to specific percentages of the estimated potential production in order to regulate the total volume of petroleum produced and so avoid over-production. This is not a problem which we expect to have to face in the immediate future, but I am sure that every member of the Senate would agree that it would be a cause for considerable satisfaction if our discoveries of petroleum continue to the point where such action is necessary.

Unit development of a petroleum pool means the co-ordination of operations for the recovery of petroleum from a pool which is partly situated in one licence area and partly in one or more other licence areas. This is a very important aspect of good oil field practice and is designed to ensure that the most effective recovery of petroleum is made in the most economic manner possible. Further, unless there was some provision enabling the recovery of petroleum to be co-ordinated, severe injustices might be caused to one licensee by the actions of another licensee who could recover petroleum from the pool unfairly. To deal with these situations all the licensees who hold different parts of the same geological structure may be required to coordinate their operations. Clause 59 deals with this matter and should be read in conjunction with clause 16 of the CommonwealthState Agreement.

It will be seen that the governments have covered the situation not only where the adjoining licence areas are in the same adjacent area but also where the petroleum pool extends from one adjacent area into another, or from an adjacent area into a land area of a State or Territory. It will be noted that the Agreement provides that where the petroleum pool extends beyond a single adjacent area, the designated authority and the other appropriate Minister will confer concerning the exploitation of the petroleum pool and will not give directions to a licensee until an appropriate scheme has been agreed upon.

Licences will be granted subject to such conditions as the designated authority thinks fit and specifies in the licence. It will be noted from clause 14 of the CommonwealthState Agreement, that a condition may be included in a licence to the effect that the licensee shall comply with any requirement of the designated authority that petroleum produced from the licence area in liquid form be refined within the adjacent State, or, in the case of natural gas, disposed of within that State. The Agreement also provides that a requirement along these lines shall not be made unless there has been consultation between the appropriate Ministers of the State and the Commonwealth and both Ministers are in agreement that the requirement should be made.

I turn now to deal with pipelines and pipeline licences. At the outset I think I should make it clear to the House that for the purposes of this Bill a special meaning is attached to the term ‘pipeline’. It will be readily appreciated that associated with the production of petroleum either on land or in offshore areas, there is inevitably an intricate maze of pipes both large and small for conveying petroleum and for conveying water used in petroleum recovery operations. At first sight it would be natural to assume that all of these are pipelines. However, for the purpose of this Bill, it has been found convenient to restrict the use of the term ‘pipeline’ to, as it were, a main trunk line conveying petroleum from a field to the shore.

The lines which will be shortly constructed from the Barracouta and Marlin fields to the Gippsland coast will be pipelines in this sense. Other pipes will be used for conveying petroleum from a well to a gathering or terminal station or for conveying oil or gas for use in connection with petroleum recovery operations. These, as will be seen from the definitions in clause 5 on page 4 of the Bill, will be known us secondary lines, while a pipe used for conveying water in connection with petroleum operations is called a water line. A pipeline licence will be required for the construction and operation of a pipeline and the construction of a pipeline other than in pursuance of a pipeline licence is prohibited by clause 60. Secondary lines, which are known in the industry by the general term of gathering lines or flow lines, and water lines may be constructed and operated with the consent of the designated authority.

The laying of a main trunk line or pipeline in offshore areas is a highly skilled operation requiring specialised and expensive equipment and considerable experience. The line will operate at high pressures and must be protected from the ravages of movement by tide. If the sea bottom is suitable, pipelines are normally buried some few feet, but if the sea bottom is smooth rock, it is necessary to fix the line at regular intervals by fastening it to the sea floor. A production licensee will have a preferential right to a pipeline licence for the purpose of bringing his product ashore by an appropriate route. It is of course of the essence of pipeline operations that before the very heavy expenditure involved in constructing a pipeline is incurred, the intending operator of a pipeline would have concluded arrangements for the carriage of the petroleum and for its disposal. The position of a production licensee is appropriately protected by provisions in clause 64. Clause 67 covers the term of a pipeline licence. Normally this will be for a period of 21 years but under the clause the designated authority is given discretion to adjust the period to conform to the dates of expiration of the production licence which will be served by the pipeline licence.

A pipeline licence may be issued subject to such conditions as the designated authority thinks fit and specifies in the licence, including a condition that the construction of the pipeline shall be completed within a specified period. A pipeline licensee will be able to apply for a variation of his pipeline licence in respect of - such things as its route, size, capacity and so on. Moreover, under clause 72, the designated authority will be empowered to vary a pipeline licence, for example, as to its re-routing should this be necessary in order to facilitate some other activity such as the construction of a wharf or other port facilities which are in the public interest. In such circumstances the pipeline licensee will be free to apply to the courts for compensation from those responsible for requiring the re-routing or other variation of the pipeline. In normal circumstances of course it would be expected that amicable and sensible arrangements would be worked out to the mutual satisfaction of the parties concerned without recourse to the courts.

The pipeline licensee will of course be free to enter into contracts and arrangements for the conveyance of petroleum belonging to other parties, and this will probably be the normal procedure in the event of a pipeline having the capacity to carry petroleum from more than one licence area. There is, however, in clause 73 provision for the designated authority to direct a pipeline licensee to be a common carrier of petroleum in respect of his pipeline.

Before leaving pipelines I should refer to clause 17 of the Commonwealth-State Agreement. This deals with the situation where a licensee wants to run his pipeline from one adjacent area through a neighbouring adjacent area. Under clause .1 7 it is provided that the relevant designated authority will accord all appropriate and reasonable treatment to an application to continue the pipeline across the adjoining adjacent area. Division 5 of the Mining Code deals with the registration of instruments, that is titles such as permits, licences and pipeline licences and dealings affecting these titles. In essence, each designated authority will keep a register of all titles setting out the name of the particular permittee, licensee, etc.. and certain relevant particulars. The register will also record any dealing or action affecting the title.

Transfers of titles are of no force and effect until they have been approved by the designated authority and registered as provided in Division 5. In this regard I again remind honourable senators that under clause 11 of the Commonwealth-State Agreement the States will consult the Commonwealth before approving of any transfers. Registration of transfers is subject to the payment of appropriate fees provided under the Registration Fees Bill. These registration fees are broadly equivalent to, and in lieu of, State stamp duty.

In brief the reason for adopting this special system of registration fees in lieu of State stamp duty is that titles, transfers and the like under this joint Commonwealth and State legislation will be registered in a register constituted under both Commonwealth and State Acts. It is clear that instruments regulated under Commonwealth legislation which makes provision for their effective registration, transfer and assignment could not be made dutiable by State law. There was also the point that the rates of stamp duty in the States varied considerably. Hence the system of uniform registration fees has been adopted and is included in both the Commonwealth and the State legislation. Under clause 152 - and in similar provisions in the State Bills - companies will be liable to pay registration fees under one law only. I will deal with the circumstances under which registration fees are payable in more detail when discussing the Registration Fees Bill. But for the moment I would draw attention to clause 91 which authorises the designated authority to determine the amount of the fee payable under the Registration Fees Bill and also provides for an appeal to the court by any party dissatisfied with a determination of the designated authority.

Division 6 deals with several general matters affecting the administration of the Common Mining Code. Clause 94 provides for notification in the ‘Gazette’ of the grant, and the grant of a renewal of titles, of the variation of titles, their surrender or cancellation. This is so that all interested parties may be aware of the action taken.

Clause 96 deals with the commencement of works in a title area. Normally it is expected that a person to whom a title is granted will commence his operations within 6 months from the grant of his title. However, for reasons similar to those which I mentioned earlier regarding work obliga tions, there may well be circumstances in which it would be only sensible to grant relief from this specific requirement. The designated authority is given discretion to exempt a title holder under such conditions as he thinks fit and specifies in writing.

As I mentioned earlier, offshore petroleum operations require considerable skill and experience both at the exploratory and exploitation stages. In the interests both of the safety and welfare of people engaged in these operations and in the efficient recovery of petroleum from the seabed, it is important that all operations be carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner and in accordance with good oilfield practice. Clause 97 covers this. I would however make the point that the record in Australia of those companies engaged in offshore operations has been excellent. They have displayed competence and efficiency as well as a very real sense of responsibility. We have every confidence that the same attitude will prevail among future operators in our offshore areas.

Being a party to the Convention on the continental shelf not only gives Australia certain rights under International Law, but also imposes on us certain responsibilities. For instance offshore petroleum operations require the construction of platforms and other installations and this is authorised by the Convention in Article 5. But the same Article goes on to say that installations which are abandoned or disused must be entirely removed. Clause 98 is relevant to this matter in that it not only requires a title holder to keep all his equipment’ in good condition and repair but also to remove from his title area structures and equipment which are no longer required.

I should also draw attention to clause 12 of the Commonwealth-State Agreement where each State Government undertakes in the administration of the Common Mining Code to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance with Australia’s obligations under the Convention.

I would now like to deal jointly with clauses 101 and 103 dealing with directions and exemptions. Reaching agreement between the several States and the Commonwealth on the policies desirable in a basic code of mining operations and translating these policies into words acceptable to the

Parliamentary Draftsmen of the Commonwealth and of the six States, has been a major task. Although the Bills now presented are long they do not do more than cover the general outline of administrative practices which we wish to follow, consistent with laying down in sufficient detail the ground rules within which the offshore industry will have to work. The industry not unreasonably wished to have these ground rules set out clearly. The expenditures which the companies concerned will undertake if they enter offshore operations are very considerable and their anxiety to know the conditions under which they will operate are both reasonable and understandable.

However the art and technology of offshore exploration and exploitation is one which is still comparatively new and which is developing with quite astonishing rapidity. In due course the governments intend to promulgate detailed operating and safety regulations and considerable work on these has already been done. However, the draft regulations are by no means complete and in any case the governments wish to give industry as the operating parties, the opportunity to discuss the proposed regulations in detail. Many of the companies have had considerable experience in offshore work in other countries, if not already in Australia.

As I said just now the record of responsibility by offshore operators to date has been impeccable and the governments have therefore felt it preferable to bring down the legislation dealing with the administration and policy side of offshore work in advance of the promulgation of detailed operating regulations. In the meantime provision is made for the designated authority to give directions to title holders on any matters with respect to which regulations may be made. Notwithstanding that every care will be taken in framing the conditions under which titles will be granted, it would be idle to suppose that in this new and difficult environment, every contingency can be foreseen, and hence provision is also made for discretion by the designated authority to vary, suspend or exempt a title holder from any of the conditions of his title.

Here I should draw attention to clause 18 of the Commonwealth-State Agreement which provides that directions inconsistent with regulations shall not be given, and exemptions from compliance with conditions of a title shall not be granted, by a designated authority unless there has been consultation between the Commonwealth Minister and the appropriate State Minister. At first sight the powers granted by these two clauses may appear somewhat wide but the Ministers of the States and my colleagues, the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) and the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen), when they discussed this matter in considerable detail, concluded that there was no other practicable course to pursue at this comparatively early stage in offshore operations in Australia.

Clauses 104 and 107 deal with the surrender or cancellation of titles. These are formal provisions and again, having regard to the responsible attitude displayed by the offshore operators in this country, we would expect that the cancellation provisions would be invoked rarely if indeed at all. However, they are included as a necessary part of the administrative procedure under the Bill.

I mentioned earlier that under the Convention, structures and equipment no longer used have to be removed. It could so happen that a title holder abandons his title leaving equipment or property in the area. Clause 108 covers such a contingency. It authorises the designated authority to take appropriate action, and under clause 113, having taken the action, the designated authority may dispose of that property by public auction and deduct from the proceeds the costs he has incurred.

Earlier when dealing with blocks from locations which revert to the Crown, not having been taken up by a permittee, I mentioned a temporary prospecting title called a Special Prospecting Authority. Details of this are set out in clause 111. Clause 112 deals with another temporary title, namely, an Access Authority. The basic propositions of this Bill are that nobody shall explore for petroleum other than in pursuance of an exploration permit, a production licence or a special prospecting authority. The first two titles are exclusive in that they give the holder sole and specific rights to operate within his title areas. However there could well be circumstances in which it is desirable that operators be able to gain limited access to nearby areas which are outside their own title area. For instance, an operator may need to be able to tie his own geophysical work into some known control. This may involve access over another title holder’s area or access over a part of the continental shelf over which there is no title extant. Clause 112 provides for the grant of access authorities in such circumstances for short periods. Without this provision a title holder going outside his own title area could be in breach of the law. - Clause 124 is another example of the way in which the Bill ensures that Australia’s obligations under the Convention are properly observed. Article 5 of the Convention requires that operations on the continental shelf must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation, fishing or the conservation of the living resources of the sea. Australia’s responsibility in this regard is covered by clause 124.

The States and the Commonwealth are anxious that there should be a systematic build-up of general knowledge of the geology and mineral resources of the continental shelf of Australia. This knowledge will be useful not only in the search for petroleum but also in the discovery of other minerals which it is confidently expected will be found in the seabed. Under the Commonwealth’s Petroleum Search Subsidy Act, information obtained by companies as a result of subsidised operations, is made available to the Commonwealth and published 6 months after the completion of any particular operation and cores and cuttings are properly stored and available for inspection. In the view of the several governments this has been most valuable. Indeed, the value of this procedure has been strikingly illustrated by the fact that the examination of cores from subsidised petroleum wells held in the Bureau of Mineral Resources was instrumental in leading to the discovery of the very extensive phosphate deposits near Duchess in Northern Queensland.

The governments considered however that in the case of non-subsidised operations there is a case for the company concerned having the exclusive use for a rather longer period of information obtained by its own efforts and at its own expense. However the basic right to exploit the re sources of the seabed vests in the Crown. The Crown issues titles for exploration and exploitation subject to appropriate conditions such as an adequate exploration effort, the payment of royalty and so on. The Governments have decided that it is also reasonable to make it a condition that not later than a specified number of years after the furnishing of information to governments the results should be available for general use. This is provided for in clause 118. 1 should also here draw attention to the provisions of clause 13 of the CommonwealthState Agreement which will ensure that the Commonwealth receives copies of all reports, maps, logs, and adequate portions of cores, cuttings and samples. This data will be invaluable both to the State geological surveys and to the Bureau of Mineral Resources of the Department of National Development in steadily building up a comprehensive knowledge of the geology of our continental shelf. However, the information will be kept confidential by governments for the periods specified in the clause. The foregoing will not of course in any way affect the publication of information received under, the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act in the manner already well established under that Act. The governments believe that the provisions of this clause as to the release of information strike a reasonable balance between the public interest and that of individual companies whose efforts result in obtaining geological information in respect of the areas in which they are working.

From time to time it will be necessary to determine various positions on the continental shelf, such as, for example, the position of a particular well in a title area. Provision is made in clause 156 for all determination of positions to be by reference to the Australian Geodetic Datum. This again is a heartening example of co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth as this Datum has been established and accepted by the co-operative effort of the surveying authorities of all States and the. Division, of National Mapping of the Department of National Development through the agency of the National Mapping Council. Particular attention has been paid to the position of companies holding titles which had already been issued by the States and the Territories. Throughout the discussions between the Commonwealth and the States the Commonwealth has made clear its intention, wherever possible, to honour titles which have been issued by States and Territories and accepted by companies in good faith prior to the passage of this legislation.

After the coming into force of this new legislation, an existing title holder will have two choices. He will be able, by virtue of appropriate transitional provisions in the Stale bills to continue to hold his existing title area under its existing conditions for the unexpired portion of its life. If. during this period a title holder discovers petroleum, then notwithstanding that he is not the holder of a permit under this new legislation, he will be entitled to apply for and bc granted a production licence under the Common Code in the same way as if he were the holder of a permit under the Common Code. The alternative procedure which will be open to existing title holders, and a procedure which we hope will be generally adopted, is that the title holder may seek to bring himself immediately within the provisions of the joint legislation. Thus he would obtain the security of title which will result from the legislative support of the mirror-image bills of the appropriate State and of the Commonwealth. Provision for this is made in clause 144. 1 should perhaps mention that in a few cases the outer boundaries of permits that have already been granted extend over areas where the depths are greater than would presently be regarded as exploitable. In such cases although the boundaries of a new title will be issued in general conformity with the original title the rights to explore will, in terms of the Bill, be limited to areas which from time to time have the character of continental shelf within the meaning of the Convention. Another minor exception to the arrangement for the confirmation of existing permits is that in two cases in the Arafura Sea permits have been issued, small parts of which inadvertently cover areas over .which the Government does not consider Australia has jurisdiction. Appropriate adjustments will he made and the companies concerned have already been advised of the situation.

My immediately preceding comments have been directed to titles at the permit or exploration stage. Special provisions have been made to cover production titles which have been granted to BHP and Esso in the Gippsland Shelf area and to West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd around Barrow Island and also in respect of the pipeline licences which have been granted in relation to the Barracouta and Marlin fields. In the case of Barracouta and Marlin production licences, and the pipeline licences which will serve these areas, clause 146 and 147 provide that these existing titles will continue in force as if they bad been granted under the joint legislation. I should make the point here that these titles were granted at a time when the general outline of the Common Code had been established. In consequence it was possible through special legislative action by Victoria, for the grants to be made in terms which conform very closely with the Bill now before the Senate.

As the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) pointed out in his announcement on 29th December 1966, the Commonwealth had concluded that it was in the national interest for the development of these two fields to proceed without delay. The work off Gippsland will involve a very large investment of the order of $150m. The action taken to grant to the companies titles under Victorian legislation, with an assurance of Commonwealth support, has enabled the companies to get ahead with their work and advance the time when natural gas will be available on the mainland by upwards of a year.

I think anybody who has followed the history of petroleum exploration in Australia at all closely must feel a sense of satisfaction that the tenacious efforts of West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd - a company known throughout Australia as Wapet - have been rewarded by a valuable discovery on Barrow Island. Production at Barrow is at present confined to the Island itself. But by arrangement between the Western Australian Government and the Commonwealth, Wapet was also granted a lease under Western Australian law, of an area of the seabed immediately surrounding the island. In accordance with the arrangements made between Western Australia and the Commonwealth, this lease over the submerged land surrounding Barrow Island is to be replaced by a production title issued under the joint legislation thus ensuring security of tenure to the company in respect of this area. Provision for this is made in clause 148.

Earlier in my speech I referred to the requirement in the future for operating and safety regulations. There may also be a need for administrative regulations such as for the prescription of various forms. The regulationmaking power is in clause 157. It not only provides a general power but also sets down in some detail the broad heads under which we expect that regulations will from time to time be necessary.

I would like now to deal with certain of the more important financial aspects of this legislation, references to which will be found both in the principal Bill and also in the taxing bills attached to the principal Bill, lt is a generally accepted feature of petroleum legislation that title holders pay fees somewhat in the nature of annual rental in return for their title areas. Fees at the permit stage will be at an annua] rate of $5 a block with a minimum payment for each permit of $100. This works out at approximately 20c per square mile which is a comparatively modest rate. However it is the view of both the State and Commonwealth Governments that at the exploration stage every encouragement should be given to the companies to spend their money on the all important task of searching for petroleum.

At the production licence stage the annual fee will be at the rate of $3,000 for each block in the licence area. In the case of a pipeline licence there will be an annual fee of $20 in respect of each mile of the length of the pipeline. These fees will be retained in full by the adjacent State and will be some offset to the costs which will be incurred by the States in the administration of the offshore legislation. This of course includes not only the office administration, but also inspections and the like in the field.

Another customary feature of petroleum legislation is the provision for bonds or securities for compliance with the conditions of the title. These are provided for in clause 114 in the sum of $5,000 for a permit, $50,000 for a production licence, and $20,000 for a pipeline licence. In the case of permits and pipeline licences, provision by the title holder of a satisfactory security will be compulsory. In the case of a licence the designated authority will have discretion whether or not to require lodgement of a security.

If success attends the effects of an exploration company,- it could well be that over the years it will take out several production licences. To require a company to lodge securities of $50,000 in respect of each licence could have the effect of tying up a substantial amount of money. Bearing in mind that failure to comply with the provisions of the licence or with any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations renders a title holder liable to have his title cancelled, it may be that a designated authority, having regard to, the value of the investment which the title holder has at stake in a licence, may decide that provision of a security in this case is not necessary.

When I referred to the provisions regarding the registration of transfers 1 mentioned that I would deal later with the circumstances under which registration fees are payable. I would like to do this now and would refer honourable senators to clause 4 of the Registration Fees Bill. Registration fees will be payable at an ad valorem rate of H% on the value of the consideration for a transfer of a title or on the value of the interest in the title transferred whichever is the greater. There will be a minimum fee of $100. Where the consideration for a transfer is represented by’ a promise to undertake or be responsible for the cost of approved exploration works, no registration fee is payable in respect of the value of those works. Where a transfer results from the operation of a prior dealing such as a farm-out agreement between two companies, exemption from ad valorem fees may be granted and in lieu a flat rate fee of $1,000 is charged. . This concession is subject to the designated authority being satisfied that the particular dealing was not entered into for the purpose of avoiding or reducing registration fees.

A further category of transfers which is exempt from ad valorem fees is a transfer between related companies when the designated authority is satisfied that this is made solely for the purpose of the reorganisation or for the better administration of the companies concerned. It is the view of the State and Commonwealth Governments that the legislation should aim to encourage administrative and organisational efficiency by offshore companies and avoid a multiplicity of unreal legal arrangements through schemes designed to avoid payment of registration fees. Without doubt the most important financial provisions relate to royalties both as to the rates at which royalty is payable and also in the distribution of royalties as between the States and the Commonwealth.

It will be noted from clause S of the principal Bill that ‘petroleum’ for the purposes of this legislation, will be defined as any naturally occurring hydrocarbon, or any naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbons or any naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbons with hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen, helium or carbon dioxide. This is to ensure that the legislation will cover those substances that may reasonably be expected to be encountered in the course of petroleum operations.

During the first 21 year period of a production licence the standard royalty will be at the rate of 10% of the value at the well head of the production of petroleum as denned. The standard royalty to apply during the second 21 year period of a licence, or during any further extensions, will be fixed by the Parliaments at or before the time of granting a renewal of a licence and the rate so determined will apply during that period. In the absence of parliamentary action to fix a new rate the 10% rate will continue to apply.

Where the permittee elects to take any or all of the additional blocks in a location over and above his primary entitlement, he will be required to pay an additional or override royalty on production from all of the blocks in the location which he elects to have included in his two licences. The rate of this override royalty will be negotiated between the operator and the designated authority but it is not to be less than 1% nor more than 2i%.

I mentioned earlier that there was no such thing as an International standard in offshore petroleum legislation. This is well illustrated by the differing rates of royalty which are payable. In Canada in offshore areas royalty is at 5% for the first five years and thereafter at 10%. In Italy it is 8% for oil and 5% for gas. In Nigeria it is 10% out to the fathom line and 8% in outer areas. In Norway it is 10%. In the United Kingdom it is 124%. In the

Netherlands a sliding scale rises to a maximum of 16%, and in federally controlled areas in the United States it is 16$%.

In Australia a 10% royalty on petroleum has been a generally accepted standard for many years. In considering what rate of royalty should apply offshore the Governments took note of the widely diverging royalty rates that applied overseas and also of the circumstances which exist in Australia today in relation to the size of our potential home market, the difficulties of exploration and so on. It was decided that retention of 10% as a standard rate was reasonable, but should operators wish to obtain additional areas from within their location, some further payment was justified. It will be noted that there is a floor of 1% to this override while the upper limit of 21% would bring the royalty rate to the same level as that which is imposed by the United Kingdom.

For royalty purposes the value at the well head of petroleum produced will be such amount as is agreed upon between the licensee and the designated authority or in default of agreement as is determined by the designated authority. Again I would refer honourable senators to clause 21 of the Commonwealth-State Agreement which provides for consultation between the designated authority and the Commonwealth before any determination of value is made otherwise than by agreement with the licensee.

Clause 6 of the Royalty Bill provides for the possibility of reducing the rate of royalty in certain cases. This would be in circumstances where the rate of recovery of petroleum has become so reduced that further recovery might be uneconomic in the absence of some relief. Reduction of royalty will not be made except after consultation as provided by clause 20 of the CommonwealthState Agreement between the Commonwealth Minister and the appropriate Minister of the State. This particular provision is looking a long way into the future but it is designed to ensure the maximum possible recovery of petroleum from any particular field.

I have mentioned the mirror image nature of the legislation being brought down in the Commonwealth and the State Parliaments. Royalty will be provided for in both sets of legislation and in order that companies will not be required to pay royalty twice, special provision is made in clause 128 of the principal Bill that where royalty is paid under a law of the State, the operator is not liable to pay royalty in respect of that same petroleum under the Commonwealth Royalty Act.

The sharing of royalties between the Commonwealth and the States is dealt with in clause 19 of the Commonwealth-State Agreement and in clause 129 of the principal Bill. The standard royalty of 10% will be shared on the basis of six-tenths to the adjacent State and four-tenths to the Commonwealth, while override royalty payable where a permittee takes out a secondary licence from within a location, will be retained in full by the adjacent State. in the case of the Territory of Papua and New - Guinea, the Government has decided that all payments of fees and royalties will be paid to the Territory Administration. Notwithstanding the very heavy expenditure which Australia incurs year by year in guiding this Territory towards self determination, it is felt proper that from the outset of this offshore legislation all payments made by operating companies should be shown to be directly for 1he benefit of these Territories.

I would now like to deal with certain additional papers which I am making available to assist the Senate in its consideration of this legislation. I am arranging for distribution for the information of honourable senators a small booklet containing the Barracouta and Marlin Pipeline Licences and the Barrow Island Lease. These are recognised by clauses 147 and 148 respectively of the principal Bill. I might also mention that the Barracouta and Marlin Production Licences are recognised by Clause 146 of the principal Bill. The form of these latter licences is set out in the Third Schedule.

I turn now to existing off-shore exploration titles, that is, the broad equivalent of exploration permits under this new legislation. Over fifty of these which have been issued by State Governments and Administrations of Commonwealth Territories are current. These titles are ‘prescribed instruments’ within the meaning of clause 141 of the principal Bill. It is not practicable to lay copies of these numerous documents on the table of the Senate but 1 am arranging for distribution for the information of honourable senators a summary of these titles showing the State or Territory concerned, the title number, the holder of the title, area, date of expiry and whether or not the title is wholly offshore.. In addition I now table the following:

  1. A map and explanatory key showing the exploration titles that had been issued up to December 1966, and the persons’ to whom they were issued together with a map showing the areas of the Barracouta-Marlin production licences and the routes which will be traversed by the pipelines serving, these areas;

    1. As regards New South Wales a copy of Exploration Licence 112 to Shell Development (Australia) Pty Ltd. This title is typical of other licences issued in New South Wales;
    2. As regards Victoria a copy of Permit Number 57 issued by the Victorian Minister for Mines to Shell Development (Australia) Pty Ltd, together with a copy of the relevant regulations under which the same was issued. This permit is typical of all Exploration Permits issued in Victoria;
    3. As regards Queensland a copy of Authority to Prospect 127P issued by the Queensland Acting Minister for Mines to Corbett Reef Limited. The text of this Authority generally follows that of all ‘ previous offshore Authorities to Prospect issued in Queensland;
    4. As regards South Australia a copy of the prescribed general form which licences issued in that State must follow. Individual licences issued in that State are not public documents but are treated as confidential by the State authorities; they are therefore not available to me for tabling;
    5. As regards Western Australia a copy of Permit to Explore 27H issued to West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd. This title is typical of other exploration permits issued’ by Western Australia;
    6. As regards Tasmania a copy of Exploration Permit Number 5/67 issued by the Tasmanian Minister , for Mines to Magellan Petroleum Southern Pty Ltd. This permit is generally in line with other exploration permits issued in Tasmania;
    7. As regards the Northern Territory and the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands a copy of a typical offshore exploration title;.
    8. As regards the Territories of Papua and New Guinea a copy of a typical offshore exploration title.

Before concluding there are two or three other general matters to which I would like to refer. The legislation which -1 am now presenting to the Senate- is. currently before the Parliaments of all the States. This action flows from clause 4 of the’ CommonwealthState Agreement. All the States expect to deal with- the legislation during the present session.

In the drafting of this joint legislative scheme every effort has been made to avoid the risk of constitutional litigation that might result in either the Commonwealth legislation or the legislation of a State being declared invalid. While the Governments themselves have all agreed to put constitutional issues on one side and not to challenge the validity of each other’s legislation, it is understood that, if either the Commonwealth or State legislation is successfully challenged in the courts, the scheme of arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States will nevertheless continue in force.

From time to time there have been suggestions from some quarters that the Commonwealth has in some way abandoned its constitutional authority and responsibility in connection with offshore petroleum. This allegation is usually associated with discussion about interstate trade in offshore petroleum. I want to make two points. First, any suggestion that the Commonwealth has abdicated its proper position is entirely erroneous. What it has done is, in cooperation wilh the States, to establish a legislative and administrative system resting on a foundation comprising all the powers and executive resources available both to the Commonwealth and the States.

Secondly, insofar as interstate trade is concerned, 1 would particularly draw the attention of honourable senators to the Annex to the Commonwealth-State Agreement relating to trade between the States, and between the States and Territories, in petroleum produced from the offshore areas to which this joint legislation will apply. It will be noted that the Prime Minister and all State Premiers have formally set down the resolve of their Governments that they will encourage and will not seek to restrict any such trade. Further, they declare their common intention not to discriminate against any such trade. Thus the principle of freedom, and indeed of encouragement’, of interstate trade is explicitly written into the basic arrangements of this joint scheme. The Government regards this as an historic piece .of legislation which it is proud to bring before this Parliament. We believe that the whole scheme not only demonstrates the strength of the inter-governmental institutions of this country, but is also unique in the world in countries where a federal system of government is in force.

Finally, it is the hope both of this Government and of the governments of the states that the passage of these Bills through the several Parliaments will herald an even greater effort in the exploration for petroleum in Australia’s offshore areas, and that these probings of our continental shelf will result i,n many more discoveries of petroleum which will add to our national wealth. I commend the Bill to the consideration of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Henty) proposed:

That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I oppose this motion. 1 did intend to proceed upon the basis that debate on this very motion on procedure could be adjourned in order that all honourable senators might have an opportunity to be present at a later time to consider its implications, but it seems desirable that we should discuss it now rather than postpone its consideration until a little later. This legislation is, in the words of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development (Senator Henty) who introduced it, an ‘historic piece of legislation’. It is said to be a legislative scheme which the Government believes to be unique in the world and which is suitable to a federal system of government, lt is said that the Government regards it as an historic piece of legislation which it is proud to bring before this Parliament. The Government believes that the whole scheme not only demonstrates the strength of the intergovernmental institutions of this country but that it is also unique among countries where a federal system of government is in force. lt is obvious to anyone that these seven Bills are extremely complicated; they are bristling with technicalities and they contain matters of major importance. They are probably among the most important economic measures to come before any parliament. They are among the most important constitutional measures to come before this Parliament. We say that it is unreasonable that the Bills should be introduced into this chamber in this way and that we should bc expected to deal with them in the course of the very day on which they are introduced. The matter with which they deal has apparently taken years of preparation and there have been many discussions. The Parliament is entitled to a proper consideration of the measures.

Because of the amount of legislation that honourable senators have had to deal with recently and also of the other matters that have occupied our time it has just, not been physically possible even to follow the course of this legislation in the other House. Simply as a practical matter it has not been possible even to read Hansard to see what arguments have been advanced in the other House on this matter in order that one might gain what advantage one could from those debates. I have had no physical opportunity to read Hansard to see what was said on this matter in . the House of Representatives. If this is to be a house of review how can we possibly conduct business in this fashion. In view of the importance of this matter I think that at least the weekend should intervene so that honourable senators can have a fair opportunity of considering the Bills. There are a great number of amendments which will have to be dealt with. These ought to be considered for their own sake. They also ought to be considered in relation to the speeches on the second reading of this legislation. lt is the view of the Opposition that it is quite intolerable to expect the debate to proceed today. This is not a matter of tactics, with reference to whether or not we come back next week, or anything like that. I think it is quite obvious to everyone that we will be here next week in any event. This is major legislation and we ought to be given some reasonable opportunity to consider it properly. This legislation, rather than something else, ought to be dealt with when we come back. I say that it is not a reasonable approach to this matter to expect us to deal with this major legislation at this time and in these circumstances. We are asking for the barest minimum when we say that, the debate should at least be stood over to the next sitting. The appropriate course then would be to oppose the motion in order that the Government may take the steps to bring it on on the next day of the sitting, or whenever convenient.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I think that a number of the arguments which were advanced by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) would be valid and cogent arguments if the proposition now before this chamber was to rush this highly complex Bill through all stages without proper debate and without full time being given for its consideration. But that proposition is not before this chamber. What is before us is the normal proposal, according to the forms of the Senate, ‘.hat the debate on the Bill be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. That would mean that consideration of the Bill could start at a later hour today. I think that the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, cogent as they may be as concerns trying to complete a matter of this kind, are not strictly cogent as arguments against beginning the discussion on this matter at some later time today. I think that this is really an attempt - and I think a wrong attempt - to take the conduct of business in this chamber out of the hands of the Government. That should not be done unless there are the greatest and most weighty reasons for it. I can well understand that, particularly at the Committee stage, all the ramifications and implications of this Bill would need to be studied by those who are particularly interested in them and that full time should be given for the discussion of these matters. But I do not believe that a case has been made out to support the contention that the principles underlying the Bill - this is what we will begin to discuss - ought nol to be discussed at a later hour of the day. The principles are well known. They are well known by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and have been discussed by his own Caucus. I. think the principles are known to all who have taken an interest in this matter. It does not seem to me that it would be proper to say to the Senate, as the Leader of the Opposition wants to say, that a discussion of the principles underlying this Bill cannot be begun today at a later hour.

Senator Murphy:

– But the Government has begun a consideration of the principles and we have facilitated it by agreeing to the incorporation in Hansard of certain material.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I mean a discussion of the principles of the Bill which the Opposition is seeking to prevent taking place later on today. I ask the Senate to adopt Its normal practice of making a Bill an order of the day to be called on at a later stage in the day. I do not believe that it is cogent or correct to suggest that by discussing this matter today we are rushing through debate on important principles and through the important Committee stage, because such action is in the hands of honourable senators themselves. I do not think they would allow that to happen. This is really an attempt to prevent discussion on a subject that I have heard it said will take 2 days to complete.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Does this imply that the Minister is prepared to discuss the Bill in Committee at another date?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– This would be entirely in the hands of the Senate. I cannot imagine the Senate thinking or agreeing that the Bill would pass through all stages today. I do not think the Senate could or would agree to that. But this is another matter. The situation quite clearly is that it would not be within the competence of the Government, even if it wanted to, to force that on the Senate. But to begin a discussion of this measure is a different matter. 1 think that the ordinary forms of the Senate should, in this case, be adhered to.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– 1 oppose the motion and support the view put to the Senate by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). As he has indicated, the Opposition did everything necessary to facilitate the placing of the matter before the Senate. We did not put the Minister in the difficulty of having to read a 2-hour second reading speech. But sooner or later we will need to have an opportunity to read carefully the whole of the material.

Senator McClelland:

– Pages 15 to 55 of the speech have not yet been read.

Senator COHEN:

– That is right. They have been incorporated in Hansard. We have given the Minister leave to use a precis of the second reading speech. It is not good enough just to suggest that we do not want the debate to proceed. What the motion seeks to do is to throw onto the Opposition the onus of commencing the second reading debate straight after the Minister’s second reading speech. Members of the Opposition have to assimilate all (his material. As well as studying the legislation we will also have to study an important agreement which contains many complexities. By this motion the Government is seeking to force the Opposition into commencing its attack on the legislation immediately. It is no good saying that we can debate the matter in a preliminary way. How can the Leader of the Opposition make a comprehensive speech befitting the introduction of what has been described as an historic piece of legislation? If I may use the vernacular, this is not the occasion for some quick speech. We cannot dispose of such legislation in a matter of minutes. This is an occasion on which the Senate and the people are entitled to have a studied contribution from those whose responsibility it is to consider the legislation. I suggest that it is altogether unreasonable to expect that this debate should proceed and then to attempt to blame the Opposition for not being willing to go ahead with the debate.

If the Government had followed the precedent it has set in other major legislation in recent times, this legislation would have been allowed to lie on the table for about 6 months so that all aspects of it could be studied. The Government did this in regard to Bills related to bankruptcy, restrictive trade practices and other matters. The Bill now under discussion was introduced a few days ago into the other place. It was debated for at least 3 days and was the subject of a large number of amendments. The Senate has not had an opportunity to consider the arguments that were put and the various positions that were taken during the debate in another place. It could be that after a studied consideration of the legislation the debate would not take as long as it otherwise might. But in any event I submit that it is unreasonable to suggest that we would not be measuring up to our responsibilities if we were not prepared to proceed with the second reading debate later today. I strongly oppose the motion moved by the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– My experience in this chamber for what it is worth has been that an ordered debate is capable of coming to a conclusion much more expeditiously than one that is precipitate and disordered. But I am not moved by that. If the Opposition was seeking a fortnight in which to consider the legislation, I would not regard it as unreasonable. If it was seeking a week I would regard it as a fair request. But I submit that, when it has not been convenient to read the entire second reading speech, a period of a day or two is the very least, the minimal, opportunity that can be given. The Government has said that this is an historic piece of legislation. It is a unique piece of legislation not only because there is no pattern for it in any offshore oil producing country but because offshore exploration is the experience of only the last 8, 10 or 12 years. We are attempting to formulate an historic and unique piece of legislation. Not only has the Opposition a right to formulate a speech appropriate to the occasion but any individual senator who takes his responsibility in the matter seriously will wish to have time to consider this legislation. Senators need time not merely to read the legislation but to form a judgment upon the vital principles involved.

Firstly, we are told that in the United States the Federal Government was held by the Supreme Court to have full and paramount authority over both the outer continental shelf and the territorial seabed. That is a vital matter for the consideration of this country, because if the Australian National Parliament has that authority there are many considerations that I wish to put before the Senate as to the appropriateness of this very complex piece of legislation. I shall mention two. The Agreement that is said to be at the heart of the matter declares itself to be incapable of variation except with the consent of the seven Parliaments of the Commonwealth and the States. That Agreement also provides that the terms of the relevant Acts and of any regulations made under them shall be capable of variation or amendment only with the concurrence of all seven Parliaments. It can be seen that such a system of legislation is an attempt to usurp the proper constitutional authority of the Parliament, if the Federal Government of Australia has the same authority as the Supreme Court of the United States of America has held is vested in the Federal Government that country. Because of the important national interest in offshore oil, and the gigantic wealth involved, which was men tioned in another place by the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) and frequently by other speakers also, as well as the defence interest in - oil, that constitutional question concerns me greatly.

In all humility, Mr Deputy President, I point out that I am only an individual’. Great people have considered these matters in concert and alone. They have had advantages that have been denied to me over the last 24 months. If I am to have an opinion on this subject, 1 want an opportunity to form it and to express it in this chamber by presenting a persuasive argument ‘ that may have some effect. I believe that we would do ourselves the greatest disrespect possible if we were to begin consideration of this legislation today, it having been presented to the Senate only this morning. I say that with due recognition of the Government’s wish to get these Bills through. I am always ready to co-operate in putting legislation through and 1 spare no effort in the work that this entails. But I refuse to neglect opportunities for proper consideration of legislation. I have risen not with any wish to obstruct the consideration of these measures but rather to facilitate it. I suggest that the Senate concur in the proposal that we be given at least the weekend to consider the legislation before we have the advantage of hearing a carefully thought out speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and other speakers who may follow him in a full discussion of the principles of these Bills at the second reading stage, to be followed by a full Committee debate, which, 1 am glad to say, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gorton) has promised. This is the very least that we owe the nation in our approach to measures so important as these.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - Mr Deputy President, 1 support the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gorton) on this matter and point out that the motion before us is designed merely to afford the Senate an opportunity to begin discussion of these measures at a later hour of the day. That is all that is involved. My proposal was that resumption of the adjourned second reading debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The need to consider legislation already before us may make it impossible to proceed with these measures later today. It may not be possible to proceed with them today. However, a decision by the Senate that the resumption of the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting would make it impossible for us to consider these Bills today even if we were to finish our consideration of all the other legislation now before us. These Bills have already been considered in another place. The second reading speech made there by the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) and the material that I tabled this morning have been available for more than a week. The Opposition Caucus has considered its attitude to these measures and I understand that it has decided to oppose them. I suggest, with great respect, that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), or whoever is to lead for the Opposition in the debate, is already prepared to oppose this legislation, because the Opposition Caucus has decided that it shall be opposed. That is my understanding of the situation. If I am wrong, I can be corrected. 1 point out that the only matter that we are now discussing is the Government’s proposal that the resumption of the adjourned second reading debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. If we get to this legislation in the order in which it is listed, we can proceed to consider it. If we do not get to it, we shall not consider it today.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2155

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October (vide page 1819), on motion by Senator Gorton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

Mr Deputy President, during the debate on the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill, the Opposition’s intention to propose an amendment to this Bill similar to that proposed in relation to the other Bill was mentioned. I do not wish now to canvass the reasons for the amendment, which has been circulated and which I shall propose at the Committee stage. The reasons have already been stated in another place and in an earlier debate in this chamber andI do not propose to delay the Senate by discussing them now.

Senator Anderson:

– AsI entered the chamberI heard the honourable senator mention that an amendment would be proposed. I regret to say thatI have not seen it. I would be interested to know whether it has been circulated. If an amendment is to be proposed at the Committee stage, I should at least be given an opportunity to look at it.

Senator BISHOP:

-I understood that the proposed amendment was circulated yesterday, because it was then expected that consideration of this measure would follow straight after consideration of the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill, as happened in another place. Honourable senators will probably remember that the amendment in respect of the other Bill was designed to do away with discretionary power and proposed the substitution of the word ‘shall’ for the word ‘may’ in two places in section 73 of the principal Act.

Senator Anderson:

-Is the amendment identical with that proposed in another place? I have a copy of that amendment.

Senator BISHOP:

– It is identical.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 4a.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: 4a. Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1.) the word “ may “ and inserting in its stead the word “ shall “; and

by omitting from sub-section (2.) the word “ may “ and inserting in its stead the word “ shall “.’

As I have indicated, the purpose of the proposed amendment was fully debated when we dealt with the Commonwealth

Employees’ Furlough Bill. The amendment is similar to an amendment which I moved to that Bill. The arguments which 1 advanced in the earlier debate apply with equal force in this debate. I will not canvass the matter further.

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

– As Senator Bishop has said, his amendment is identical in its application with the amendment moved yesterday to the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill. Yesterday I indicated that the Government could not accept the amendment. The amendment seeks to insert a mandatory provision into the legislation. The amendment moved yesterday was not carried, and I do not think there is any point in canvassing the present amendment further since it is identical with the amendment defeated yesterday. For the reasons that I advanced yesterday for the Government’s rejection of the previous amendment the Government cannot accept the amendment now moved.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Title agree to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2156

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October (vide page 1819), on motion by Senator Henty:

Tha’ the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Bill authorises the payment to Western Australia and Tasmania of special grants totalling $35,407,000. Tasmania will receive $19,889,000 and Western Australia $15,518,000. This payment has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Financial assistance is being provided to States which are in an inferior financial position compared with other States.

Tasmania and Western Australia are sparsely populated States and are less in dustrialised than are, for instance, New South Wales and Victoria. They have less wealth at their disposal than have other States, although with the rapid development of mineral resources this situation could change in the not too distant future. At present Tasmania and Western Australia face a great challenge in developing their natural resources to bring them closer to equality with the more highly developed and populous States.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has reported:

Special grants are justified when a State, through financial stress from any cause, is unable efficiently to discharge its functions as a member of the Federation and should be determined by the amount of help found necessary to make it possible for that State, by reasonable effort, to function at a standard not appreciably below that of other States.

Tasmania is at a continuing disadvantage compared with other States inasmuch as it is separated from the mainland by Bass Strait. The other States have .the advantage of direct rail links. Over the years the Commonwealth, with the aid of the States, has been able to render great service to the mainland States. This service is continuing with the rail unification programme. The foresight of our forefathers in building the trans-continental railway did a lot to bring Western Australia more firmly into the federation and the benefits that flowed from that closer link with the eastern States are well known to most people. But Tasmania is at a disadvantage because of its separation from the mainland by Bass Strait. Most of our bulk transport is by sea. This is a cause of concern to most people, not only those who have established industries in Tasmania and those who are developing our natural resources but also those who wish to select a place in which to establish an industry.

There is no doubt that, taking all factors into consideration, Tasmania offers tremendous opportunities for development. We have a high average rainfall. Of course, at the moment we are short of rain, but so are some mainland States. We have a vast and growing paper pulp industry and a vigorous newsprint industry, which have access to fine natural stands of eucalypt. At the same time as this is being developed, a vigorous policy of regeneration and regrowth is being pursued in connection with out timber resources. Again, it is known already that there are a number of mineral deposits in Tasmania. Within the last week or so an announcement was made relating to the development of a nickel lode which is said to exist there. In addition, there are vast iron ore deposits on the west coast, and tin and copper production is well established in the Queenstown and Renison Bell areas.

Then there are our basic primary industries which include dried milk and ultraheat treated milk products, and apple and pear production. These, coupled with bur fruit canning, jam making and other industries all go to give Tasmania a balanced pattern of economy which would expand rapidly in normal circumstances. But, as I have said, we suffer a great disadvantage because of the large body of water between our island and the Australian mainland. Because our surplus products are marketed either on the mainland or overseas this makes Tasmania perhaps the most disadvantaged of the claimant States.

I should say that the most effective way by which the Commonwealth has been able to help Tasmania has been by the provision, through the Australian National Line, of the .very fine service provided by ‘Princess of Tasmania’ and ‘Empress of Australia’. This service has opened up a new era for Tasmania. But although these vessels provide a regular, reliable service, that is still not enough because the increase in business that has developed as a result of that service has in turn created a still greater demand for shipping facilities. The speedier transport service provided by these roll-on roll-off vessels has indeed improved business and created a demand for an expansion of the service, and it was with great pleasure that we heard of the possibility of the early duplication of the service now provided by ‘Princess of Tasmania’.

We hope that this expanded service will develop Tasmania’s enormous tourist potential. Already the attraction to tourists has become so great that the ‘Princess of Tasmania’ has been booked to maximum capacity for some time ahead. The story of what Tasmania has to offer and the improvement of access to those attractions is spreading far and wide. I should say that Tasmania could aptly be called the Garden of Eden of the south. Even at this time of the year we can offer tourists the benefits of such things as good snow fields and excellent ski-ing areas at such places as Ben Lomond and the Mount Field National Park. Then, too, there is the magnificent mountain scenery to be found on the island and, all in all, we have a great deal to offer tourists. But the development of this industry depends not only on the co-operation of the airlines, but also on an efficient shipping service and I impress upon the Government that’ in moving to duplicate the shipping service to Tasmania it is making a sound investment. I hope that before not very long that service will even be quadrupled.

The sum of SI 5.5m which is being made available to Western Australia under this measure is additional to the special grant of $48m which the Government has just announced that it proposes to make available for the expansion of . the Ord River scheme. But it is interesting to note that this announcement is made on the eve of an election. Hitherto, the Government has argued that it was not a feasible scheme despite the most convincing cases advanced by those very conscientious senators, Senators Wheeldon, Wilkinson, Tangney and Cant as to the feasibility and potential of the Ord River project. But now we are on the eve of an election, plums are being passed out by the Government in an effort to revive its fading election prospects. I can only say that the people of Western Australia are very thankful for these mercies. Whatever the outcome of the election, I believe that the expenditure of not only the amount involved in this legislation but also the amount of $48m for the expansion of the Ord River scheme will bring tremendous benefit to their State.

The Western Australians are held dearly in the hearts of the Australian people generally because they are our new frontier people. They are now. facing a great challenge in that from what has hitherto been considered to be virtually a no-man’s land, a barren and desolate area, has come news recently of the discovery of vast iron ore deposits, of oil, and of nickel. We think highly of these people, too, because of the contribution they have made in helping to maintain our trade balances overseas by their consistently steady production of gold.

The Senate could debate for many hours the subject of special assistance by way of grants to the States. The advantages of these grants to the claimant States are great. I am confident that none of those States which are relatively self-supporting could begrudge a continuation of the policy of adopting the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, especially in view of the improvement that has been effected in both States as a result of the allocations made in previous years. By these grants, the economy has developed and the incentive for people to go there has been increased. Decentralisation of population has made great strides in both States where more and more people are needed, lt is by triggering off new enterprises through grants such as those under consideration that we hope to expand and extend our policy of decentralisation.

At the present time in my own State of Tasmania we are in the process of developing the Gordon River hydro-electric scheme and extending our hydro-electric complex generally. The Gordon River project has been made possible by special grants and other moneys allocated by the Commonwealth through the States. Because these moneys have been available to us, we in Tasmania have been enabled to open up an area that previously was unknown to many. Because of the horizontal forest, the sun had hardly ever penetrated to the ground in this area over the centuries.

This is one of the most interesting areas in the world. In it are to be found species of native flora and fauna that are not seen in any other part of the world. In the horizontal forest with its very thick layers of leaves, where trees and other plants intertwine and form grotesque shapes, the sunlight cannot penetrate and, through its interaction with the chlorophyll in plant life, produce the reaction of photosynthesis necessary for healthy plant colouring, lt is an eerie experience to walk through these horizontal forests.

With the assistance of Commonwealth funds the Hydro-electric Commission is driving roads through the forests to the Gordon River where we will have a reservoir system equal to the Snowy Mountains reservoir system. Perhaps not many people realise that the natural, advantages for catchment there arc so great that our reservoir system will be of that standard.. This will be another step forward in the consistent development of our natural resources. It will encourage more industries and enable us to hold our position as producers of the cheapest electricity in Australia.

Senator Ormonde:

– Is it still the cheapest?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. Hydroelectricity generation is cheaper than thermal generation. In addition, on a comparative basis and having regard to demand, power generated by atomic energy could not compete with it economically. Many aspects of State activities could well be brought forward in a debate on these grants to the States. Suffice to say that Tasmania appreciates its proportion of the grant. I am certain that the people of Western Australia need still more finance to take advantage of the opportunities available to them. However, there can be no argument about the advisability and efficacy of a government policy which helps these two fine pioneering States of Western Australia and Tasmania.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I will not delay the Senate for very long but, as a representative of one of the States involved in these special assistance grants, I feel 1 should make some comment. It will be noticed that the amount made available to Western Australia is some $4m less than the amount made available to Tasmania. I think most honourable senators are aware of the tremendous development that is evident in Western Australia, development which is being fostered and aided in every way by one of the best governments Western Australia has ever had - a progressive, far-seeing government. We are developing our natural resources to the great benefit of the whole Commonwealth.

It is interesting to note the immediate effect of this development upon the finances of Western Australia. Although we are incurring great obligations and placing strains on our economy by this development, the immediate return by way of profits from our iron ore is largely going directly to the Commonwealth, while at the same time the grant made under this legislation has been reduced to offset the benefits being obtained by Western Australia. It is good to have these grants to tide us over until Western Australia is no longer al claimant State. We look forward to that time eagerly because, to a great degree, we are inhibited in the kind of things that we need to do and would like to do in our State by the requirements of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. We will have a great sense of freedom; as I believe was the case in South Australia, when’ we are independent financially of the Grants Commission.

I cannot forbear remarking upon a statement made by Senator O’Byrne, who attributed the Government’s decision in relation to the Ord scheme in great measure to the notable and persistent advocacy of the Labor members of the Senate. While I admit their advocacy, I think the tribute should be paid to the Government of Western Australia which has persisted with a most vigorous and able policy in relation to the Ord scheme. The work done at the Kimberley Research Station on the development of new, and the selection of better, varieties of cotton and in the development of hybrid sorghums has been outstanding. Ultimately it will be to the great economic advantage not only of Western Australia but of Australia as a whole.

If we are to pay a tribute to the decision regarding the Ord scheme we must also pay a tribute to the Government of Western Australia which has persisted with this project and has done some of the most notable engineering work in the Commonwealth on the Ord River. Anyone who has been there must pay tribute to the excellent standard of the work that has been done and the very fine contribution to this pioneering venture that has been made by the men and women who have gone to Kununurra and pioneered a new phase in Australia’s development. It is a tribute to a responsible government that, after a satisfactory period of trial, a favourable decision has been reached.

Senator MCMANUS:
Victoria

– My remarks will be very brief. I am a Victorian senator but I am very pleased to see two other States receiving this largesse from the Commonwealth even though, in addition to these grants, they have also been given other grants this week, just prior to the Senate election, for their development. While I support these grants may I say that I think some of my Victorian colleagues - for example, Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood - will share with me a feeling of envy that while other States are receiving this largesse from the Commonwealth our own State has been forced to introduce a form of taxation never before known, simply because it has not received enough for its development.

I contrast our State with the other two States. We are at present in a difficult situation. The business world is concerned about the situation and the Victorian Government is concerned about its Budget, because it does not know whether the legislation relating to the introduction of the proposed taxes will be stopped. I can only say that the people of Victoria must be very longsuffering in a situation in which their Government is forced to introduce new taxation of an unheard of degree without being able to get an answer to the question whether it will be allowed to maintain that new taxation.

We senators from Victoria are not dogs in the manger. We do not object to the Commonwealth showering its money upon the other States. All that we hope is that we will be able to pick up a few of the crumbs which fall from the Commonwealth’s table and that we will be included in the distribution of pre-Senate election gifts.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I want to say a few words as a senator from the State of Western Australia which is receiving some assistance under this Bill. I think that at the present stage of our development in Western Australia we still require the assistance which is given under this Bill. I point out to honourable senators that because Western Australia did not receive all that it required last year, the Western Australian Government had to increase hospital charges by 50% and it had to introduce legislation similar to that which has been introduced into Victoria to impose stamp duty on all sales. The Government did this because it did not have the money with which to carry out the necessary work in our State.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– Ours is a stamp duty on wages.

Senator WILKINSON:

– Western Australia has imposed stamp duty on all sales.

Senator Toohey:

– That is typical of Liberal Governments. They always do this sort of thing.

Senator WILKINSON:

– Yes, but the point that I want to emphasise here is the development which has been proceeding in Western Australia under the present Liberal Government. Senator Prowse pointed out that the Western Australian Government has exploited to considerable advantage the large wealth that Western Australia possesses. This great wealth has been there for a good many centuries. As a matter of fact, when the Labor Government was in office it was aware of the. iron ore deposits.

Senator Sim:

– But it did not exploit them.

Senator WILKINSON:

– I thank the honourable senator for his interjection. I remind him that if he casts his mind back he will remember that the Western Australian Labor Government endeavoured to exploit these mineral resources but it was refused the opportunity to do so by the Menzies Government. That fact should be remembered. All that has happened at the present time is that the right to export has been granted to the Western Australian Government and to the people who are coming in to operate the leases. That is why this tremendous increase in development has occurred in Western Australia. I have nothing to say against the development.

I believe that Western Australia will not be a claimant State for very much longer. I think that within a very short time Western Australia will be able to take its place with the other major States of the Commonwealth in finding money to meet the whole of its needs. I look forward to the time when we will be able to do that. We are now discovering all kinds of minerals which were not known to the previous Labor Government or to the present Liberal Government. I am very pleased to see discoveries of minerals occurring in various parts of Western Australia. I think that they will be of great help in the advancement of Western Australia and in enabling it to reach the position in which it will no longer be a claimant State. We do not like being a claimant State, but we must remember that Western Australia comprises one-third of the total area of Australia, lt has an area of a million square miles and a population of only 800,000.

I think that Western Australia is doing a magnificent job. I pay a tribute to the Western Australian people.

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

– Perhaps it is understandable, although it is regrettable, that in the climate of the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill, under which special assistance is to be given to Tasmania and Western Australia, some extraneous matters should emerge. This would suggest that there is an election in the air. Under this Bill Tasmania and Western Australia are to be given special grants, as recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, over and above the normal tax reimbursement grants. I was rather interested to listen to Senator McManus’s point, which seemed to suggest that he was mounting an argument against the fundamental principle of advances to the States. I remind him that ever since federation special grants in one form or another, have been given to the claimant States, that is, to the States which were in need of greater assistance than were the States which had large .populations. This principle is fundamental to the spirit of the Commonwealth of Australia. It has been observed in this, particular form since 1910. There can be no argument against the. principle. As I have said, under this Bill special grants are to be given to Tasmania and Western Australia.

Reference has been made in this debate to the ‘ special grant which is being made to Western Australia in connection with the Ord River project. This indicates that Western Australia receives not only special assistance under this’ legislation but also other assistance towards the development of schemes, such as the Ord River project. As has been properly pointed out, the assistance which is being given to secondary development is based on economic studies and surveys of the realities of the situation. It would have been quite reprehensible if the Commonwealth had used taxpayers money prematurely, before these studies and surveys had been completed and the economic position determined. It has been proved, as well as it can be proved in these matters, that there is justification for the development of the Ord River project, and the Commonwealth, in the tradition of behaviour it has always followed, is providing special assistance for this project. I thank the Senate for the speedy passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2 p.m.

page 2161

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 November (vide page 1990), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill provides for the validation until 30th June 1968 of customs duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 19 to 22 since 4th October last.’ The legislation relates to very important matters and the Government proposes that the debate on them be deferred until the autumn session. As the Bill validates the collection of duties to enable the enacting Bill to be introduced at that time, we feel that we can quite well leave discussion of the matter until the legislation comes before us in the autumn. We therefore support the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2161

DESIGNS BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is intended to protect the proprietor of a registered design against the importation of articles to which his design has been applied abroad without his authority. The Designs Act 1906-1966 provides for the registration of designs. The owner of the copyright in a registered design has certain remedies in respect of an infringement of the copyright in his registered design. Section 30 of the Act provides that it is an infringement for a person, without the authority of the registered owner, to apply a registered design to articles in respect of which it is registered or to sell articles to which the registered design has been applied without the authority of the registered owner. In June of this year, the Supreme Court of New South Wales held, in the case HellaAus tra Iia Pty Ltd v Quinton Hazell (Aust.) Pty Ltd, that it was not an infringement under section 30 to sell imported articles to which a registered design had been applied abroad without the authority of the registered owner in Australia. The Court held that the section did not apply to articles to which a registered design had been applied abroad. This decision meant that the Designs Act gives no protection to the proprietor of a registered design against the importation and sale in Australia of goods to which his design has been applied abroad.

The present Bill will remedy this defect in the Designs Act. In addition to the acts which now constitute an infringement of a registered design, the Bill provides that it will be an infringement for a person, without the licence or authority of the registered owner, to import into Australia, for the purposes of sale or for the purposes of any trade or business, articles to which the registered design had been applied abroad without the authority of the registered owner or to sell any such articles.

The Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) has announced his intention to undertake a comprehensive review of the Designs Act, but that revision has been deferred pending completion of the review of copyright law. The view has been taken that it is desirable to bring the revision of copyright law substantially to finality before the designs law is revised. The situation disclosed by the decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court to which I have referred has made it necessary to amend the present Act in the manner now proposed without waiting for that general revision.I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2162

FISHERIES BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The basic purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s decision announced in the House of Representatives on 15th March 1967 to extend the limits in which Australia has exclusive rights over fisheries from 3 to 12 miles. There is at present legislation, namely the Fisheries Act of 1952-1966, that controls fishing in proclaimed waters beyond the 3mile territorial limit. However, the existing legislation does not apply to foreign nationals whose operations are based outside Australia and the external Territories. The Bill now before the. Senate would exclude foreign vessels and foreign fishermen from operating within the new 12mile exclusive fishing zone off Australia and the external Territories unless the vessels and fishermen are licensed under the Act. Provision is made in the Bill for substantial penalties for illegal fishing in the exclusive fishing zone by foreign vessels. The inclusion of those new penalties has necessitated some technical amendments to the provisions of the Act relating to the jurisdiction of courts to try offences against the Act.

Australia in common with Britain, certain western European States, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and other countries has continued to adhere to the 3mile limit as the breadth of the territorial sea and it is not intended to change this situation as far as Australia is concerned. However, many countries including Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States have extended their fishing limits to 12 miles. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen) has ad vised the Government that this action and that now proposed in the Bill is in accordance with international law.

In these circumstances I consider that Australia should secure for its fishing industry the advantages that international law permits. In practice the adoption of a 12 mile exclusive fishing zone will have the effect of further protecting our fisheries and encouraging development. The crayfisheries, which form the basis of a valuable export industry, will be given a very substantial measure of protection as will our developing prawn fisheries.

In implementing these proposals the Government is of the opinion that, where it can be established that operations by foreign vessels have been carried on for a number of years in the zone that will be protected by the legislation, the practice of permitting a phasing-out period adopted by overseas countries should be applied. There is no evidence of any substantial degree of fishing by foreignbased vessels having taken place within our 12mile zone but the Government considers that in any appropriate case a short phasingout period may be allowed.

With the consent of the Nauruan leaders, Nauru is also included in the scope of the legislation. Provision is made for the Minister for Territories or his delegate who will, in practice, be the Administrator of the Territory, to issue licences with respect to persons resident in, or boats operating from a base in, any of the. external Territories. This will enhance the already flexible administration of licensing provisions of the Fisheries Act 1952-1966, Provision is also made in the Bill for any licence fees collected in respect of persons or operations based on the Territories of Papua and New Guinea, Norfolk Island, or Nauru to be paid to the appropriate Territory.

A further amendment is proposed in the Bill to bring processing vessels factory ships within the licensing provisions of the Fisheries Act. At present a vessel used solely for processing fish and not used for actual fishing operations is not subject to licensing. Unless the Act is amended in this way foreign factory ships could operate in waters between 3 and 12 miles provided they were not engaged in the catching of fish. Also it is proposed to extend the scope of the Act to include Australian factory ships. In view of the rapidly growing interest being shown in the development of our northern prawn fisheries and the increasing use of processing vessels, it is essential to be able to control the activity of such processing vessels if the industry is to be developed along rational lines. Honourable senators are no doubt aware of the developments taking place in the north and will recognise the need to encourage the development of land bases to provide permanent establishments, which in turn will encourage settlement in the north. The uncontrolled activities of factory ships could have a serious effect on the development of a substantial permanent industry in the north.

This Bill provides for further protection to our developing fishing industry and recognises specific needs of the external Territories. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McClelland) adjourned.

page 2163

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 November (vide page 2041), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940- 1966. The Bill brings into line with the provisions of the Repatriation Act certain benefits and allowances which are in force under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act and which it is desirable should be included in this measure. The Bill confers benefits on the dependants of former mariners who served in time of war and who qualify for benefits under the provisions of the Act. The Bill proposes that the rate for the first child of a deceased mariner will rise by 50c to $4.40 per week. The rate for the second child and subsequent children will rise by 50c to $3.25 per week. These rates apply where the ex-mariner is dead. The Bill provides also that where both parents are dead the weekly pension will rise by $1 to $8.15 for each child of the family. The dependant of a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-mariner who dies From a cause other than his war injuries will be entitled to receive a rate equivalent to that which is paid under the Repatriation Act to which I referred earlier.

The Opposition completely approves of this measure and will give it a speedy passage. Although the Bill is relatively simple in its terms, it is quite far-reaching in its effects. I do not think there would be one honourable senator in this chamber who would not approve completely the intention and purpose of the Bill. Its provisions are quite necessary and extremely desirable. Perhaps on another occasion one could deal at much greater length with the tremendous contribution which was made on the high seas by people who served in the Merchant Marine during the war. I think it would be proper for me to pay a compliment to those men for the great contribution that they made during the war. Although they were not in uniform in one of the three branches of the armed Services, their contribution was equal to that made by any other branch of the Services. I salute those people who made such a tremendous contribution during this troubled time.

One has these thoughts particularly in mind when one considers our geographic position and vulnerability. Australia has a great need for a merchant marine service at a time like this. One can point to many great deeds of heroism by those who served on the seas during the war. However, I do not propose to say more on that subject now. But in passing and so that my remarks are on the records of the ParliamentI pay a special tribute to those people with whom we are now dealing in this legislation. I think it is proper, timely and very necessary that we should recognise the service given by these people to their country, and to make sure that their dependants are treated in the same way as the dependants of servicemen who qualify under the provisions of the Repatriation Act. The Opposition commends the Bill. We support it and we hope that it has a speedy passage.

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

– I thank the. Opposition and particularly the honourable senator for the assurance of a quick passage for this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2164

NAURU INDEPENDENCE BILL 1967

Second Reading

Date resumed from 2 November (vide page 2040), on motion by Senator Gorton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– We support this Bil), as I think it is supported by every member in both Houses of the Parliament. The Bill is designed to provide in the immediate future for the independence of a former trust territory, the Territory of Nauru. The contemplation is that, by an act of will of the people, a republic will be established in Nauru which will be entirely independent. It is not contemplated that it will become a member of the United Nations but it is contemplated that it will take a part in the various subsidiary organisations of that body.

Here we have a few thousand people on a small island in the Pacific Ocean becoming free by an Act of this Parliament, which has administered the trusteeship for some years on behalf of and in partnership with Great Britain and New Zealand, subject to the overriding authority and supervision of the United Nations. On the occasion of its independence, which it desires to begin on an anniversary which is important to the Naruan people, Nauru will become more independent than Australia actually is. We have a reversal of the axiom that the whole is greater than the part, because the part will achieve an independence which is- a truer independence than we ourselves will have. This is because of the position of the United Nations, which sees to it that the trusteeship can be transformed into a truly independent status.

Australia still retains some of the residual elements of the colonial status which we formerly had. After Nauru is independent, Australia will still have the right of appeal from the courts of the States of Australia to the Privy Council in United Kingdom and we will still have the curious anomaly, which exists notwithstanding the Statute of Westminster, that in certain circumstances legislation can be made by the Parliament of Great Britain which is applicable to Australia, no doubt with our consent and at our request. Nevertheless, there will still be the curious anomaly that laws applying to Australia could be made by the legislature of another country. But this will not be true of Nauru because Nauru will be really independent. lt is good to see that this small country will start off on its independence with a prosperous people. The average prosperity of the Nauruans is not only higher than that of the people of the Pacific and Asia but probably higher than that of any other people on earth, due to the natural resources of phosphate which they have. We have had a happy relationship with them. We hope that it has been happy from their point of view. They have achieved independence through their own request, by force of their own persuasiveness, and we would wish them well. We wish them well and would like to continue a close association with them. I think that we can assure the people of Nauru’ of the utmost goodwill from everyone, not only from this Parliament but from this nation as a whole. We of the Opposition join with the Government on this Bill. We commend the Government for the Bill and wholeheartedly support it.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I desire to associate myself with the passing of this Bill and I compliment the Government on the moves that have been made over the years. The Bil] is historic. It marks the first time that an Australian Territory or dependency has agreed to leave the protection and control of this Commonwealth. Naturally we all wonder whether this will be the , pattern of the future with regard to other Territories of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I think that the matters envisaged in this Bill should cause all honourable senators to give close examination to it.

In 1 9S3 I had the honour to be the leader of a small delegation from this Parliament to the island of Nauru. The other honourable senator on the delegation was Senator Tangney. It was very interesting to see this island, within 7 or 8 years of its freedom from terrible captivity, ‘ functioning. The relics of war were everywhere. We saw burnt-out guns and armed vehicles that the Japanese had been using. There one found a thousand or so very interesting people. They seemed to be mainly Polynesian with some strain of the Micronesian and the Melanesian in them. There were a number of expatriates there,’ including some hundreds of Chinese and Gilbertese and 200 or. 300 Europeans. The Nauruans were the owners of the land and the Gilbertese and Chinese appeared to me to be doing most of the work in extracting phosphate, which was the only item of viable trade on the island.

I think 1 should indicate the very isolation of this island. It is about 2,500 miles from Sydney and about 2,800 miles from Pearl Harbour, so it could be said to be almost half-way to Honolulu. It is not surrounded by many islands or territories. This island is in a very isolated position. It is about 12 miles in circumference and a little over 8 square miles in area. When the last population count was made a little more than a year ago there were 6,048 people living on the island. Tha’t figure was made up of 2,921 Nauruans; 1,532 other Pacific islanders of which 855 were women and children; 1,167 Chinese of whom 321 were women and children; and 428 Europeans, who were mainly Australians, of whom 256 were women and children. .So honourable senators can s.ee that this very small island is the home and place of work for 6,000 people.

I would like to pay a tribute to the British Phosphate Commissioners who, for the last 30 or 40 years - except when the island was under Japanese control - have successfully mined and shipped phosphate. The British Phosphate Commissioners have really established an amazingly efficient system of control, organisation and hospitalisation. This shows a great regard for the care and welfare of the Chinese and the Gilbertese who have been working on the island under contract. I give that as a picture of the island and point out to the Senate the tremendous problems which will confront the new organisation, whatever it may be, that will control the island, we think, as from January next. As well as dealing with the problem of mining phosphate 1 understand that the Nauruans are arranging to buy the equipment and facilities. They will have the very important problem of looking after more than half the population who are either Gilbertese, Chinese or European. This is a very big problem for a people who are about to set out on nationhood. I point out these facts to the Senate, because I believe that we have to stand behind this new nation in a particular way in view of the problem posed by the presence of expatriate people.

Having visited the island in 1953 in an official capacity, I have been very interested to follow its progress. I have met people from the island when they have been in Canberra. I have had meals and discussions with them in an informal manner. As an observer of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the South Pacific Commission, I have met Nauruans at conferences in New Caledonia and New Guinea. I have watched their progress very carefully and closely, and I must say that I have been greatly impressed by the sophistication of their method of handling problems. I believe that there is a bright future for these people. I would like to pay a tribute to the Australian Department of Territories and to Mr Paul Hasluck and Mr Barnes for their great personal interest, successively as Minister for Territories, in the welfare of the Nauruan people. I think it is great to have had the services of these dedicated Ministers and in turn of dedicated officers of the Department of Territories.

Another big problem facing the Nauruan people is the fact that the deposits of phosphate are slowly wearing out. This is a problem that is known in all mining communities. I believe that it might be 20 or 30 years before all the phosphate has been taken. When this happens Nauru will be a small island with pinnacles of entirely useless material with a slight fringe of vegetation around the edge of it. I would like to compliment the Australian Government on the efforts it has made over the years to resettle the Nauruan people. The first effort, when the Government considered the future of the island, was to offer the Nauruan people the right to settle in Australia. They were also given the opportunity to settle in New Zealand or the United Kingdom. As I mentioned, these three countries are the three partners in the British Phosphate Commission. The Nauruans believed that if they went to any of these three countries they would entirely lose their identity as Nauruans. It should be remembered that in 1963 an offer was made to the Nauruans to settle on Curtis Island off the Queensland coast. Problems arose because the Nauruans decided that they wanted sovereignty, but as Curtis Island was close to the Australian mainland it was thought that this would be impracticable. So, the Nauruan people opted for complete independence. Negotiations, I understand, have been settled in an amicable manner.

This Bill provides the legislative warrant for this independence. I just want to bring one or two questions to the Senate and to the Government for consideration. I would like to think that the tiny island of Nauru, which as I said has a population of about 6,000 people, could become part of the Commonwealth of Nations. I would like to think that these people retained their allegience to Her Majesty the Queen and that they did not straight away or at any time opt for complete republican status. They will also have to consider the question of their admission to the United Nations. Of course, this is a matter for them to decide. Nevertheless I believe that it would be to their benefit to become a member of the United Nations. As I mentioned before, I have been interested in these people through my attendance at meetings of the South Pacific Commission. At these meetings Australia has been the metropolitan country for Nauru and Nauru has had territory status. Now, of course, Nauru could expect to have metropolitan status, as it were, together with France, the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and West Samoa. It will be interesting to see whether Nauru retains its interest in the South Pacific Commission. I hope that it does, because I think that the South Pacific Commission can help the development of Nauru considerably.

Another matter at which I looked with a certain amount of interest was whether in the Pacific area there will be a new federation of Pacific Island territories. Such a’ federation could include countries such as Fiji, the British Solomon Islands protectorate, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, West Samoa and maybe Nauru. If such a federation were established, then I believe that Nauru could pay a part. I believe that the high level of education, sanitation and health, and the island’s ability to mine an important product would help the entry of Nauru into such a federation. I consider that there are some big problems within the internal working of this island. I think that Nauru faces a tremendous problem in regard to its youth. Nauru has a very high percentage of young people. As far as I can see there is no industry to employ them other than the mining and transport of phosphate.

At the moment the work in the midday sun in this industry is done by Gilbertese and Chinese.

Senator Cormack:

– Not by the Nauruans?

Senator LAUGHT:

– The Nauruans themselves are not playing a very active part. I consider that one of the great problems will be that of finding useful work for the young Nauruans. Perhaps responsibility for this will be accepted by Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, for it would be a tragedy if young Nauruans were to grow up without opportunities for useful and gainful employment. I believe that Australia has a big moral responsibility for helping Nauru with its future problems. I trust that the Nauruans will look to Australia in matters at the level of external affairs. Theirs is an important island in the Pacific. Commercially, it is extremely important to Australia, for a . large proportion of the superphosphate that we consume is derived from the rock phosphate of Nauru. The island is of great importance to Australia from the strategic standpoint also. I hope that a first class airport that can be used at all times of the year will be provided on Nauru. At present, there is only a small airfield. I understand that it is not regarded : very highly and that only two or three flights a year use it. This is because of the danger, if cloud comes down, as it frequently does, that aircraft may not be able to find the island, which at present has no air navigational aids suitable for use in bad weather. A first class airport on Nauru would make it possible to link the islands of that region of the Pacific with good- air services. I trust that the people of Nauru will give this matter their early attention. They are to nin their own shipping service, and I understand that they have a ship on order. I hope that they have good fortune in the manning and consistent use of that vessel. The Nauruans have many problems ahead of them. We have been through a lot of the mill with them and I trust that we shall con- ‘ tinue to be able to guide them. I believe that all honourable senators wish them well in their new constitutional venture.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

- Mr President, I would like to associate myself with this measure and to commend the Government on having introduced it. I express my great appreciation at this historic development in the history of Nauru. I had the good fortune to represent the Senate at the inauguration of the -Legislative Council for Nauru on 31st January of last year.-

On that occasion, Sir John McLeay and 1, on behalf of this Parliament presented to the Nauruan Legislative Council a chair that is the counterpart of that in which you now sit’. Sir. The Nauruans deeply appreciate this gesture by the Australian Parliament. They treated us with great hospitality while we- were there.

The Nauruans themselves are now exhibiting and have previously exhibited a spirit of independence and nationalism that burns fiercely within them. The attainment of independence has resulted from a deeply held and well directed belief among the islanders that some day they would have the greatest of all the gifts than man can have - independence. This is the hope that stirs the whole of Asia today in the attempts that arc being made to rise above a state in which independence is lacking and in which some forces are trying to deprive nations of their independence by attempting to force on them, whether from the west or from the east, ideas that they do not want. This process of attempting to impose alien ideas is one of the greatest problems in the world today, particularly in Asia, where forces from the Western world and the Eastern world are trying, by bombing and the force of arms, to obstruct the movement towards independence and freedom which is inevitable and which has been clearly recognised in the United Nations Charter, which upholds the right of all people to self government.

I commend the Government on the introduction of this measure. I believe that we shall leave with the Nauruan people a great legacy of which the evidence Wm be seen in their social, legislative, economic and legal systems. By means of this legislation, the Government is doing what a good guardian should do for his ward. It has carried out its mandate in relation to Nauru with great credit. This is an historic occasion on which we say to the Nauruans: You are now independent people. We give you the hand of friendship and we wish you well in the future.’ This is the sort of relationship which is worthy of a great country and which I am sure will continue to exist after this measure becomes law. indeed, 1 am certain that future relations between Nauru and Australia will continue on this very happy note, to our mutual advantage. I support the Bill.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

- Mr President, I regret that I have to present myself in the Senate this afternoon in the role of a male Cassandra in relation to the independence of the island of Nauru. If the people of Nauru wish to be independent, no impediment should be placed in their way, least of all by the Commonwealth of Australia. But I think it is important that we acknowledge that the Commonwealth has spent a good deal of time trying to persuade the people of Nauru that this is a harsh, cold world in which power politics have their play and that therefore perhaps the people of Nauru should not be independent. Not the least of the arenas where power politics have their play is the United Nations, which for the Opposition seems to be a great white international court. Honourable members opposite always seem to come back to the proposition that the United Nations is the saviour of mankind. However, it is the focus of tension rather than the forum in which tensions are relieved and international problems solved. This afternoon, it is not my intention to deal with the problems of the United Nations. I. defer them to another occasion. Let us look at the problems of the island of Nauru. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) drew on historical legalisms of some kind in asserting that the people of Nauru are much more free than the people of Australia who, if one accepts the terms of his argument, with bowed back and bent head still bear on their shoulders the yoke of British colonialism. The honourable senator argues that remnants of British colonialism remain in Australia because of the existence of the States. That is the essence of his argument, but he completely forgets the whole context of the Australian Labor Party’s argument, about which we shall hear in relation to legislation that will be considered in this chamber later today, I hope, or perhaps on Monday, regarding the relative powers of the States and the Commonwealth.

Let me now get back to the island of Nauru. Over the last 5 or 6 years, the Australian Government has made overtures to the Nauruans and tried to persuade them that they would be unwise to seek independence in the present state of the world. Some 2,500 or 3,000 Nauruans live on the island. In the centre of it, there is an area devoted to extractive industry. Round its edges, there is a rim of sparse soil on which the Nauruans spend their time indolently cultivating some plot and seeking the scant shade of a pandanus tree or admiring some fruit that is able to grow. They are in the happy position of living in a true Polynesian atmosphere in a region in which the trade winds blow and where life is easy. Their situation is in accord with the characteristic belief embedded in the Australian Labor Party that there are some islands where it is always afternoon - the lotus islands. They have that which no other people in the Australian Labor Party context have - a slave race working for them, doing the hard work. I refer to the Gilbertese and the Chinese. This is what Nauru will have until its phosphate deposits are exhausted in about 25 years time. But what will the Australian problem be as far as Nauru is concerned in 25 years time? Indeed, the situation is worse than that, because I prophesy now that into the island of Nauru will come the serpent that always enters any lotus land. It will enter per medium of the ships of the British Phosphate Commission. They will be the vehicle for agitation on Nauru amongst the helots - the Gilbertese and the Chinese. The Nauruans are the mineral landlords on the island who have no real right, in the Marxist sense, to possession of the phosphate. The agitation will be to share this wealth between the helots who extract the phosphate and the Nauruan landlords. This will happen as surely as night must fall. When it does happen, what is Australia to do? What will happen when the people of the neighbouring islands, who are on a very low per capita income and who look jealously at the Nauruans with their horde of helots and their high per capital income-

Senator Ormonde:

– How far away are they?

Senator CORMACK:

– It does not matter. They do not come down in canoes these days. They will wish to take over the island of Nauru-

Senator Keeffe:

– What is the honourable senator talking about?

Senator CORMACK:

– About Nauru. I am saying that there will be agitation among the less favoured people who live on less favoured islands around Nauru.

Senator Keeffe:

– Which less favoured islands?

Senator CORMACK:

– I will not discuss this at this juncture, but I will elaborate on what I have said. Nauru will not remain the Garden of Eden as the Nauruans believe and as Professor Davidson has taught them to believe because there will enter into this island all the elements for destruction and social annihilation. In fact, these elements already exist there in a Marxist sense. There is a privileged ruling class of Nauruans with whom the helots must exist. This will lead inevitably to the evolution of the Marxist syndrome. What are we to do in Australia when this happens. What will happen if suddenly there evolves in Nauru a miniscule national liberation front? Honourable senators opposite need not laugh. Let us not call it a national liberation front; let us call it a strike to take over the management of Nauru. It is important even at this late stage for the Senate to be apprised not of the emotional situation, as is apparent in the Senate at the moment in relation to the Nauruans getting their independence, but of what will happen and what’ Australia’s ultimate responsibility will be in the matter. I think that what I have predicted will come to pass.

The next thing to consider is what will happen to Nauru as an independent nation of some 2,500 people with 2,500 helots working for them? Are they to join the United Nations? Some pretty odd people have been admitted to the United Nations. The decision of the United Nations is that it will admit nations willing to accept responsibility evolved by the United Nations. You find in the United Nations the Maldive Islands, with a population of 70,000 people. It may be possible for the Nauruans, if they so wish, to gain admittance to the United Nations and a future administration in Australia may find its policy interdicted by the vote of the Nauruans. On the other hand, there is the proposal advanced by the Caribbean countries that ‘ there should be associated nations in the United Nations. This is understood by the Nauruans. They wish to become an associated nation - a mini-nation - of the United Nations, in which they can have access to the benefits which flow from membership and which the more developed nations of the world are taxed to support.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Would that be their business without our interference?

Senator CORMACK:

– I have made no suggestion of interference. AH I say is that when Senator O’Byrne indulges in one of his emotional panegyrics it should be subjected to the test of cold analysis. That is what I am doing.

What happens when social discontent and violence ensues on Nauru? What does Australia have to do in this context?

Senator O’Byrne:

– Jeremiah!

Senator CORMACK:

– The Opposition has not looked at this aspect; it has not looked at the problem. Does Australia have a responsibility to Nauru at that juncture? Who does have the responsibility when this happens?

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Nauruans.

Senator CORMACK:

– The Nauruans are outnumbered by a helot class - a proletariat, if you like, in your Marxist terms, Senator O’Byrne, and the proletariat will take over. What will Australia do then? Does Australia have a responsibility to Nauru at this stage?

Senator Mulvihill:

– No.

Senator CORMACK:

– Well, who does have a responsibility?

The last factor which I wish to introduce into this euphoria existing in the Senate this afternoon in relation to Nauru is to ask what Nauru is to do in relation to problems of higher education for its privileged class who sit under the pandanus tree and wish to be educated at universities. These are the responsibilities of a nation. Where is the higher education of the Nauruans to be obtained? Is it our responsibility exclusively under the agreement we have entered into with the Nauruans to provide education for them at tertiary and secondary levels?

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is theirs.

Senator CORMACK:

– It is not. Is it our responsibility at the technological level to provide schooling for Nauruans at technical schools in Australia? There has been no admission in another place or here as to the responsibility of Australia when it has divested itself of the trusteeship of Nauru. None of this has been discussed. Why not? Because we are involved in this ideological euphoria demonstrated by Senator O’Byrne this afternoon.

The next point to consider is that in 25 years time the source which sustains this highly proletariat society of the Nauruans with their indentured labour will disappear. Does the Labor Party approve of indentured labour? After the phosphate deposits are exhausted, which will be in 25 years at the present rate of extraction, what is going to happen to the Nauruan people? What has happened here - and it has been clearly seen by the Government - is that under the pressure of world opinion, under pressure from the United Nations, under pressure from this nonsensical committee of the United Nations called the Committee of 24, we have been remorselessly pressured against our better judgment into granting, not giving, independence to the island of Nauru. Yet, within 25 years, when the phosphate deposits are exhausted on the island, there is going to exist in that area - not only in Nauru - the greatest slum in any ocean in the world. We cannot look at the island of Nauru except in the context of all the other islands in the area of which Nauru is but one pinpoint. Is this the responsibility of Australia? Or is it the responsibility of the United Nations?

Again, what happens when the United Kingdom withdraws from east of Suez? What does east of Suez mean? Does the area east of Suez extend only to Singapore? Or does it extend to the western seaboard of the American continent?

Senator Keeffe:

– You tell us.

Senator CORMACK:

– I am not telling anyone anything; I am merely posing the questions to which the Senate must direct its attention. 1 am saying that in agreeing to this declaration for the independence of Nauru, we must examine the wider influences that are involved. We are not solving any problem here by agreeing to Nauru having its independence at the moment. What we are doing is creating a spark which, as an electrical time factor, will cause an explosion in the area in which Nauru is but a pinpoint. The Senate should be directing its attention this afternoon to the ultimate impact of this independence of Nauru and the wider effect it is going to have through the whole of the area where we have rich people manipulating the labouring proletariat to the exclusion of all the other people who live in the area and whose standard of living is minuscule compared to theirs. These Nauruans are the richest people in the Pacific. We have learned to understand that the rich attract hatred and the Nauruans will attract the hatred of the people who live on the islands around them.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to support the attitude outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and Senator O’Byrne towards the granting of independence to Nauru, but before going any further 1 feel that 1 ought to make one or two comments about the statements made by both Senator Laught and Senator Cormack. I was rather shocked when Senator Cormack got up and apologised for the fact that Nauru is being granted its independence. Senator Laught, of course, plays any one of three roles in the Senate. At times he is an echo sounder, mostly for the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), asking Dorothy Dix questions to which the Minister for Housing always happens to have the answer. At other times he fills the role of stonewaller for the Government when the Government is not ready to go on with the next piece of legislation. Sometimes, he fills a third but somewhat minor role, that of appearing to be most gentle while at the same time rubbishing the people whose skins are not as white as ours. Unfortunately, the honourable senator is not sitting in his seat and therefore cannot interject.

The foundation for Senator Cormack’s speech was laid when, while he was lying back comfortably in his seat, he interjected during Senator Laught’s speech and suggested that the Nauruans were living under a banyan tree. Obviously his speech was an apology made on behalf of the Government for the fact that Nauru had to be granted independence. He painted a terrible picture Of invaders coming down upon Nauru from islands, the names .of which he has forgotten. It is more probable that they are non-existent. When the Government introdiic.es legislation of this nature it has a moral as well as a legal obligation to stand behind it. Senator Cormack played his old role of rubbishing the United Nations. He alleges that if it had not been for pressure from the United Nations the chances are that this newly independent country would not have been granted its independence. Many months ago I asked in this chamber whether Nauru was to be granted independence by 31st January. The Government did not know. Or, if it did know, that question like the others that go on the notice paper, was not answered because the Government was reluctant to answer it. It was only recently that a reply was submitted.

Let us look at the history of this small country which is about to become independent. With the exception of the period between 1943 and 1945 when it was occupied by the Japanese, Nauru has been administered by Australia since .19.14. So that from 1914 to 1967, it has been our responsibility basically. What is our role with the British Phosphate Commission? The following passage from the Minister’s second’ reading speech is interesting:

The arrangements made after the First World War, as well as providing for administration, vested the title to the phosphate deposits - the rights to which had been purchased by the three Governments from the Pacific Phosphate Company - in the British Phosphate Commissioners, who were appointed by the Australian, British and New Zealand governments respectively. . 1 can recall that only a year or so ago there was a tremendous outcry from the Minister for Territories (Mr Barnes), from the Government and from all the people allied with the Government protesting against increasing the price which the Nauruans should receive for. their phosphate, to a figure that would enable them to live on the standard which Senator Cormack now attempts to rubbish in this chamber. Let me remind Senator Cormack that these people are human beings, just as he is, and they are entitled to the ordinary standards of human decency. It is to be regretted that he adopts the attitude that he does.

When the late Mr George Gray, the former member for Capricornia in the other place, was alive, he visited Nauru and discussed with the people themselves the possibility of their transferring from Nauru to another island when the phosphate deposits run out. It was suggested at the time that Curtis Island, off the Queensland coast, might be the most suitable area in which to settle these people at the appropriate time,. There was a tremendous outcry against this from some of the people who were living on Curtis Island at the time. They objected to accepting people whose skin was black. The Government was not very happy about this, and finally the Nauruans themselves - and I do not blame them for it - decided that they did not want to go there, anyway.

Senator Cormack:

asked what was to happen when the phosphate supply runs out. Now that these people have become independent, is there not a moral responsibility on this country which has exploited the Nauruans, which has bled them white for a number of years, to see that they receive some sort of aid? Each year we allocate something less than 1% of our national income to the granting of aid to underdeveloped countries. Could not we see to it that the Nauruans are not neglected when any handouts are made from these funds?

Senator Cormack:

– They do not need handouts.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Are they in the same affluent group as the honourable senator? I think he has a very poor understanding of just how the Nauruans live. Because they get more than a tin of bully beef and a handful of rice a week the honourable senator says that they are affluent. In other words, he looks upon them as little above the animal class which can live on the smell of an oily rag.

Senator Cormack:

Mr Acting Deputy President, I think you should rebuke Senator Keeffe for extending his rhetoric beyond the realms of normal Senate practice.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laught) - Under what standing order are you raising this point of order?

Senator Cormack:

– I am merely asking for your protection.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Senator Keeffe, I should like you to use more moderate terms.

Senator KEEFFE:

– My vocabulary is not nearly as wide as Senator Cormack’s but I think mine might be more readily understood. Finally, let me say that I am delighted that independence has come to Nauru. I hope that we will move with some speed to give independence to Papua and New Guinea, too. I hope we will accept in that case some of the things we have accepted in this case. A number of Territories are still being administered by Australia - not very ably, either, under the present Minister and the present Government. I join with honourable senators on this side of the House in congratulating the Nauruans on achieving their independence. I hope that we will retain our sense of moral responsibility and see that they are helped in every way possible. When the time comes - it will come, as Senator Cormack repeated about seventy-five times - when the phosphate supplies run out and we are asked, if we are still friendly with them, to help them in some way, I hope that we will provide that assistance.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to be associated with members of the Opposition who have commended this action, because I could not help thinking, as I listened to some of the speeches made earlier today, that if the French Government has been as enlightened in 1946 when the question of Indo-China’s future was under review and there had followed a reasonable transformation to independence, we would not be occupying as much time as we are today with other situations in Asia.

During the debate my mind went to Harry Belafonte and his ‘Island in the Sun’ and I thought of that great international American President, President Roosevelt, who said that the greatest threat to our institutions are those who refuse to face up to change. We have boasted, rightly, that our leading schools have been able to take many of the sons and daughters of the people of Nauru and give them a good education after which they have returned to their own country. This process has been repeated in so many other places. But we give them an excellent education, we enable them to think rationally and then we say to them: ‘Of course, you just cannot make it right up to the level of equality’. We cannot stop progress. It has to come.

I commend the Government for. its attitude, but there is nothing new about it. Any Australian who has been in Asia can always say, despite the misguided allegations about colonialism that are thrown around, that the Australian Government hastened the independence of Indonesia. Whatever Indonesia suffered in her birth pangs, and whatever has happened there recently, the

Indonesian people have been able to determine their own destiny and allow their nationalist aspirations to come to the fore. The Caribbean countries, and British Guiana under Dr Jagan, had their problems, but noone said: ‘We must keep the lid on them because if we open it this might happen and that might happen’. It ill becomes me, I suppose, as a non-legal senator to argue on the future of Nauruans’ constitution, but I am sure that senators with a legal background will agree that it is not impossible for them to undertake various constitutional exercises.

Senator Cor mack referred to the proletariat, the producers. Probably they will increase in number and devise their own voting system. There can be all sorts of voting systems. Even in South Australia democracy eventually prevailed and there was a change of government purely on the basis of numbers.

What will happen and who will rule Nauru when the phosphate runs out in 25 years is something that must be faced up to. Sometimes people wonder what will happen to a business after its founder dies and his son takes over. We must wait to see what will happen.

Something of the same kind of problem is facing the trade unions which are rightly concerned about automation. I hear people say: ‘Live dangerously; do not be afraid, because if one job ceases another will be provided’. We must apply the same confidence to external affairs. History is on our side. Whatever problems India, Burma and Indonesia had to face up to when they got the independence that they wanted, they faced up to. They were their problems and they accepted them. During the Burma campaign I think it was General Stilwell who, when there was talk of interally friction, said: ‘At least they are our soandso’s’. Whether in Nauru the petty bourgeoisie or the proletariat rule in the future, we should’ let them determine their own affairs. Whether they join the United Nations, whether they have national liberation fronts, whether they have progressive trade unionists or whether they have someone else to rule them, it is their own destiny. If that situation arises in 25 years, let us hope that a more enlightened world will view them with tolerance, however aggressive we may think some of them are today. Probably as new generations come along with higher educational standards there will be a more harmonious approach.

I join with my leader, Senator Murphy, in welcoming the step that has been taken. We hope there will be other similar advances not only close to Australia but elsewhere. We should not forget the attitude that France adopted to Indo-China when other countries, not necessarily countries close to Australia, seek their independence.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– in reply - I merely wish to express the pleasure of the Government at the reaction of most members of the Senate to the Bill. It represents a great step forward. It is pleasing to know that the Opposition agrees with and commends the action of the Government and, putting aside one or two minor aspects which I will not mention, I express appreciation to the Senate for its reception of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2172

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 3) 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 November (vide page 2041), on motion by Senator Gorton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– The Bill before the Senate has two main purposes. The first is to enable the Commonwealth Government to match privately raised subscriptions which are to be applied to the provision of residential accommodation at colleges of advanced education. The position seems to be that when the Government’s policy on colleges of advanced education was first announced the Government was prepared to provide finance for residential accommodation in colleges of advanced education in a way similar to the position in universities, that is, on a $1 for $1 basis, with the State being obliged to match privately raised funds. The consequence of that is that for every $1 raised privately the State contributes $1 and the Commonwealth contributes $2 the Commonwealth matching both the State contributions and the privately raised contribution. In other words, if this Bill is passed, the position will be that residential accommodation at colleges of advanced education will be on the same basis as education at university colleges. No machinery was provided at the inauguration of this policy. What has happened now is that as a result of requests, particularly from Queensland, proposals have been made for new colleges at Rockhampton and Toowoomba.

The Opposition agrees with the Government that it is important that this programme be proceeded with so that in due course we can have a look to see how the whole thing is going. On previous occasions we have indicated that we have certain reservations as. to what the future of these colleges of advanced education will be. As I have said in discussion on other measures in recent times, that is still the view we take. But we want to encourage the Government to go ahead and develop these institutions so that we can test whether the high expectations that were held for the new tertiary type institutions are realised. We support the measure on this occasion.

The second purpose of the Bill is to make adjustments in the building programmes of certain colleges of advanced education.I refer to the School of Mines and Industries at Ballarat, the Bendigo Institute of Technology and the Queensland Institute of Technology at Brisbane. Requests have been made by the State governments concerned. They arise from the need to effect quite far reaching revisions of building programmes. We believe that it is in the interests of these institutions that this measure should be passed, and we have pleasure in supporting it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2173

UNIVERSITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 November (vide page 2042), on motion by Senator Gorton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– This Bill, like the Bill which the Senate has just passed, deals with one aspect of student residences at universities. The position seems to have been that the Universities (Financial Assistance) Act covering the 1964-66 triennium appropriated certain Commonwealth grants to the States in connection with building programmes for student residences at universities. A proportion of this money was not spent within the period of the triennium and certain plans were delayed at some university colleges. I refer to Ormonde College at the University of Melbourne, Hytten Hall at the University of Tasmania, and the Great Hall at the University of Queensland. For one reason or another, all of which seem to be good, there were delays in carrying out the work for which moneys had been appropriated. What is necessary now is to secure authority for the payment of these moneys outside the period of the 1964-66 triennium in other words, after 31st December 1966. The Opposition supports the measure. We believe that the provisions made are proper. We concur in the speedy passage of the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2173

UNIVERSITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL (No. 2) 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 November (vide page 2043), on motion by Senator Gorton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– The Opposition supports this Bill which is designed to achieve two things. Firstly, it is designed to appropriate additional grants to meet the Commonwealth’s contribution to increase salaries at the higher academic level at universities, which the Government announced some time ago it was prepared to support from 1st July 1967. The second purpose of the Bill is to appropriate an additional amount of $81,000 as Commonwealth assistance for the Macquarie University in 1967. This is, apparently, for some purpose which is not specified.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– It is the same amount of money for the triennium but it is redistributed within three years.

Senator COHEN:

– In other words, it will be more this year and less in the following years. I appreciate what the Minister has put. We certainly have no objection to the Bill, particularly as the Minister for Education and Science in his second reading speech indicated that the adjustment was recommended by the Australian Universities Commission and that there was no variation in the total grant for the triennium.

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for increases in university salaries. They are very substantial increases in most cases. A professor’s salary will be increased from $10,400 to $12,000; an associate professor’s salary from $8,600 to $9,900; a senior lecturer’s salary from $7,600 to $8,750 at the maximum - an increase of $1.150 - and lecturers salaries, which previously were all in one class, from $4,800 to $5,400 at the minimum and $7,300 at the maximum. I point out that we support the notion that people who do work of excellence should be properly remunerated. These new salaries seem to be proper and generous for university teachers. I think it will have the important effect of putting a little bit of a brake on the brain drain. The loss of talented academics to overseas universities and to government or private research institutions has been a notable feature of academic life in this country in recent years. Over the years we have lost many fine minds to the United States and Britain and to international organisations, as well as to organisations within Australia by transfer to different types of employment. Certainly this Bill should be an encouragement to people to take up academic work, with the understanding that proper appreciation will be given to their status so far as salary is concerned.

There is, however, a warning that I should like to sound. It is not in opposition to the salaries of university teachers. We all were pleased when the announcement was made by the Minister some time ago. It is good news, but this legislation widens the gap between the salaries available for academic work and the salaries available to the leaching profession generally in the schools. If the reasonably generous approach of the Government to university salaries were applied to teachers generally, particularly in the secondary schools, this would be striking a really significant blow for education. One can think a decade ahead iri relation to that. What is needed is that this kind of generous approach be applied to the teaching profession generally. It is not the occasion to debate this at length, but I do suggest that this is an important aspect of the education programme. It is difficult to think that a highly qualified teacher would prefer teaching in secondary schools at a very much lower salary than those persons of similar qualifications, or not markedly dissimilar qualifications, would be able to demand in a university. With these observations, which I think’ perhaps might be pursued on some other occasion, I indicate that the Opposition is prepared to support the Bill and that it believes it is a Bill which is worthy of support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.. :

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

Sitting suspended from 3.35 to 4.17 p.m.

page 2174

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– We oppose the motion. The Opposition believes that the Senate should adjourn until Tuesday next. The Opposition has been cooperating very well, I think, in facilitating the passage of the business. In the circumstances, having considered the point - I will not go into all the reasons for our decision - we think the Senate should adjourn until Tuesday next. We do not agree with the motion that the Senate should adjourn until Monday next.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– in reply - The reason for suggesting that the Senate should return on Monday next is that we have before us, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Cohen), and Senator Wright, legislation of great complexity. I refer to the petroleum search legislation. If these measures are to be properly considered by the Senate, at least two full days of debate will be required. The Government regards the petroleum search legislation, as urgent, and not only from its own point of view. This being so, it seems perfectly reasonable that full time should be made available for discussion of the Bills and therefore that the Senate should agree to meet one day earlier than would otherwise be required. There are other Bills to be considered next week besides the petroleum search Bills.

I had intended to move that the Senate should meet again at 11 a.m. on Monday next, as had been thought reasonable by all the Government supporters, but some representations have been made to me by individual senators that because of plane connections it would be preferable for them to be given until 2.30 p.m. on Monday to complete their journeys. 1 did not wish to be unreasonable in that respect. I do not think I need canvass the matter further, other than to say that we have to discuss a matter of national importance. The petroleum legislation will require a great deal of time to debate and I think the Senate ought to be prepared to meet at 2.30 p.m. on Monday for that purpose.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 November 1967, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1967/19671103_senate_26_s36/>.