Senate
30 April 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1968

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

page 619

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– 1 desire to inform the Senate that a delegation from the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Sabah Icd by D:;to Haji Kassim, Speaker of that House, anc! including the Minister of Health, Dr Wong, is at present in the gallery of the Senate. On behalf of all sen mors I extend to the visitors a warm welcome.

Honourable senators ; Hear, hear!

page 619

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for Repatriation by stating that over a number of years 1 and other members on this side of the House have unsuccessfully appealed to the Government to provide free hospitalisation for those surviving soldiers who served in the 1914-19.18 war. Now that the Government is i” the process of preparing the Budget for 1968-1969. I ask whether the Government will give the Senate an assurance that these World War I heroes will gel justice.

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

– As the honourable senator has asked for an assurance by the Government I cannot give it, but I can give this assurance: f have no doubt that his request will be one of many submitted to the Government by many servicemen’s organisations and it will be looked at.

page 619

QUESTION

CHOWILLA DAM

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development: What is the current position in regard to the construction of the Chowilla Dam in South Australia, the deferment of which is contrary to firm agreements entered into between South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the Commonwealth?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Construction of the Chowilla Dam was deferred upon the recommendations of the four commissioners involved - one from each of the three States concerned, Victoria, New South Wales and

South Australia with the Minister for National Development as Chairman. The unanimous decision was to defer construction of the Chowilla Dam until further information could be obtained on other dam sites and on the Chowilla Darn site itself. At the present time the commissioners are obtaining more information on a site at Dartmouth on the Mitta Mitta River. Investigations are being carried out at this site, and it will take some considerable time to find out whether it is suitable or not. Further investigation of the Chowilla site are also being carried out having in mind the need for a storage there.

page 619

QUESTION

CUSTOMS DUTY

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. What is the position in relation to the legal actions associated with the great customs conspiracy referred to by the Minister several weeks ago?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Department of Customs and Excise has advised those people who have broken the law and who want a hearing under Part .15 of the Act that they may obtain such a hearing. The cases are proceeding.

page 619

QUESTION

CHOWILLA DAM

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development follows a question asked of him by Senator Laucke relating to the Chowilla Dam. Has he any idea of the likely date on which the studies now being undertaken by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority in connection with a storage site on the upper Murray will be completed? Will the River Murray Commission in its decision on this matter be guided by cost alone or will it take into account the long term value of a storage at Chowilla and its effect on the life of South Australia in terms of both the quantity and the quality of water stored, as the Chowilla Dam would include the wafers of the River Darling?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Only last week the River Murray Commission decided to carry out an investigation of the Dartmouth site. That investigation will take some considerable time and I cannot give any indication in that regard. As to the provision of finance, I can assure the honourable senator that the Commission will consider the best sites lo provide the most water for South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. No doubt it also will consider the cost of each individual project.

page 620

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In the event of the gradual withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam will the Minister seek an assurance that Australian troops will be withdrawn at the same time on a pro rata basis?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– In truth the honourable senator’s question is a hypothetical one and does not call for a reply from me, certainly not at question time. However, if he puts it on the notice paper I will refer it to the Minister for Defence.

page 620

QUESTION

TRADE

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Are any Australian products sold on world markets at a price lower than that paid in Australia? If so, will the Minister give some instances of products in respect of which that occurs?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I draw from the honourable senator’s question the clear inference that he has in mind commodities which are the subject of an orderly marketing arrangement on an international basis. The importance of the question demands that it be placed on the notice paper so that a considered reply can be obtained.

page 620

QUESTION

CHOWILLA DAM

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development follows those asked by Senator Laucke and Senator Davidson relating to the general criticism in South Australia of the Government’s decision to defer the Chowilla project. Is it a fact that Ministers in this place and the Minister for National Development in another place have stated that the position in relation to the Chowilla Dam would be determined by the April meeting of the River Murray Commission? Do the views presently held by the Minister for National Development mean direct Government opposition to the Chowilla project? Were- the considerations of the Dunstan Labor Government in South Australia, and more recently of the new Hall Liberal Government in that State, taken into account by the Minister before he announced his support of the new proposal to investigate a site in Victoria?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister is largely guided by the recommendations of the River Murray Commission, on which South Australia is represented, and that Commission, acting unanimously, decided to defer the construction of the Chowilla Dam until further information was made available on other sites. We as a Government are standing behind the Commission and, in conjunction with the other States and the Commission, will make every effort to find the best site that will give the most water to South Australia and the other States.

page 620

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH, SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I preface my question to the Minister for Works by saying that I am pleased to note that the Minister has recently announced the letting of a contract for the construction of additions to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Food Preservation laboratory at Cannon Hill, Brisbane. Can the Minister tell me the purpose of this laboratory, how it is to be financed and whether it will help our meat export trade to Japan, and to the United States of America where meat is our biggest earner of American dollars?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The announcement that I made with regard to this construction was to the effect that the second half of the $lm programme for the addition of CSIRO facilities for meat inspection and research in Brisbane should be proceeded with and completed by about April 1969. The purpose of these facilities is to ensure that all scientific knowledge will be available so that our exports of beef, including those to Japan, shall be of the highest quality. The finance for this project comes from research moneys that are available to the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee, which is subsidised by this Government.

page 621

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. I ask: In view of the fact that all national service training centres are on the eastern side of Australia, what consideration is given to Western Australian trainees wishing to return home for short periods of leave, such as the Easter holidays?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– National service trainees and Regular Army personnel are on the same basis as regards leave. The full fare is paid by the Government for terminal leave and annual recreation leave, and for compassionate leave where circumstances warrant it. Other leave such as the short leave mentioned by the honourable senator is granted at the discretion of the commanding officer, but a trainee wishing to travel further than 100 miles must travel the extra distance at his own expense. . I think that an amount of 75c is made available for distances up to 100 miles.

page 621

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply and Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Governor-General mentioned in his address to the Parliament that the Department of Supply would take over the administration of Australia’s Antarctic research, which has previously been the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs. In view of this, will the Minister make a statement to the Senate on Australia’s role and activities in the Antarctic?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is true, as the honourable senator indicated, that His Excellency’s Speech contained a statement that the Antarctic Division was to be transferred to the Department of Supply. I can inform the Senate that this is to become effective as from tomorrow. I have prepared a statement on the subject butI do not think it lends itself to inclusion in an answer at question time. I shall ask your leave to make the statement later, Mr President. Upon a motion that the Senate take note of the paper the forms of the Senate would provide for any subsequent debate that might be thought appropriate in connection with the matter.

page 621

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator SIM:

– I direct to the Minister for Customs and Excise a question related to the one asked by Senator Murphy. Will the Minister at an opportune time make a full statement to the Senate giving details of the allegations against Japanese car manufacturers? Will he name the firms concerned and give details of the number of cars involved? Will he also name countries other than Japan in relation to which action has been taken because of dumping?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Honourable senators will recall that prior to the recent short recess I made a statement in the Senate on this subject, in whichI said that the Department of Customs and Excise had evidence of Japanese car manufacturers dumping vehicles in Australia. My Department has pursued inquiries and discussions are now taking place between the Department and the people representing the car manufacturers in Japan. I do not wish to comment further until these discussions are finished. When they are, I shall make a full statement to the Senate on their outcome. In relation to other countries that have dumped goods in Australia I can advise the honourable senator right now that dumping has been resorted to by companies in England, the United States of America and many other countries.

page 621

QUESTION

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL BENEFITS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does not the Minister representing the Minister for Health regard the recent observations by the Minister for Health on the operations and ramifications of hospital and medical benefit contribution funds as a virtual endorsement of criticism by the Opposition concerning the need for the funds to reduce administrative costs and enlarge the ambit of benefits?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-I think that the Minister for Health, in the speech to whichI presume the honourable senator has referred, made a very fair and very clear statement of what he feels and his concern for those who are contributing to benefit funds.

page 621

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DAVIDSON:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, relates to the recent crash at London Airport involving a British Overseas Airways Corporation Boeing 707. I am sure that honourable senators will join with me in paying a tribute to the pilot of the aircraft for his skilful handling of it under most difficult circumstances. Can the Minister give an assurance that adequate precautions arc taken with Qantas aircraft leaving Australian international airports? Can he give a general indication of the precautions that are taken in connection with fire control on such aircraft?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– We all were perturbed to hear of the accident in London involving a Boeing 707 aircraft. This accident concerned us very much because Qantas uses a number of these aircraft. 1 assure the honourable senator that all necessary precautions are taken by authorities in Australia and by Qantas before any aircraft leaves the ground. Adequate precautions arc taken (o see that fire control measures operate wilh maximum efficiency.

page 622

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister for Works recently open in Sydney a public display of a scale model of extensions and alterations now in the course of construction at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport? When the works are completed will they provide landing facilities for jumbo jet aircraft that may operate in the early 1970s? If not. has his Department made any plans for landing facilities for such aircraft, either at Sydney Airport or at some other airport the construction of which might be contemplated in the Sydney metropolitan area, or will facilities available at Tullamarine Airport be adequate to cater for these aircraft?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 did have the privilege recently of opening for exhibition to the citizens of Sydney a model of future development of Sydney Airport. The works at present under construction at Sydney Airport are designed to accommodate Boeing 707 and Boeing 727 aircraft. The formulation of plans appropriate for jumbo jet aircraft: is within the province of my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation. Those plans are under consideration now.

page 622

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is he aware of a recent request by the Premier of Victoria that the terms upon which drought aid is given to Victoria by the Commonwealth should be varied? Is the Minister aware also that the request relates particularly to assistance to enable municipalities and State government authorities to provide employment? Will the Minister assure me that prompt attention will be given to the request and that the Senate will be advised of any decision in the matter?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I think it is proper to say that all requests by Premiers to the Prime Minister, no matter in what category they may be, receive very careful and prompt consideration. The Commonwealth has at all times been standing by to help Victoria overcome the problems brought about by the present tragic drought and has given dramatic assistance to that State. In answer to questions in this place [ have outlined the kind of assistance that has been forthcoming from the Commonwealth. Later today, in answer to questions on notice, I will be giving further details of this assistance. As for the latest request from Victoria, it is axiomatic that the Prime Minister and the Government will give very careful and prompt consideration to it, as they have done to every request that has been made. When an announcement on the latest request is made, following tradition it also will be made in this place.

page 622

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities. Has a delegation recently proceeded to New Zealand under the leadership of Mr Pollnitz, the Director of the South Australian Tourist Bureau, and consisting of persons engaged in the tourist industry in South Australia and the Northern Territory? Can the Minister indicate to the Senate the purpose of the delegation and what it hopes to achieve?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Tt is true that a mission has proceeded to New Zealand, as the honourable senator has stated. The suggestion was made by the Australian Tourist

Commission and developed by the tourist authorities ofSouth Australia and the Northern Territory. The purpose that is intended to be achieved is to emphasise the attractions of Central Australia and Adelaide. It is thought that people in the New Zealand area should have knowledge of particular parts of Australia. The Commission believes that State missions to the New Zealand area are of particular advantage. During the mission’s travel to New Zealand no fewer than about 400 travel agents will take part in seminars conducted by the mission. I do not wish toleavethe Senate with the impression that this is the approach appropriate to other areas.In respect of areas such as North America,the Commission holds the view that, as happened last year, a mission should be constituted by State tourist authorities and State Ministers who represent Australia more as an entity.

page 623

QUESTION

FARM TRACTORS

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for PrimaryIndustry. On 26th March last I addressed tohim a question about developing safety devices forfarm tractors in order to reduce the accident rate. He replied that the Commonwealth had no jurisdiction in this field, which was within the authority of the States. Is he aware that the accident rate is still rising rapidly? Is he also aware that a Bill to deal with this very problem is about to be introduced in the New Zealand Parliament? Will the Minister for Primary Industry obtain details of that legislation so that a study can be made by his Department to see whether any aspects of that legislation can be applied to safety in rural industry in Australia and communicated to the States and the firms concerned in the manufacture of farm machinery?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I am aware that the rate of accidents in the category mentioned by the honourable senator is increasing. I will put tothe Minister for Primary Industry the suggestion that he obtain some details of the New Zealand scheme. I do not knowwhether they will be of any use to us, in view of our setup. That will be a matter for him to decide.

page 623

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Supply yet in a position to make a statement about the future employment of skilled persons now employed in the aircraft industry at Fishermen’s Bend and Avalon in Victoria?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-I recall that the honourable senator asked me a number of questions on this matter prior to the recent break in the sittings of the Senate. At that time I told him that I would use the period of the break to visit various aircraft industry factories and areas. During the break I visited the de Havilland company’s establishment in Sydney and the Government Aircraft Factory at Avalon. I also visited Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd. Subsequently I issued a Press statement which I had hoped all honourable senators would have seen. If Senator Poyser has not seen it I will ensure that a copy is given to him. The fact is that Government aircraft factories have come to the end of a manufacturing period in relation to the Mirage aircraft, which has provided a hard core of work. Other work is carried out at those factories. My efforts have been directed towards exploring all possible additional avenues to enable the Government aircraft factories to work at the present rate and provide employment at least at the current rate. The truth is that because we are coming to the end of an agreed programme - and I believe that the Mirage programme will be concluded by the end of the year - almost inevitably, unless we find supplementary work over and above that done at the present time, there will be some standing down of operatives at the Government aircraft factories. Wonderful work in connection with the Jindivik, the Ikara system and other projects is being carried out at those factories. In fact quite a diversity of work is still being done, but the big order for the Mirage enabled the Government aircraft factories to work at the present tempo. We are coming to the end of that cycle. We are reaching a situation where we will have to give notice to a number of operatives during the next few months unless additional orders come to hand.

page 623

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply and refers to the Woomera rocket range. I ask: What are the outstanding issues between the Commonwealth Government and the United Kingdom Government in respect of the continued use of the Woomera rocket range?Is it likely that an extension of the current agreement with the United Kingdom will operate after June while discussions between the Governments take place? In the event of the United Kingdom Government retiring from the activities at Woomera, are any other countries likely to be interested in using the Woomera facilities? Should the United Kingdom Government drop out of the activities, will the Minister consider some special plans to avoid redundancy of the highly skilled scientific and technical staffs of both governments.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked a fairly comprehensive question. I think honourable senators will agree that. I could not give immediately a full answer to the various points that have been raised. However, I can give some information. The United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government are working at Woomera on the Joint Project, as it is known. Approximately 12 months ago the contractual arrangements between the Governments came to an end. Because of the time factor both parties to the arrangements decided to carry on for another 12 months to give the Governments and their advisers the necessary time to ascertain whether it was possible to draft a further agreement. I can inform the Senate that the representatives and advisers of both the United Kingdom Government and the Commonwealth Government have been working together on a draft new agreement. Mr Stonehouse, who is Minister of State (Technology) in the United Kingdom Government, as distinct from the Minister of Technology, is due to arrive here on Sunday week.I am to meet him and he will be here all the following week. The purpose of his visit, amongst other things, is to have conferences with me and other Government Ministers in relation to the drafting of a new agreement for the conduct of the Joint Project. In view of the delicate nature of the negotiations, I do not think the honourable senator or honourable senators generally would want me to say any more at this time. At the conclusion of Mr Stonehouse’s visit very probably I - if not I, then the Minister for Defence - will be making a statement in relation to our negotiations.

page 624

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OP SUPPLY

(Question No. 3)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. Does the Department of Supply possess land in the region of the former Flemington sale yards area in New South Wales?
  2. If so, under what circumstances and terms did the Commonwealth Government acquire such land?
  3. Is this land intended for use as a future stores and transport depot?
  4. Have any overtures been received from the New South Wales State Government offering alternative land for the Supply Depot?
  5. Was the reason for such an offer based upon the Scott report which considered this portion of land an ideal site for the new Sydney city markets?
  6. What has been the attitude of the Commonwealth Government to such proposals?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows: 1, 2 and 3. No. The Department of Supply does not possess land in the region of the former Flemington sates yards area in New South Wales. There have been departmental discussions about the possibility of Department of Supply taking over, for use as a stores and transport depot, part of the Naval Armament Depot area at Newington which is in the vicinity of the former Flemington sales yards. This particular area of about 60 acres forms part of areas of land compulsorily acquired in 1946 (approximately 211 acres) and 1952 (approximately 15 acres) for the purpose of an extension of the area required by the Department of the Navy. The total cost of these 226 acres was $110,000. 4, 5 and 6. No offer of exchange of land has been made by the New South Wales Government in respect of the area which has been discussed in relation to a Department of Supply stores and transport depot. However, I am informed that negotiations have been proceeding for some time with the Government of New South Wales concerning the exchange of other land occupied by the Department of the Navy in this area.

page 624

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING

(Question No. 6)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How much of the records used in national service ballots is related to assessments of the physical fitness standard of Australian youth?
  2. What are the percentages of youths rejected because of physical limitations when subjected to medical examination for national service?
  3. How does the information so collated relate to the suggestion made by Dr Phillip Law in his Fritz Duras Oration on 18th February 1962 that a ‘well controlled statistically immaculate carefully programmed investigation’is not carried out to obtain an effective assessment of national youth physical fitness standards?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. In determining the proportion of national service registrants to be selected by ballot, account is taken of the number who, on past experience, could be expected not to meet the Army’s standards of fitness.
  2. Up to 31st December 1967, 42% of registrants medically examined for national service, including those who seek to serve in special units of the Citizen Military Forces as an alternative to national service, did not meet the standards required for Army service.
  3. The sole objective of national service examinations is to determine whether or not a registrant who has been selected by ballot meets the necessarily high standard of fitness required for Army service under full combatant conditions in any part of the world. Those who do not meet the Army’s standards are, of course, not necessarily unfit by normal civilian standards.

page 625

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 7)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister conferred with major airline companies regarding the growing number of aircraft incidents Involving the conduct of ‘pop’ singers?
  2. What action was taken against the agents who were responsible for the travelling arrangements for such groups as “The Who’, The Small Faces’, Paul Jones and The Questions’?
  3. Who were fee booking agents responsible for the groups referred toin2. above?
  4. Will theMinister urge airlines to require agents to lodgebondson behalf of groups addicted to loutishbehaviour?
  5. Will theMinister give an assurance to all the organisations covering airline crews that such conduct designedto enable ‘pop’ groups and their agents to obtain cheap publicity will not be tolerated?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviationhas provided the following answers:

  1. Yes, but the Department’s air navigation regulations andorders are adequate to cover such situations and tocontrol any misbehaviour.
  2. The airline concerned discussed the matter with the agentin relation to any groups which may travel in thefuture. The agent who handled the named groups has imported a very large number of acts,andthere was no precedent for the agent tosuspect any unsatisfactory conduct.
  3. This was aroutine commercial matter for the airline industry and as such is the responsibility of the airline concerned.
  4. No. This would not be practicable or reasonable. These people pay their fares and book in the normal way. As mentioned above the Department’s air navigation regulations and orders are adequate to cover such situations.
  5. Yes. All organisations concerned, and indeed the entire travelling public, can be assured that the abovementioned regulations and orders do not allow for any situation which could threaten safety standards.

page 625

QUESTION

BUSH FIRES

(Question No. 13)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Mini- s ter representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. What action has been taken, in conjunction with the Australian Forestry Council, to acquire any special type aircraft from Canada for use in combating bush fires?
  2. Has the Minister examined the possibilities for this type of work of the new AH-56A Cheyenne helicopter which has some of the fixedwing plane characteristics?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Commonwealth authorities do not propose to take any early action to acquire large capacity water bombing aircraft for use in bush fire fighting. The Australian Forestry Council, which includes representatives of the Commonwealth and all State Ministers in charge of forestry, discussed this matter recently but did not favour any immediate action to import aircraft for use in bushfire fighting. It did, however, suggest that Commonwealth and State officials should keep a close watch on aircraft developments and aerial fire fighting techniques in other countries.

The Council reached its decision after having considered reports by Australian fire experts who studied the operational use of water bombing aircraft in Canada and the United States. The experts expressed doubts on the likely effectiveness of a highly expensive system of water bombing in the Australian environment. Australian eucalypt forests are highly inflammable. On a blow-up day, the fire intensity builds up extremely quickly and burning embers may be thrown for a considerable distance ahead of the main fire. In these conditions water bombers could be quite ineffective. Moreover, Australia lacks the plentiful unobstructed lakes or water storages of Canada from which amphibious aircraft could scoop up water.

Nevertheless the Council recommends that a survey of existing light aircraft such as crop dusters be undertaken to assess their suitability as water bombers. Light aircraft have been used successfully in Victoria for dropping fire retardants on fires caused by lightning but this technique is effective only if the fire is caught in the very early stages. Under these conditions fire retardant can check a fire until ground crews can get to it and put it out.

  1. No assessment of the suitability of the AH-56A Cheyenne helicopter for fire suppression work has been made here but I will arrange for this suggestion to be examined. On the other hand, very successful use has recently been made of helicopters in flying fire suppression crews in to points near bush fires in mountainous country in southern New South Wales and Victoria. In New South Wales, Royal Australian Air Force Iroquois helicopters were employed. In Victoria, smaller Bell helicopters were used. This use of helicopters shortens by many hours the time taken by suppression crews to reach a fire in difficult country. I understand that the Forests Commission of Victoria is developing helipads in its forest areas to facilitate future operations of this type.

page 626

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 26)

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Have many thousands of qualified students been refused scholarships to New South Wales teachers colleges?
  2. Is it a fact that in previous years students holding the qualifications of these rejected students would have been eligible for scholarships?
  3. Has the Government any plans to absorb these prospective teachers?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows: 1 and 2. These matters are the responsibility of the Minister for Education in New South Wales and questions about them therefore should be addressed to that Minister.

  1. The Commonwealth is assisting the States in this matter by providing a total of $24m to all Slates over the 3-year period from 1st July 1967 to 30th June 1970 for the construction and equipping of teachers colleges. Of this amount $7.5m is available to New South Wales.

page 626

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 36)

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

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

With reference to a statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, that our armed forces in Vietnam would nor exceed 8,000, and in view of the Governor-General’s Speech on 12th March wherein it was stated that the numbers exceeded 8,000. by how many do they exceed 8,000?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The approved total establishment for Australian Service personnel in Vietnam including the crew ofthe guided missile destroyer is 8,103.

page 626

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES

(Question No. 37)

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

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

Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government recently disposed of a building site in the city of Hobart upon which it was originally intended to construct a Commonwealth Centre but which was subsequently considered too small for present day needs? If so, what action is being taken to secure a site adequate for the provision of a central Commonwealth Centre which is urgently required in Hobart?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth recently disposed of a site originally purchased for Commonwealth offices in Hobart but which, with the passage oftime and changes in the traffic pattern of the city, had been found to be both inadequate and inappropriate as to location. Consideration is being given to the selection of a suitable alternative site which will permit the construction of a Commonwealth Centre of sufficient size to meet the Commonwealth’s current and future demands for office space in Hobart.

page 626

QUESTION

DROUGHT

(Question No. 39)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Have representations recently been made to the Commonwealth Government regarding financial aid to encourage the feeding of breeding slock in Victoria?
  2. Is the Prime Minister aware of the urgency with which a reply is awaited by farmers and graziers in Victoria?
  3. Will the Prime Minister ensure a prompt decision in this matter?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions: 1, 2 and 3. After consultation with the Victorian Government the Commonwealth, as was announced by the Prime Minister in another place on 21 st March 1968, decided that it would provide further assistance to Victoria in recognition of the special problems in that Slate, where areas affected by drought have, perhaps, the heaviest stocking rate of any farming areas in Australia. The Commonwealth accordingly offered to make available to Victoria in 1967-68 further special revenue assistance of $lm in addition to the amount of $3. 8m which it had previously undertaken to provide.In addition, the Commonwealth arranged for the Australian Wheat Board to sell wheat to farmers in drought-declared areas on terms of 12 months credit. Details of the arrangement have been determined by the Wheat Board and the Victorian authorities.

page 627

QUESTION

AIR POLLUTION

(Question No. 73)

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation upon notice:

Has any investigation been made into the effects throughout the country of the precipitation of fuel laden exhaust matter emitted from modern jet propelled aircraft when taking off and decelerating for landing on people and food stores on the ground beneath the flight path of aircraft? If not will the Minister direct his technical advisers to report on this matter?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer:

No intensive investigations have been made to determine the effects of fuel laden exhaust matter emitted from modern jet propelled aircraft in this country. However, because of the considerably greater density of air traffic in the United States of America, the problem of its precipitation from aircraft has been under much closer examination there and my technical advisors have made enquires to determine the results of the United Slates investigations.

The results of the United States investigations show that aircraft do not make a significant contribution tothe atmospheric air pollution problems. I quote the results of an investigation in the Washington area during 1967 as a typical example. In this case it was shown that the three airports in the Washington area were responsible for only about2% of the particulate matter and hydrocarbons and 1% of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides discharged into the area’s air supply.

There is every reason to believe that a similar investigation in Australia would also come to a conclusion that the effect of contamination from aircraft exhaust systems on the general level of air pollution in major Australian cities is small, and likely to remain small in comparison with known major sources of pollution, such as road vehicles, smoking chimneys, etc.

page 627

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

(Question No. 41)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many prosecutions have been instituted under the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960-1966?
  2. What were the charges?
  3. Against whom?
  4. When and where were the proceedings heard and with what results?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. Two prosecutions have been instituted under the Act. 2 and 3.

    1. The following charges were laid against Neil Hanley:
    1. Intercepting a communication passing over the telephone in contravention of section (1.) (a) of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960.
    2. Communicating information obtained by intercepting a communication passing over the telephone system in contravention of section5 (3.) of the Act.

    3. Making use of information obtained by intercepting a communication passing over the telephone system in contravention of section 5 (3.) of the Act.

    4. Keith Lawrence. Webbie was charged with communicating information obtained by intercepting a communication passed over the telephone system in contravention of section 5 (3.) of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960. 4. (a) The charges against Hanley were heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory at Canberra on 2 1st July 1965. The accused pleaded guilty to the first and second of these charges and not guilty to the third. The Crown offered no evidence on that charge and he was acquitted in respect of it. He was sentenced to a term of 3 months imprisonment in respect of the first charge, and 6 months imprisonment in respect of the second charge, both sentences to be served concurrently. However, the judge ordered that after the accused had served one day of his sentence he was to be released upon entering into a recognizance under section 20 of the Crimes Act in the sum of £100 to be of good behaviour for 3 years.
    5. The Charge against Webbie was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory at Canberra on8th March 1966. By direction of the judge the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty.

page 627

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 51)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. In each of the last 2 years how many migrants were brought to each of the States, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory?
  2. For the current year, on the arrangements made by the Department of Immigration, what are the estimated numbers of migrants to be taken to each of the States and those two Territories?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer:

  1. Settler arrivals by State or Territory of intended residence in the last two years are as follows:

Allocation by Stateis based on a statement of intention only and there is no guarantee that the intention was realised. Not stated includes also persons passing through the Migrant Reception Centre at Bonegilla who were not placed in time for allocation to States.

  1. Because migrants are free to seek their own employment and place of residence on arrival no estimate can be made of the numbers who may settle in each of the States during the current year. Arrivals by State of intended residence of settlers for the 6 months July to December 1967 are:

It might be expected that a similar pattern will follow for theremainder of the year.

page 628

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Question No. 53)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What has been done to implement the recommendation on pedestrian control, by the Senate Select Committeeon Road Safety, that ‘A national planned pedestrian programme should be drawn up, defining the lights and responsibilities of pedestrians and establishing standards of safety measures for pedestrians’?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answer:

Following consideration by the Australian Road Safety Councilof the various recommendations of the Senate Select Committee, the Australian Transport Advisory Council in July 1963 endorsed a resolution of the Australian Road Safety Council, arising out of this particular recommendation, that the subject of pedestrian fatalities be selected for special consideration in its 1963-64 public education campaign.

Since1960 the Department of Shipping and Transport, in consultation with the Australian Road Safety Council, has conducted an annual pedestrian protection campaign on a national basis using the various forms of mass media such as Press, radio and television. In addition to mass media publicity a continuous supply of posters and other printed material has been produced for distribution by State road safety organisations.

Expenditure on mass media publicity for pedestrian campaigns for the years 1963-64 to 1966-67 has been as follows:

State road safety organisations integrate their own campaigns with the Commonwealth nation wide campaigns.

The Australian Road Safety Council at its last meeting agreed on the formation of a pedestrian sub-committee. The Council, in conjunction with the report of the sub-committee, will examine and consider a comprehensive manual on pedestrian safely that has been produced by the American Automobile Association.

The National Road Traffic Code, a set of traffic laws prepared by the Australian Road Traffic Code Committee, and used by the States and Territories as a model for traffic legislation, contains provisions defining the legal obligations of pedestrians and the obligations of motorists towards pedestrians, including rules in respect of pedestrian and children’s crossings.

Attempts have been made to standardise these crossings throughout Australia, and some degree of success has been achieved in the use of the walking legs’ sign and striped road markings for pedestrian crossings. However, considerable variations still occur in practices followed in the various States. The Australian Committee on Road Devices, which is preparing a national manual of traffic control devices, has the matter under consideration.

page 629

QUESTION

INCORPORATION IN HANSARD OF QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE AND ANSWERS THERETO

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - As proceedings of the Senate are not now being recorded for broadcasting, I suggest that question No. 59, asked by Senator Bull, question No. 86, asked by Senator Davidson, question No.150, asked by Senator Mulvihill, and question No. 157, asked by Senator Keeffe, with the concurrence of those honourable senators, be incorporated in Hansard.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - I suggest that all of the rest of the questions on notice for which answers are provided be incorporated, with the answers, in Hansard. I suggest that when a list of the numbers of questions to which answers are to be provided is prepared it would, in future, be convenient if the names of the questioners were put beside the questions, as I understand is usual, and that all questions On notice and answers thereto be incorporated in Hansard unless the senator who has asked the question or the Minister who is answering it indicates that he desires that the question be answered orally.

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) - by leave -I should like to speak to this proposal. On different days we find different approaches to the procedures of the Senate. I have been here since 1953 and since then - and I know this was so before then - it has always been felt that when the proceedings were being broadcast or were being recorded for broadcasting it was desirable that an honourable senator should be able to ask his question and receive an answer so that both question and answer would be broadcast. Therefore I am very reluctant to presume on the rights of honourable senators by varying that procedure. I concede that when the proceedings at question time cease to be recorded for broadcasting, it is only with the concurrence of honourable senators who asked the questions that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Ministers who sit behind him should ask that the remaining questions and answers be incorporated in Hansard. This is a right of the Senate which has been passed down to us and which we are all here to preserve.

There was a little confusion today because, I gather, many of these answers came very late and it wasnot possible in the circumstances to produce a piece of paper that showed the names of honourable senators who had asked the questions. You, Sir, were quite right in directing attention to the confusion. I would not like to interfere with the procedures that we have followed here almost since federation. Whilst I know that Senator Murphy is only trying to be helpful, I do not think that that matter should be pursued at the present time.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– by leave - I believe that when a senator places a question on the notice paper, irrespective of whether or not proceedings are being broadcast or recorded for broadcasting, the question should be answered by the appropriate Minister except when the answer includes a long table of figures which one would not really understand unless it was in front of him. This was the position in the case of an answer just provided by the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin). I do not think we should alter the procedure because it suits the convenience of some people to disagree or to try to bring new forms into the Senate. With the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), 1 believe that we should follow the usual procedure in this matter. If honourable senators take the trouble to put questions on the notice paper they are entitled, I believe, to have them answered orally.

Senator Wright:

– And the whole Senate is entitled to hear them.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Hear, hear.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted for the incorporation of the rest of the questions and answers which are available? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

page 629

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

(Question No. 54)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What has been done to implement the recommendation on speed limits of the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety that - The installation of tachographs, or similar instruments, in heavy vehicles should be compulsory.?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Australian Transport Advisory Council recently endorsed the proposal that tachographs should be fitted to every road train. The mandatory fining to other vehicles has been investigated by the Australian Motor Vehicle Standards Committee butthere is no proposal to extend the application.

page 630

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

(Question No. 56)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What has been done to implement the recommendation on road safety research of the Senate Select Committee en Road Safety that:

It is imperative that a research group be established, financed by Commonwealth funds and directly responsible to a Commonwealth Minister, to direct and coordinate basic and applied research into every aspect of road safety. The group should determine research projects and priorities, allocate projects to existing institutions and organisations, co-ordinate the results of local and overseas research, arrange for the analysis and evaluation of findings and publish its recommendations, and

Facilities for the training of traffic engineers should be expanded, and the desirability of their employment as a practical contribution towards road safety should be impressed upon Governmental Authorities at all levels?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The various recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety have been considered by the Australian Transport Advisory Council and its committee the Australian Road Safety Council. This is appropriate as most of the recommendations are the concern of the States, which are responsible for roads and the control of traffic.

This particular recommendation was discussed at a number of meetings of both Councils but no agreement was reached with the State Ministers that a body should be established such as suggested, with the extensive powers necessary to direct basic and applied research and allocate projects to existing institutions and organisations.

It must be borne in mind that the further research will not decrease road accidents unless the results are applied by State authorities. A considerable volume of research is already available and not all the findings have been applied throughout Australia.

The New South Wales Government recently announced the establishment of a Road Accident Prevention and Research Unit, staffed by specialists, one of whose tasks would be to collate and evaluate research material from all over the world.

  1. At the present time the problem appears to lie not in the lack of training facilities but in the lack of applicants to take advantage of the facilities provided.

The University of New South Wales offers a full year’s course in its School of Traffic Engineering but I am informed that this is being conducted well below capacity. This school offers also short courses of fourteen weeks fulltime, and about 220 persons have completed this course. In addition, the University of Melbourne has been conducting seminars in traffic engineering practice for local government engineers.

There is a continuing demand for the services of qualified traffic engineers, and students should give consideration to the career opportunities offered. Public and local authorities should also take full advantage of the facilities available for developing the skills of their engineering and other suitable employees in this useful science.

page 630

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

(Question No. 62)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What has been done to implement the recommendations on accident reporting and statistics, by the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety, that:

‘Commonwealth and State Authorities, in consultation with the Commonwealth Statistician, should define basic information to be required in accident reports ‘, and

‘The use of trained personnel in special accident investigation work should be encouraged’?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. For many years the Australian Road Safety Council and the Australian Road Traffic Code Committee sought to promote uniformity in road accident reporting. Several years ago, the Australian Road Traffic Code Committee, by direction of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, prepared a uniform accident report form with a view to its adoption by the States; however, in all States but one, this did not prove acceptable to police authorities.

Representatives of the Commonwealth Statistician and the Australian Road Safety Council subsequently agreed that a limited range of uniform national accident statistics could be compiled from the items common to each of the non-standard accident report forms used in the States and Territories.

It is recognised that a wider range of road accident statistics on a national basis is desirable, in particular in relation to the contributing factors present when accidents take place. However, there would seem little early prospect of the necessary agreement being reached by State Authorities.

  1. The extent to which trained personnel should be used in accident investigation is a matter for State governments and authorities.I understand that in Victoria there is a special Accident Appreciation Squad attached to the Police Traffic Branch. The New South Wales Government recently announced its intention to set up a Road Accident Prevention and Research Unit staffed by specialists.

page 631

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

(Question No. 80)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

  1. Has any programme been prepared for the transfer of Government Departments from Sydney and Melbourne to Canberra?
  2. What is the programme of transfer that is contemplated?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions: l and 2. The Government has approved the transfer programme of Commonwealth Departments from Sydney and Melbourne up to 1970-71 as follows:

Included in this approved programme are 150 positions in the C.S.I.R.O. to be transferred from Melbourne to Canberra in the year 1970-71.

page 631

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY

(Question No. 83)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Does the Commonwealth own the Sydney properly, Club Chambers, 96 Phillip Street, adjacent tothe Commonwealth Centre’s parking area? If so. who are the various tenants in this building and what are the annual rents paid by each of them?
  2. Does the Government intend resuming this property. If so, when and for what purpose?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth owns the property known as Club Chambers. 96 Phillip Street. Sydney. The various tenants in the building and their present annual rentals are:
  1. The Commonwealth is holding this property to permit a further development of the Commonwealth Centre at some future time. This will eventually involve the demolition of Club Chambers but, on current thinking, vacant possession will not be required prior to the end of March 1970.

page 631

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

(Question No. 93)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

In view of the recurring interruption of railway traffic to Alice Springs, because of flooding, and the proposed examination by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner of the existing railway track and the survey of an alternative route, will the Minister advise the Senate of the results of any such examination, and any proposed Commonwealth works to correct the position?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answer:

The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner has submitted to the Minister for Shipping and Transport a report on this matter. This submits alternative costs for -

upgrading the existing narrow gauge line from Marree to Alice Springs,

building a new standard gauge line from Marree to Alice Springs substantially along the existing route,

constructing a new standard gauge line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs, a new route avoiding the worst flood areas.

All of these alternatives would involve very extensive expenditures, which preliminary estimates indicate would be in excess of $50m, and would require periods estimated between 5 and 10 years to complete. All aspects of the proposals are being examined but I am unable to indicate when a decision will be reached.

page 631

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

(Question No. 102)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What has been done to implement the recommendations on driver licensing, by the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety, that -

A system of requiring examination of applicants for driving licences by way of driving tests, physical examination, and questioning of knowledge of traffic regulations should be a standard procedure throughout the Commonwealth, on as uniformly high a basis as possible.

Holders of driving licences should be required to submit to eyesight tests at least every 10 years up to the age of 50, and at least everyfive years thereafter;

Research should be pursued to ascertain whether present methods and standards of prelicensing examinations are adequate, or whether harder tests or tests of a different nature (psychological, physical reaction and others) should be introduced; and

Medical authorities should establish a set of physical standards for use by medical practitioners in considering whether patients should be advised not to drive a car?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The administration of driver licensing and the subsequent implementation of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on this subject are of course a matter for State authorities.

The Commonwealth, however, participates actively in the work of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which through its various committees considered the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety.

The Australian Transport Advisory Council endorsed the need for driving tests, physical examination and questioning on traffic regulations to be on a standard procedure throughout the Commonwealth on as uniformly high a basis as possible, and authorised the Australian Road Safety Council to approach the National Health and Medical Research Council concerning the subject matter of the Senate recommendations relative to the physical fitness of drivers. Following consideration, the National Health and Medical Research Council, through its Traffic Injury Committee, entered upon some examination of the subject, and subsequently made certain recommendations in respect of epilepsy and diabetes; however, no recommendations have been received in respect of eyesight tests or other aspects of driver licensing.

All States and Territories require applicants for drivers’ licences to undergo practical driving tests, and the nature of the test is usually prescribed in some detail by administrative instructions. All States and Territories require applicants to answer a series of questions on road laws.

The Committee on Driver Improvement in 1965 endorsed a procedure for a practical driving test devised some years previously by the Australian Road Traffic Code Committee. Generally this test is followed by the States and Territories.

In all States and Territories some provision is made for inquiry into the medical fitness of drivers when first applying for licences, and the licensing authority may, as a result of answers to questions in the application form or otherwise, require the applicant toundergo a compulsory eyesight test or medical examination as a condition of obtaining a licence. However, the position varies from State to State and until medical authorities can reach agreement on the disabilities that should debar persons from driving, and on tests that should be applied, there seems little prospect of uniform procedures being applied throughout Australia.

A good deal of research is being undertaken overseas into various aspects of driver licensing, including tests of a psychological nature. I am sure that licensing authorities in Australia would give every consideration to the practicability of adopting any such additional tests demonstrated to produce results, particularly if applied by licensing authorities overseas.

page 632

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

(Question No. 103)

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

With reference to the statement in the 1966-67 Annual Report of the Commonwealth Railways that ‘the extensive washaways have again emphasised the urgent need for a reliable all weather railway to serve Alice Springs and consideration is now being given to various proposals in this regard’

what are the various proposals, and

has any decision yet been reached; if not, when is a decision likely to be announced?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

See answer to Question 93 by Senator Bishop.

page 632

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 105)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

As Thailand has now joined the long list of countries with colour television, will consideration be given to re-examining the position in Australia, where the introduction of colour television is not anticipated before 1970 at the earliest?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Colour television in relation to Australia is under continuous examination. It involves questions of technical and economic importance. In August last I made a statement in which I indicated that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which is responsible for the determination of a system of colour television for Australia and relative technical standards, would continue its investigations into these matters including the operation of colour television recently introduced in the United Kingdom and a number of overseas countries. I said that the Board would make recommendations on these matters by the end of this year.

In due course, following the Board’s recommendations on technical matters, the Government will make a decision concerning the introduction of colour television but as I indicated in my statement, there would be a period of at least 18 months between any decision by the Government and the actual introduction of colour services. This would be necessary to allow industry and operators lime to prepare for the new development.

page 633

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

(Question No. 1 10)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. What is the average price of (a) blocks of land for home building, and (b) houses, financed in each State under the War Service Homes Act?
  2. How many applications are now outstanding under the War Service Homes Act for (a) new homes, and (b) other homes?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. During the year 1966-67 the average cost of land and dwelling-houses erected under the War Service Homes Act was:
  1. At 29 February 1968 the number of applications outstanding under the War Service Homes Act was:

There are no waiting periods in respect of assistance under the War Service Homes Act and the applications outstanding at 28 February were all in the course of being dealt with or were deferred at the request of the applicants.

page 633

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSES

(Question No. 112)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many lighthouses around the Australian coastline, including offshore islands, are under the control of the Department of Shipping and Transport?
  2. What are their locations?
  3. Which lighthouses have permanent operating staff, and which are operated automatically?
  4. How many lighthouses are on islands or areas of the coastline which are deemed to be animal or bird sanctuaries?
  5. How many lighthouse locations designated as sanctuaries also permit sheep grazing leases?
  6. What are the locations of the lighthouses in the categories referred to in 4. and 5. above?
  7. What is the annual income earned from such grazing leases?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. Excluding 14 lighted buoys, there are 243 lights, on various types of structures, operated by the Department.

  2. and 3.-

    1. Lights (in administrative regional groupings) that have permanent operating staff are as follows:

New South Wales

Montagu Island, South Solitary Island,

Cape Byron, Green Cape, Norah Head, Point Perpendicular, Point Stephens, Smokey Cape and Sugarloaf Point.

Queensland

Dent Island, Lady Elliot Island, North

Reef, Pine Islet, Booby Island, Bustard Head, Cape Capricorn, Cape Cleveland, Cape Moreton, Double island Point, Fitzroy Island, Low Isles, GoodsIsland and Sandy Cape.

Western Australia and Northern Territory Cape Don, Cape Leeuwin, Cape Naturaliste, Eclipse Island, Cape Leveque, Moore Point, Rottnest Island and Troughton Island.

South Australia

Althorpe Island, Cape Borda, Cape Jaffa, Cape Northumberland. Cape Willoughby, Lowly Point, South Neptune isle and Troubridge Shoal.

Victoria

Cape Everard, Cape Nelson, Cape Otway, Cape Schanck, Cliffy Island, Currie Harbour, Deal Island. Gabo Island and Wilson Promontory.

Tasmania

Cape Bruny, Cape Sorrell, Eddystone Point, Low Head, Maatsuyker Island, Swan Island and Tasman Island.

  1. Automatic lights, again in regional groupings, are as follows:

New South Wales

Brush Island, Clarence River. Macquarie, Nobbys Head, Warden Head, Wollongong Head, Barranjoey Head, Cape Baily, Crowdy Head, Fingal Head, Kiama, Richmond River and Tacking Point.

Queensland

Caloundra Head, Edward Island, Vernon Rocks, Archer Point, Bramble Cay, Penrith Island, White Rock, Albany Rock, Bailey Islet, Bay Rock, Bet Reef, Bougainville Reef, Bow Reef, Burnett River, Cairncross Islets, Cape Bowling Green, Chapman Reef, Clerk Island, Coppersmith Rock, Coquet Island, Dalrymple Islet, Decapolis Reef, DoveIslet, Duyfken Point, East

Straight Island, Eborac Island, Eel Reef, Eshelby Island, Fahey Reef, Fife Island, Flat Top Island,Gatcombe Head, Grassy Hill, Hammond Rock, Hannah Island, Hannibal Islands, Harvey Rocks, Heath Reef, High Peak Island, Holbourne Island, Ince Point, King Island, Little Fitzroy Island, North Barnard Islands, North Point, Palfrey Islet, Pethebridge Islets, Pine Peak Island, Pinnacle Point, Piper Islands, Pipon Island, Point Lookout, Port Douglas, Restoration Rock, Rocky Islet, Rundle Island, Russell Island, Sea Hill Point, South Barrow Islet, South Brook Island. Sue Islet, Three Isles, Twin Island, Waterwitch Reef. Wharton Reef. Wyborn Reef. Breaksea Spit and Carpentaria.

Western Australia and Northern Territory

Brady Rock, Cape Wessel, Connexion Island, Emery Point, Gull Island. Hand Islet, New Year Island, North Island, North East Islet, Point Cloates, Caffarelli Island, De- gerando Islet. D’Entrecasteaux Point, East Vernon Island, Lacrosse Island, Point Charles, Shoal Point, AdeleIsland, Airlie Island, Anchor Island. Bathurst Point, Beagle Islet. Bedout Island. Breaksea Island. Browse Island, Cape Bossut, Cape Fourcroy, Cape Hotham, Cape Inscription, Caps Ronsard, Escape Island, Figure of Eight Island, Foul Bay, Gantheaume Point, Jarman Island, Legendre Island, Lesueur Island. Mary Anne Reef, Mount Blaze. North Sandy Island. Quobba Point, Rosemary Island, South West Vernon, Steep Point and Tanner Island.

South Australia

EvansIsland. Marino Rocks, Williams

Island, Cape Banks. Cape Bauer, Cape Du Couedic, Cape Donington. Cape Jervis. Cape Martin, Cape St Alban, Cape Spencer, Corny Point. Dangerous Reef, Eastern Shoal North, Eastern Shoal South, Flinders Island, Four Hummocks, Long Spit, Marsden Point, Middle Bank, Orontes Bank, St Francis Island, Shoalwater Point, Tipara Reef, Wardang Island. Wedge Island, Winceby Island and Yarraville Shoals.

Victoria

Cape Wickham, Hogan Island, Goose Island, Cape Liptrap, Citadel Island, Hunter island. Split Point, Stokes Point and Three Hummock Island.

Tasmania

Cape Barren, Cat Islet, Devonport, Holloway Point, Low Rocky Point, Rocky Cape, Cape Forestier. Highfield Point. Round Hill Point, Sandy Cape, Table Cape, Waterhouse Island and West Point.

  2. One lighthouse reserve.

  3. The locations of the lighthouses referred to in 4 and 5 are.

    1. In 4:

New South Wales

Brush Island, Green Cape, Montagu

Island, Point Perpendicular and Warden Head.

Queensland

Under Queensland State legislation, all islands are designated as fauna sanctuaries, including those mentioned in 2 and 3 (a) and (b) as having Commonwealth lights erected on them.

Western Australia

Breaksea Island, Figure of Eight Island. Gull Island. North Island and Rottnest Island.

Northern Territory

Nil.

South Australia

Dangerous Reef, Evans Island. Four

Hummocks, Pearson Island. Troubridge Shoal and Williams Island.

Victoria

Gabo Island.

Tasmania

Cat Islet, Goose Island and Low Rocky Point.

  1. In 5:

Goose Island. Tasmania. (This grazing lease expires in September 1968 and it is not proposed to grant any further lease).

  1. $220

page 634

QUESTION

CUSTOMS EXAMINATIONS

(Question No. 114)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Why was Marlene Dietrich singled out for special luggage examination by Customs officers when she arrived in Sydney en route to attend the Adelaide Festival of Arts?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

I assure the honourable senator that Miss Dietrich was not singled out for special examination by Customs officers when she recently arrived from overseas at Sydney Kingsford Smith airport.

It is normal Customs practice to select certain aircraft on a purely random basis and to subject the baggage of the entire complement of passengers and crew to a 100% check.

The aircraft carrying Miss Dietrich and 101 other passengers plus eleven crew members happened to be included in this random check programme. Accordingly the baggage of all persons on board was subjected to full examination. I would add that where it is necessary to conduct a full examination special arrangements are made to ensure that the check is carried out quickly and with the least inconvenience to the passengers.

page 635

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 115)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster General, upon notice:

In an effort to improve relations in the postal services industry, will the Government consider setting up a special public and industrial relations section in the Post Office?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Special Public Relations and Industrial Sections already exist within the Post Office. Industrial Officers arc at all times readily accessible to Union officials and members of the staff. They visit provincial centres from time to time to assist with any local problems and, together with other senior administrative officers, are always ready to meet with officials of staff organisations for either formal or informal discussions. Arrangements exist, too. for regular meetings at the Federal level with some of the larger unions, including the Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union, which is the largest of the postal unions. At these meetings any matters which the Unions may wish to put forward are discussed.

The existing Industrial and Public Relations Sections work in close co-operation but, as each has other functions as welt as industrial relations, it is not thought that any significant benefits would be achieved by combining the two groups into one section.

page 635

QUESTION

TOWNSVILLE AIRPORT

(Question No.11 7)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What is the nature and value of the improvements to be carried out at the Townsville Airport?
  2. When will the work be commenced and what is the likely completion date?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. Planning for extensions and improvements to the terminal building at Townsville Airport is at present in progress. Members of the Departments of Civil Aviation and Works visited Townsville on the 28 March in this regard.

Until this planning is further advanced it will not be possible to give details of the nature of the work or the cost involved.

  1. It is hoped to programme the improvements during the coming financial year. This must, of necessity, depend on budgetary considerations and it will be some months yet before definite advice can be given concerning the starling time and completion of the work.

page 635

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 130)

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister re presenting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What were the numbers of civil aircraft movements of passengers and tonnage of aircraft, for the years . 1963-67 at Darwin Airport, Northern Territory?
  2. What was the position at the Launceston Airport, Tasmania, during the same period?
  3. In what order of total civil aircraft movements, of passengers and air freight, did Darwin rate in Commonwealth airports during 1963-67 and similarly, what was Launceston Airport’s position?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. Traffic statistics for domestic airline traffic at Darwin Airport were:
  1. The corresponding figures for Launceston were:
  1. The order of Darwin and Launceston Airports in the volume of domestic airline traffic handled were:

page 636

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 132)

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

Will the Minister arrange to table in the Senate a copy of the Army Order issued in Vietnam instructing all ranks to exercise the greatest care not to breach the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war?

Senator McKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No. However, extracts from various documents are quoted hereunder:

1st Australian Task Force, Vietnam, Standing Operating Procedure (paras 128 and 129)

Treatment of PW 128. General. On capture, all PW are to be given humane treatment. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted. PW may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Wounded and sick PW are to be collected and cared for. 129. Conditions. The principle governing the treatment of PW is that their conditions should be no worsethan those provided for our own troops. This includes;

Transportation.

Medical.

Accommodation.

Hygiene.

Rations’.

Unit Guide to the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims - issued to all units in the Army

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of torture may be inflicted on prisoners of war and they may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind’.

The Soldier’s Handbook - issued to all recruits in the Army

page 636

THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS

Application

  1. Australia has agreed to abide by the rules of war known as the Geneva Conventions.
  2. These rules are based on the conviction that there are advantages for the sake of humanity in observing certain restraints in warfare.
  3. Australian soldiers must observe these rules whether or not the enemy does likewise. A summary of important aspects of the convention follows.

The Wounded, the Sick and Medical Personnel

  1. Wounded and sick who become Prisoners of War must be given proper care and treatment without discrimination.
  2. Medical personnel and medical establishments are protected. Personnel may only be armed for defence of themselves and the wounded in their care. They may be made Prisoners of War. Medical establishments arc not to be misused for other military purposes. Prisoners of War
  3. Prisoners must give their serial number, rank, name and date of birth. No physical or mental torture is to be inflicted to secure further information.
  4. Prisoners are to be treated humanely at all times. For instance they must be fed and may not be unnecessarily exposed to danger.
  5. Escape is admitted as conforming to military honour and patriotic courage. However, weapons may be used as an extreme measure to prevent escape, and always after appropriate warning.

Civilians

  1. The lives and property of civilians who take no part in the fighting must be respected’.

page 636

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 135)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

Have Postmasters throughout Australia apologised to the public for the ‘inefficient service’ given by postal staffs? If so, could this alleged ‘inefficient service’ be related to the 60% turnover in labour in the postal services?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

It is understood that some members of the New South Wales Branch of (he Postmasters Association are distributing a leaflet alleging inefficiency of post office staffs and claiming that the opening of post offices on Saturdays creates recruitment problems.

On the matter of labour turnover, none of the three basic designations in post offices throughout the Commonwealth, namely, Postal Clerk, Postal Officer and Postman, has an annual turnover rate of 60%. In these three designations, only the Postman group has a turnover rate greater than 40% and in this group overall turnover is directly influenced by a high separation rate for temporary employees.

Current separation rates in the post offices area do not appear to be significantly high when compared with available information on labour turnover in non-manufacturing industry groups elsewhere in Australia.

page 637

QUESTION

CUSTOMS EXAMINATION

(Question No. 143)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Did Customs officers fly to Suva late in 1967 fur the purpose ofclearing officers on H.M.A.S. Melbourne? If so, what was the cost to the Australian taxpayers of flying these officers to Suva?
  2. Were ratings on this ship required to have their Customs inspection at Garden Island?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. The Department of the Navy requested that Customs clearance of the personnel on H.M.A.S. Melbourne be effected en route from Suva so that the vessel could meet the dockyard schedule at Sydney commencing on 23rd November 1967.

Five Customs officials were flown to Suva at a cost of $1,076.64 and the following functions were performed en route:

All officers and ratings were interviewed regarding goods in their possession;

Customs declarations were processed;

Customs duty was collected on goods not eligible for concessions and in excess of concessions;

Random physical examination of selected mess decks and officers cabins was made.

  1. One thousand one hundred and thirty-eight ratings disembarked at Garden Island and a low percentage random examination was made on baggage landed by both officers and ratings.

page 637

QUESTION

POSTAL SERVICES

(Question No. 148)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Does the Postmaster-General approve of postal and Post Office facilities being used for Australian horse-tipping systems?
  2. Is it a fact that a person named George Francis uses G.P.O. Box 4870, Sydney, for the purpose of distributing racing information?
  3. Does this contravene the postal or gambling laws of Australia or of any of the States?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The following answers to the honourable senator’s questions have been supplied:

  1. The Postmaster-General may, under the Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations, refuse the use of postal facilities for illegal horse tipping systems. 2 and 3. This matter is at present under investigation.

page 637

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CASUALTIES IN VIETNAM

(Question No. 154)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Does the practice, which Senator Fitzgerald was informed existed almost two years ago, of not publishing in the Australian press the names of Australian casualties in Vietnam, until such tints as relatives had been advised, still obtain?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The names of Australian casualties in Vietnam are not released until next-of-kin have been notified.

page 637

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BUREAU OF ROADS

(Question No. 156)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. When will a report from the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads be tabled in the Parliament?
  2. Will the Government consider amending the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Act so as to provide for an annual report to be presented to the Parliament by the Bureau?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s questions is as follows:

The Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Act does not provide for the tabling of reports by the Bureau in the Parliament The function of the Bureau is to provide information and advice for the Government and it is not proposed to amend the Act on the lines indicated. However, the Parliament will be informed of the work of the Bureau whenever it is appropriate. Certain technical reports of the Bureau have already been released and are available in the Parliamentary Library.

page 638

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 158)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister for Immigration:

Why has there been a considerable reduction in the numbers of migrant families coming to Australia in the last 12 months?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

–The answers to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Commonwealth Statistician does not maintain statistics of migrant Families who settle in Australia.

Figures are available which indicate the marital status of settlers under the classifications, for males and females, of’never married’, ‘married’, ‘divorced’ and ‘widowed’.

On the assumption (hat a ‘married female’ represents a family, the following table gives an indication of family arrivals over the past 3 years:

The table indicates little variation in the numbers of ‘married female’ arrivals during the last 3 complete financial years but a slight increase in their proportion in both ‘assisted’ and ‘total’arrivals. Figures for the first 6 months of 1967-68 suggest that less married females may arrive during the current financial year but it is yet too early to form a firm judgment.

Any fall over the whole of 1967-68 would be due to a smaller intake of migrants from Britain.

The present high rate of applications in Britain indicates an increase in arrivals in 1968-69.

page 638

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY

(Question No. 159)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

What plans has the Government for the future of the Customs House at Circular Quay, Sydney?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The present situation concerning this building is that the existing Customs House does not provide adequate accommodation for departmental requirements and additional accommodation has had to be leased in several other city buildings.

The Department of the Interior is examining the possibility of securing accommodation which will suit immediate needs and provide for reasonable future expansion.

Should it be decided, eventually to vacate the existing Customs House, the matter of its disposal will be dealt with by the Minister for the Interior. I have no doubt, however, that before arriving at a decision, he would carefully consider the expressed wishes of interested parties.

page 638

QUESTION

FISHING

(Question No. 168)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Is it a fact that, as a’ result of the Commonwealth intervention, persons and firms desirous of establishing new fishing industries based at Karumba in the Gulf of Carpentaria have had such applications rejected by the Queensland Government?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The reply to the honourable senator’s question is, No.

page 638

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 170)

Senator DRURY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen an article in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 28th March 1968, regarding the move by Trans-Australia Airlines to charter a Qantas 707 jet to serve the Sydney-Port Moresby air route?
  2. Will this move further aggravate the present dispute between Trans-Australia Airlines and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and cause its extension to Qantas?
  3. Is this a move byTrans-Australia Airlines to force the pilots to accept their conditions regarding the manning of DC9 aircraft?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers:

  1. I am informed by the Minister for Civil Aviation that he saw the report to which the honourable senator refers.
  2. As the honourable senator will no doubt be aware, there was a strike by the Flight Stewards’ Association which grounded Qantas aircraft. This strike ceased at midnight, 4th April. All industrial organisations involved agreed to operate the Qantas Boeing on charter to TAA but with the resumption of duty of TAA DC9 pilots the charter arrangement has now terminated.
  3. I do not believe these charterflights were a move by TAA to force the pilots to accept their conditions regarding the manning of DC9’s. TAA was doing its utmost to maintain the best possible services and to minimise inconvenience to the public during the period when the pilots refused to crew their DC9 aircraft, and the charter of Qantas aircraft for the New Guinea service was a significant step in this direction.

page 639

QUESTION

POSTCODE

(Question No. 173)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What degree of public co-operation has the Postal Department receivedin the use of the Postcode?
  2. Have mail deliveries been speeded up?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. Samples taken at the end of March 1968, indicate that approximately 70% of letters bear Postcodes. This level of co-operation is considered to be very satisfactory already but it is expected to increase further in the near future as large postal users complete the conversion of their mailing lists.
  2. Postcodes are used extensively for electronic and manual mail sorting and are proving of considerable assistance in the speedy and accurate handling of the growing volume of mail.

page 639

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 181)

Senator BISHOP:

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

  1. Does an official survey made by the Government indicate that 58.% of migrants who return to their homelands from Australia have ‘psychosocial’ problems?
  2. Does the survey also show that immediate consideration of migrants’ problems by depart mental social workers could reduce the number who return to their homelands?
  3. Will the Minister ascertain whether the numbers and locations of social workers should be increased to cope with this migrant problem?
Senator Dante ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. An analysis of the stated reasons for intending to return to the United Kingdom given by 135 migrants interviewed by psychologists of the Department of Immigration showed that 58% of the group when asked what prompted their wish to return stated problems which were identified by the interviewers as falling within the psychosocial category. The group interviewed cannot be taken as necessarily representative of returnees generally, but the results give a broad indication of the kinds of problems experienced by migrants who seek assistance from the departmental social worker during the early years of settlement.
  2. It is recognised that early identification of such problems by trained social workers frequently can remedy the situation and thus reduce the number who return to their country of origin.
  3. As a result of a recent review of the social worker establishment of the Department of Immigration it is intended that more positions should be provided in certain States, some of which will be in non-urban areas. The feasibility of Commonwealth assistance to community agencies to enable them to engage social workers to deal with migrant problems is also being examined by the Department.

page 639

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 190)

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation a question, upon notice:

  1. Do abruptly created non-flying periods by international airline companies such as Qantas cause inconvenience to many people?
  2. Will the Minister consider converting the status of Qantas to one under which its administration and functions would be directly controlled by a Minister and the Parliament? Alternatively will the Minister examine the prospects of selling Qantas to local interests?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Ministerfor Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers:

  1. As in any instance when public transport services cease to operate, inconvenience is caused to potential travellers. In such circumstances, Qantas always endeavour to have its passengers accommodated on the services of other airlines until its own services are resumed.
  2. No change in the method of governmental supervision of Qantas is contemplated at the present time. The existing arrangements are considered to be quite adequate for Ministerial or Parliamentary control over such functions that warrant it, and in relation to industrial disputes in particular, the company normally consults the Ministers for Civil Aviation and Labour and National Service or their officers.

page 640

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 197)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Mini ster representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Is there at present a limitation of liability on the part of an airline company for loss of luggage of one of its passengers?
  2. By what Act of Parliament is the limit set, and what is the amount?
  3. When was the amount set?
  4. In view of the decrease in money values, will the Government give consideration to uplifting the amount laid down by statute?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The following answers have been supplied by the Minister for Civil Aviation:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959-1962 provides that the following basic limits of liability shall be applicable to air services within and to and from the Commonwealth:

However, consignors of baggage and the airlines may contract for higher amounts if they so desire and, of course, consignors may insure their baggage for additional amounts.

  1. The limits for international carriage were determined by the Warsaw Convention of 1929 which was ratified by Australia in 1935. The limits for domestic services were fixed in 1959.
  2. These amounts are not unduly low even by present-day standards, but the Government will certainly give consideration to adjusting them in any review of the legislation. It is to be noted, however, that the amounts on international services were determined by an international agreement and it would be difficult for Australia to change them unilaterally.

page 640

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) left Australia on 11th April to lead the Australian delegation to the International Sugar Conference in Geneva. It is expected that he will return to Australia on 22nd May. During his absence the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) will act as Minister for Trade and Industry.

I wish also to inform the Senate that the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) left Australia on 18th April to lead the Australian delegation to the International Conference on Human Rights currently being held in Teheran. The Minister expects to return to Australia on or about 14th May. During his absence the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) will act as Attorney-General.

page 640

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– Earlier today, in answer to a question asked by Senator Bishop, I indicated that the United Kingdom Minister of State, Technology, will arrive in Australia on Sunday.I should have said that he will arrive on Sunday week.

page 640

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES, BRISBANE

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– -I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work:

Extensions to Commonwealth Offices, Brisbane

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DITTMER:

– The summary of recommendations and conclusions of the Committee is as follows:

  1. There is a need for additional Commonwealthowned office space of an acceptable standard in Brisbane.
  2. The present proposal will only partially satisfy the current need.
  3. The site is most appropriate.
  4. The proposed provision for car parking is adequate.
  5. The Commonwealth has a responsibility, wherever there is a proven need for the space, to obtain maximum development of valuable city sites.
  6. Development of the site should be as close as possible to the maximum permitted by the Brisbane City Council.
  7. We recommend that the design of the first stage of the extensions to the Commonwealth Offices be modified by adding three floors.
  8. The ultimate development aim should be to construct two parallel tower buildings having a common parapet height.
  9. Subject to recommendations 7 and 8 the Committee recommends the construction of the works in this Deference.
  10. The estimate at the time the Committee commenced its investigation was $7m.
  11. The cost of adding three floors - $1.07m - would be additional to the estimate of S7m.

page 641

CONTROL OF ANTARCTICA

Ministerial Statement

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - Honourable senators are aware that in his address to Parliament the Governor-General announced a number of administrative changes, including the transfer of the Antarctic Division from the Department of External Affairs to the Department of Supply. This move is now being carried out and 1 feel that under the circumstances it is timely that a statement should be made on the history and operation of Austraiian endeavours in the Antarctic. It would be true to say that the efforts and skills that have gone into the Australian commitment in the Antarctic have never suffered from any excessive publicity. Our team, which has carried out its task with so much dedication, has been far from the spotlight. 1 feel, therefore, that this background and information should be recorded.

Antarctica has an area of 5,400,000 square miles and is therefore about as large as Australia and the United States of America combined. Australia’s interest and activity in the Antarctic continent is directed towards an area of about 2,400,000 square miles which was proclaimed as the Australian Antarctic Territory following the passage of the Austraiian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act hi 1936. Australia’s interests in the area also extend to her subAntarctic possessions - Heard Island and the associated small McDonald Islands, and Macquarie Island.

The history of Australia in Antarctica really commenced with the famed Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-14 which was led by Sir Douglas Mawson and which established bases m King George V Land and Queen Mary Land, and also on Macquarie Island. Australia’s position in respect of Antarctica was further consolidated by the work of the British, Australian and New Zealand Antartic Research Expedition of 1929-31 which was again led by Mawson.

The Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions were formed in 1947 and stations were established at Heard Island and Macquarie Island in the summer of 1947-48, It was at this stage, 1949, that a permanent organisation was created as the Antarctic Division of the Department of External Affairs.

The primary objectives of the Antarctic Division are to maintain an Australian presence in Antarctica and to carry out or co-ordinate scientific research in the area. The principal task of the Division is to provide the management, leadership, organisation, equipment, facilities and environment for the most effective and efficient execution of scientific tasks in Antarctica. In effect, the Division is a team of scientific, technical and administrative people who are specialists in the requirements of Antarctic exploration, living and working conditions and scientific activities.

Between 1949 and 1953 the Division extended and developed its scientific work at the two island stations, but at the same time examined the practicability of setting up a third station on Antarctica itself. When the ‘Kista Dan’ become available for charter from her Danish owners, an expedition was mounted and succeeded in establishing a station in MacRobertson Land. The station was named Mawson on 13th February 1954.

Australia is now maintaining three stations - Macquarie Island, Mawson and Wilkes. Two automatic weather stations have been set up at Lewis and Chick Islands. The Heard Island Station was closed down. Davis Station was established in Princess Elizabeth Land in the summer of 1956-57 but is at present not in operation. Wilkes Station was established by the United States expedition in 1957 for the International Geophysical Year and its administrative control was subsequently taken over by Australia.

On 1st December 1959 the nations active in Antarctic research during the International Geophysical Year signed the Antarctic Treaty. The signatory nations are Argentina. Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway. South Africa, Russia, Great Britain and the United States of America. The Treaty is open for accession by others. In essence it provides for complete freedom of access of scientific expeditions to any part of the Antarctic continent, interchange of the scientific information obtained, and the exchange of scientific personnel. No military activity is permitted. Existing territorial claims are, to use an apt term, frozen. There are provisions for the protection of flora and fauna. The Treaty continues in force for a minimum of about 34 years, its aim is to foster goodwill and cooperation amongst the nations working in Antarctica, with scientific advancement as their common purpose.

Our achievements in Antarctica have been very fruitful. Wintering parties have carried out extensive explorations of Australian Antarctic Territory, using aircraft, snow vehicles and dog sledges. Royal Australian Air Force members of the expeditions, using aircraft operated from Mawson, have photographed extensive areas. During relief voyages, the ships chartered by the Division - the ‘Kista Dan’, ‘Thala Dan’, Magga Dan’ and ‘Nella Dan’ have explored many thousands of miles of the coast line of Antarctica. Float planes have carried out aerial photography and landings have been made by motor boat and helicopter to obtain astrofixes. to examine the geology along rocky sections of the coast and to make gravity and magnetic measurements. Extensive depth soundings have been obtained and the thickness of the icecap has been measured using seismic methods. Significant work has been undertaken in the fields of ionospheric physics, biology and meteorology - the latter being of direct importance to the Australian meteorological network.

The scientific programme carried out in the Australian Antarctic Territory is one of co-operation between all the interested parties in the Commonwealth - the universities, the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian National Committee of Antarctic Research and its sub-committees, and the various Commonwealth authorities, for example, the Division of National Mapping and the Bureau of Mineral Resources in the Department of National Development, and the Bureau of Meteorology in the Department of the Interior.

The present programme embraces the fields of upper atmospheric physics, meteorology and earth sciences, including seismology, hydrography, catography biology and medical science. The fundamental problems being tackled by our scientists in Antarctica are important to the technological progress of Australia. The proposed wintering stalls during 1968 are: 24 at Mawson, 30 at Wilkes, 20 at Macquarie Island and 4 on the Amery ice shelf. This is the first Australian ice shelf station and is being occupied for the first time this winter.

During the last summer, progress on the erection of the new base near Wilkes, known so far as Repstat, has been such that it is almost certain to be occupied next summer. In early April the ‘Nella Dan’ returned to Melbourne from Macquarie Island where it was relieving a summer expedition of 10 scientists and also had aboard some 20 scientists who were on a short term exercise. The next series of charter will commence in early December. 1 should like to touch briefly on the transfer of the Antartic Division from the Department of External Affairs to the Department of Supply. There is much in common between the nature of the work carried out by the Research and Development Division of my Department and the Antarctic group, and it is intended that the Antarctic group will become a part of the Research and Development Division. Both have associations with the same scientific organisations. A number of scientific officers from the Department of Supply have been connected with work in the Antarctic, and the Department has undertaken investigations on behalf of the Antarctic Division. Certain of the Department of Supply’s research activities - such as ionospheric physics, upper atmosphere research and oceanography - are expected to have useful association with the Antarctic environment. The Department of Supply already handles purchasing for the Antarctic Division and is experienced in obtaining its special requirements.

Honourable senators will appreciate that work in the Antarctic is essentially a young man’s occupation. The transfer of the Antarctic group to the Department of Supply will mean that a source of young scientists and other officers will be available for secondment to the Division for limited periods as part of a career structure. It will be seen, therefore, that the Antarctic

Division fits well into the Department of Supply organisation. I assure honourable senators that my Department and I look forward with enthusiasm to the challenge that this work presents.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– by leave -I move:

I ask for leave to make my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 643

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply: Presentation to the Governor-General and Acknowledgment by Her Majesty the Queen

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that on 4th April, accompanied by honourable senators, I waited on the Governor-General and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency’s Speech on the occasion of the opening of the second session of the Twenty-sixth Parliament, which was agreed to on 28th March. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:

Mr President,

Thank you for your Address-in-Reply which you have just presented to me.

It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen at once the Message of Loyalty from the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia to which the Address gives expression.

have now receivedthe following message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral:

Mr President,

I have to inform you that the substance of the Address-in-Reply which you presented to me on the 4t h April 1968, has been communicated to Her Majesty The Queen.

It is Her Majesty’s wish that I express to you and honourable senators her warm thanks for the loyal message to which your Address gives expression.

CASEY

Governor-General

page 643

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1968

Assent reported.

page 643

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL COSTS

The PRESIDENT:

-I have received a teller from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) appointing

Senators Dittmer and McClellandto be members of the Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs.

page 643

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON AIR POLLUTION

The PRESIDENT:

-I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) appointing Senators Lacey and Ormonde to be members of the Select Committee on Air Pollution.

I have also received a letter from the

Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) appointing Senator Gair to be a member ofthe Select Committee on Air Pollution.

page 643

PRIVY COUNCIL (LIMITATION OF APPEALS) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is designed to give effect to the Government’s decision to limit appeals to the Privy Council from the High Court of Australia. The Senate was told of that decision by the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) on 6th September 1967. Although the Bill is short, it is both significant and important. In this measure the Commonwealth Parliament is being asked to take an historic and substantial step towards the establishment of the High Court as the final court of appeal for Australia.

The Privy Council has been the highest court of appeal for Australia since the country was first settled. Historically, appeals to the Privy Council had their origin in petitions to the King personally as the head of state and the ultimate source of justice. The King was supreme over all persons and courts within his dominions. At first, petitions were addressed to the King in Council, then to the King in Parliament. From the beginning of the fourteenth century, in order to aid the dispensation of justice in Parliament the practice was adopted of appointing certain persons to receive and try the petitions directed to the King in Parliament. There were two groups of triers’, as they were called. One was for Great Britain and Ireland, the other mainly for lands beyond the seas. In the Tudor period the irregularity of parliaments led to petitions from beyond the seas being directed again to the King in Council instead of the King in Parliament. This step enabled petitions to be heard more expeditiously since the triers for the petitions were also members of the Council.

As early as 1495 Orders in Council were made regulating some petitions to the King in Council. Although in England itself the Long Parliament, in 1640, took away the jurisdiction of the King and his Privy Council in judicial matters, this jurisdiction remained in relation to suitors in England’s dependencies. From the seventeenth century it became regular practice for colonial appeals to be brought to the King in Council. In 1661 a standing committee was appointed to hear some appeals, and in 1667 this function was assigned to the Committee tor Trade and Plantations. In 1696 an order was made for appeals to be heard by a committee of three lords. In 1 833 the Imperial Parliament passed legislation placing Privy Council appeals on a full statutory basis, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was created to advise the Queen on the appeals. The legislation made it impossible, for the first time, for lay members of the Council to sit on appeals. At various times Imperial Orders in Council were made regulating appeals to the Judicial Committee from the Australian colonies.

At federation there was a strong body of opinion among those who drafted the Constitution of the Commonwealth that appeals to the Privy Council were a vestige of colonialism and that all appeals from the Australian colonies to the Privy Council should be abolished. However, this view did not prevail, partly because of strong opposition at that time from the Imperial Government. .

Appeals to the Privy Council can be brought either by the leave of the court appealed from, which is given in pursuance of an Order is Council specifying cases in which such permission can be obtained as a matter of right and those cases in which the court has discretion to give leave, or, alternatively, appeals may be brought by special leave of the Privy Council itself, given after an application for that purpose is heard by the Privy Council. The latter is known as the prerogative appeal. A prerogative appeal involves, therefore, two stages before the Privy Council; the hearing of the application for special leave to appeal and the hearing of the appeal itself.

The Constitution, by making the High Court’s decisions in its appellate jurisdiction final and conclusive by a provision to that effect in section 73, made it impossible for appeals to be brought to the Privy Council by leave of the High Court itself. However section 74 expressly preserved the prerogative appeal from the High Court; that is, appeal by special leave of the Privy Council. There was an exception to this in that, in matters involving the so-called inter se questions - that is to say, matters involving the relative extent of State powers or Commonwealth and State powers - the prerogative appeal was taken away and an appeal as of right substituted where the High Court certified that the question should be determined by the Queen in Council. In practice no such certificate has been given by the High Court since 1913. In relation to the prerogative appeal, section 74 expressly empowered this Parliament to make laws limiting prerogative appeals. This is what the present Bill does.

The Judicial Committee is in reality a court of law just as much as the High Court of Australia and the State Supreme Courts are. A judgment of the Committee takes the form of a report to Her Majesty of its opinions on the case submitted to it and elaborated at the hearing before it. Effect is given to the report by an OrderinCouncil which, by constitutional convention, the Queen is bound to make. The historical origins of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are evident even today. The Judicial Committee lacks several of the trappings of the traditional courts of law. Although barristers appearing before the Judicial Committee wear wigs and gowns, the members of the Judicial Committee wear neither wigs nor robes when hearing an appeal and do not sit on a raised dais, as in the traditional law courts. This tends to give the appearance of the judges, the litigants and their lawyers all sitting together in consultation as at a board meeting, rather than in litigation. In point of fact the members of the Judicial Committee sitting on a particular appeal sometimes refer to themselves, and are referred to in legal professional circles, as the Board’.

The Judicial Committee legislation, as amended in 1895 and subsequently, makes provision for admission among its members also of Judges of the highest courts of the Queen’s dominions outside the United Kingdom- In recent years, by arrangements with the Commonwealth Government, a justice of the High Court has sat on the Judicial Committee from time to time. This practice will continue and is not affected by the present Bill.

Mr Deputy President, despite the problems that a British judge must inevitably encounter in interpreting a written federal constitution such as our own, their lordships of the Privy Council have undoubtedly left many valuable landmarks in the history of Australian constitutional law and in the rule of law in Australia. J shall mention just a few of these. Most honourable senators have, I think, knowledge of the various proceedings brought by Mr Frederick Alexander James of South Australia, challenging the validity of South Australian and Commonwalth dried fruits marketing legislation on the grounds that the legislation contravened the guarantee of freedom of interstate trade in section 92 of the Constitution. In James v. the Commonwealth in 1935 the Privy Council reversed a line of previous High Court decisions, which the High Court itself with reluctance felt bound to follow, and held that section 92 of the Constitution bound not only the States but also the Commonwealth. In that case the Privy Council also undertook a full review of the decisions on section 92. In 1949 in the Privy Council’s judgment in the banking case, concerning the validity of the Labour Party’s bank nationalisation legislation, the decision of the High Court was upheld. But the judgment of the Privy Council is a definite step in the development of the interpretation of section 92 of the Constitution. A further decision of the Privy Council of great importance in relation to section 92 of the Constitution was given in the Hughes and Vale case in 1954, when the Privy Council overruled a series of High Court decisions in the so-called transport cases, relating to the validity of State transport legislation imposing charges on road transport, and adopted the long propounded dissenting views of Sir Owen Dixon. These great cases established that, whilst interstate trade could be regulated by legislation, it could not be prohibited. Although under this Bill the Privy Council will no longer be able to pronounce on those matters, the influence of its previous pronouncements as precedents will no doubt continue.

In W. R. Moran Pty Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (N.S.W), decided in 1940, the validity of combined Commonwealth and State legislative schemes for financial assistance to wheat growers was upheld: in Shell Co. of Australia Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation, decided 1930, the constitutionality of Commonwealth administrative tribunals, such us the Boards of Review under the Income Tax Assessment Act. was established. In the boilermakers case in 1957, a decision in relation to the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, the Privy Council affirmed a decision of the High Court of the utmost importance to the independence of the federal judiciary.

But Australia maintains a High Court of appeal recognised throughout the common law countries as of great authority. Cost, expedition and finality of litigation are factors of real importance in the administration of justice. The Government believes that the time has come when the Parliament should be asked to exercise the power that it has under the Constitution to limit appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council. The principal operative provisions of the Bill that the Senate is now considering are contained in clause 3. That clause makes it impossible for appeals to be brought from the High Court to the Privy Council in matters that originate in the High Court, in another federal1 court or in a Territory court. Clause 3 also determines the matters in which leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court, given on appeal from a State Supreme Court, may not be asked after the commencement of the legislation. They are matters that come to the High Court on appeal from the Supreme Court of a State exercising federal jurisdiction or that raise in the High Court questions of the application or interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution or Commonwealth or Territory legislation.

The Privy Council cases that I have already mentioned illustrate some types of case that, it is proposed, should not in future go on appeal to the Privy Council. No cases involving issues under the Federal Constitution could go there in future. For example, any challenge to Commonwealth legislation restricting airlines operations, on the ground that such legislation contravenes section 92 of the Constitution, would be determined finally by the High Court. The case could not go to the Privy Council for two reasons: Firstly, because the Supreme Court in giving its decision would have exercised jurisdiction given to it by a Commonwealth Act, namely the Judiciary Act; and, secondly, because the High Court’s decision would have involved the application or interpretation of the Constitution. Similarly, in the case of a divorce proceeding, an appeal cannot be taken under the bill to the Privy Council because, firstly, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in the divorce proceeding stems from a Commonwealth Act, the Matrimonial Causes Act; and, secondly, the whole of the matrimonial causes law being now founded on the Commonwealth Act, the High Court’s decision would involve the application or interpretation of a Commonwealth law. To give some further illustrations of cases in which it is proposed that in future there should be no appeal to the Privy Council, I mention proceedings between the Commonwealth or a person, including a statutory body, suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth and another party. Also, in any proceeding between an Australian State and a resident of another State, or between residents of different States, the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court would have its source wholly in Commonwealth law and, consequently, under the Bill there would be no appeal to the Privy Council. This would also be the case in matters of admiralty jurisdiction.; for example, an action against a ship for the cost of repairs to the ship. But appeals from Stale Supreme Courts, whether directly, or after decision by a High Court, on matters not arising from federal jurisdiction, and not involving issues under the Federal Constitution or federal statutes, are not affected by this Bill. This result may wel’l be recognised as preserving distinctions not closely related to reality. But it is inevitable under the present terms of section 74 of our Constitution.

Clause 3 provides that the limitations on Privy Council appeals imposed by it will not apply in the case of a decision given by the High Court in any proceeding that was commenced in a court before the commencement of the legislation. Provision to like effect was made by Canada when that country in 1949 abolished appeals to the Privy Council. The Government considers this to be a necessary provision for the purpose of protecting the existing interests of parties who may have initiated litigation, before the commencement of the Bill, with the intention of pursuing the matter, if necessary, to the point of seeking leave to appeal to the Privy Council. Clause 4 excludes appeals from federal courts, other than the High Court, and the Supreme Courts of the Territories. The clause does little more than give statutory effect to existing practice. In theory, leave might be granted to appeal from one of these courts to the Privy Council, but in practice leave has, so far as I am aware, never been granted. The clause is included for the sake of completeness.

In accordance with constitutional requirements the Bill now before the Senate will be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty’s pleasure. A further step, in the form of a proclamation of the Governor-General, will be needed after Her Majesty’s assent has been made known. This will give time for any adjustments that the British authorities may themselves consider it necessary to make to the Judicial Committee Rules. The Bill marks an important step in Australian judicial history. It is a tribute to, and it will give opportunity to enhance, the standing and prestige of the High Court of Australia. At the same time, the Government is mindful of the notable contributions that their lordships of the Privy Council have made since federation to the development of the law in Australia and of the great learning that they have brought to bear in their many decisions. The Government desires to place on record its appreciation of the part that the Privy Council has played in the Australian judicial system. Mr Deputy President, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 647

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 4 April (vide page 618), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Senate take note of the following paper:

International Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 27 March 1968.

Upon which Senator McManus had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add ‘, but the Senate expresses concern at the deterioration of Australia’s defence position occasioned by -

Britain’s impending withdrawal from east of Suez;

increasing United States of America opposition to military commitments in Asia and our area;

China’s development of long range atomic weapons, and, accordingly, calls on the Government for action to improve our defences under a 4 year plan for -

significant increases in the strength of our armed forces generally;

a naval programme, including an aircraft carrier;

initial steps to development of our own aircraft industry; and

in default of a satisfactory treaty for world nuclear disarmament, acquisition by Australia of its own nuclear deterrent’.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– In my opening remarks on 4th April when this debate was adjourned, I had said that the statement by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck) was already fairly well dated by the dramatic events that had taken place by way of President Johnson’s decision both to deescalate the bombing of North Vietnam and not be recontest the position of President of the United States of America. I dealt to some extent with this situation and pointed out that although these events were dramatic they certainly did not mean that peace was inevitable, that peace certainly would not come within a short space of time and that a lot of work had yet to be done. But I did give praise to President Johnson and the reactions of the Hanoi Government at that time.

It would seem since then, of course, that they have still been manoeuvring over such things as where they should meet, and over all that other paraphernalia which seems to become a part of negotiating on these very important events. Another point I made was that, not only because of the way in which we had been left up in the air by the Minister’s statement but also because of the misinformation on which the Government had acted in connection with the torture trials, tremendous worries had been created for us. It is imperative not only on matters such as this, but in connection with all matters, that the Government should at all times get the correct information, the up to date information and the right type of information if it is to make correct decisions. 1 criticise the fact that up until the last minute the Government was still insisting on the bombing of North Vietnam and evidently had no knowledge at all of the fact that there had been a change of heart on the part of the senior partner of the allies fighting in Vietnam. I pointed out then that I was amazed at the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) that he had not expected to be consulted on this matter but that he would expect to be consulted if we were to send more troops to Vietnam. I said then that I did not think that it was a question for consultation - that the decision was one solely for the Australian Government and for nobody else. Up to this stage, the Minister had been engaging in a monastic type silence. Since then, however, he has made a statement which, to some extent, is heartening, but still leaves us at the point that I was making towards the end of my remarks.

That point was that it was time for the Government to be giving us a lead in this matter, not only to the Australian people but to people outside this country because of our prominent position in South-East Asia. I said before, and I repeat that surely now is the time - it was much more opportune when I first spoke - to say that, just as we have sent fighting men into the theatre of war, we shall send men of peace to help in the tremendous rehabilitation work that must take place not only in the Mekong Delta and those areas fed by the Mekong but in all areas within the region if we are to avoid further Vietnam’s in the future.

I then turned to the question of Great Britain’s withdrawal from east of Suez. I said that I thought it was about time the Government stopped bemoaning the fact that Britain was going to withdraw because it was obvious to anybody who had given any attention to the matter that it was inevitable that Britain would withdraw. To me, arguing as to whether Britain should withdraw or remain did not seem to be a very healthy exercise. Frankly, I believe that it was quite inevitable that Britain would start to think of herself as a European power. I also believed that the importance of Singapore from a defence point of view had been much overrated, as was proved in the dark days of 1942. I have always felt that we had overrated the importance of Singapore as a defence base. When it was tried out, it was found lacking.

Another point I made before, and one that 1 wish to emphasise today was that, it worries me that in this atmosphere and, after making all the mistakes that it has done, this Government, which supinely accepts these things as they come along, now finds itself on the verge of having to take a new, role. Whether this is to be a profitable role or one that is not going to bc to the benefit of Australia in the future rests squarely on the shoulders of this Government, and on the shoulders of future governments as this situation unrolls over the next month and over the next few years.

Let. me look for a moment at the conferences of the five Commonwealth countries. The South East Asia Treaty Organisation has just about rattled itself to pieces, and Britain’s withdrawal from this area is going to weaken still further the possibility of achieving the original goals of SEATO. This has never been a very strong pact. I do not believe that it has ever lived up te expectations, that it has ever lived up to what we were told in this Parliament we might expect from it when it was agreed upon.

We have ako to look again at the role that the ANZUS pact is going to play in the future. Since I spoke last on this matter, we have had a visit to this country by Adam Malik from Indonesia. Adam Malik indicated that, despite the fact that his country, one of the six strongest countries in the world numerically, possesses tremendous natural resources and has up to this time stated that it wanted to keep away from pacts of all types, it could possibly move into bilateral agreements with some of the other countries in the region. I am not sure which has the greater population - Indonesia or Pakistan. As Adam Malik said it in Australia obviously it was directed towards Australia. Out of the negotiations that must take place I do not think there will emerge one regional pact to embrace all the countries of the area. This point has to be decided, but I foresee a series of pacts and arrangements and a straightening out of our lines of thinking so that we will know where we are going in the future in this area. 1 have made the point that under the leadership of Sir Robert Menzies we were told ad infinitum about the danger of Red China. That argument was used very effectively at election times. Being the consummate politician that he was, 1 do not think Sir Robert Menzies ever really believed that China was wailing poised to attack Australia, but I am afraid that many of his followers did believe that. I am worried now because Australia has to face up to a new situation. We have to negotiate and, I hope, take the lead in several fields in this area. I fear that some of the trauma of previous times may still exist and that it may affect the thoughts of the negotiators when they begin to make new arrangements.

There is no doubt that Communist China is a great enigma. Recently when talking on this matter I said that the problem of China hangs over the whole of the area. The fact is that only three times has Communist China moved outside its own territory and it claimed on two of those occasions that it was moving within the realm of its old empire, lt seems very probable that there will not be a direct Chinese invasion of this area. It does not seem that the countries that share the mainland with China will be directly invaded because, so far as we can see, China has a fair amount of trouble of its own. If China decided to attack, the words of Tunku Abdul Rahman of Malaysia would have great relevance. He has said: ‘I would be the first to lay down my arms. What would be the good of fighting a war that you would inevitably lose?’ If that situation arises I hope to goodness that the Australian Government takes cognisance of that sort of thinking. It might be said that we will put up forces to meet the great Chinese forces by mobilising the troops of all the countries in the region, but it would still be necessary to face a nation of about 700 million people.

We have heard talk of forward defence. Quite easily it could develop into a forward trap for Australian soldiers. A study of past history reveals such events as the Malayan crisis which took 12 years to iron out. There was also the confrontation of Malaysia by Indonesia, which was settled by a revolution within Indonesia. Similar types of problems may be encountered in the future. 1 refer not so much to frontal attacks as to subversion within, aided from without. Regard must be had to the position of China at all times. Great Britain is no longer a military force in the area and there is a great possibility that the United States of. America will withdraw most of its forces from the Asian land mass. In all Australian thinking there is the assumption that to some extent the United States will be underwriting our efforts. Should that assumption prove to be false it will become extremely difficult and hazardous for this country. Our past experience shows that the future will not be easy.

I do not think that Australia should oppose social, economic and even political change in these areas. The past has shown that the solutions are never very permanent. lt is necessary to allow the built up gases to escape from the balloons. Otherwise we may become involved in situations that could be harmful to us and towards which the Australian Government may not have a great deal of sympathy. We should provide in these countries very rapidly a sense of justice and opportunities for rising living standards. Unless these people are given greater opportunities inevitably there will be more Vietnams and confrontations, surrounded by great problems.

I have stated some of the genera) thoughts that should be in the minds of our negotiators. We must raise our horizons far above the concept of the old Commonwealth of Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia and so on. We must look for the emergence of Japan, the great giant which so far has been able to bide its defence arrangements behind the convenient story that it is not able to arm itself. Japan’s trade story is one of our modern miracles. The economic drive of Japan is moving into the region at this very moment in the field of trade. Any realistic arrangement that can be expected to last cannot ignore the influence of Japan in this area. The Philippines is another rich country that could be further developed with a greater population. That country probably shows the most recent influence of the United Stales because it is one of the very few countries in which the United States was a colonising power.

India has problems in its relations with Pakistan and Communist China. We cannot ignore a nation of 520 million people. If India’s present rate of population growth continues it will have a population of 1 ,000 million people in the lifetime of most honourable senators here today, lt is interesting to note that only 40 years ago the population of India was 250 million, lt took about 3,000 years to grow to 250 million and only another 40 years to reach 520 million. If that trend continues, the pressure of population and poverty in India must have an influence on the other nations in the region, including Australia.

Indonesia is a great country and is our nearest neighbour. If we continue to develop friendly relations with Indonesia it will remain one of the bright spots in the area. That country of over 100 million people has been pushed down by the effects of the Sukarno regime. Its backwardness has helped to bring about the terrible economic situation that exists there today, lt cannot be said with certainty what our future relationship with Indonesia will1 be or how the Indonesians will be able to solve their problems in the years to come.

Weakness in the area has developed through what I call the insanity of the split between Malaysia and Singapore. If ever there were two countries that ought to have a form of economic and political union, certainly those are they. Malaysia today includes two very small states that entered the Federation only because of Indonesia’s attitude. Today they are tied up with Malaysia on the mainland. With Singapore out of the Federation it is a farcical situation and the sooner the split is welded the better it will be for the whole of this area in which we must accept future responsibility. The Association of South East Asian Nations and the Asian and Pacific Council already exist. The signatories to the agreements which brought them into existence are vehement that they are only economic and cultural agreements and should not be developed into military pacts. Nevertheless, it is a heartening start. With the operation of such agreements there is an atmosphere of co-operation which could be helpful.

I come to the vexed question of trade. The moment the subject is mentioned all sorts of vested interests raise their heads. Surely if the people of the region are to be given an opportunity to develop in the future and if military strife is to be avoided, they must be given something to fight for in their own countries. In the final analysis the only way to ensure that these people will help themselves and will be prepared to fight for their own countries is to ensure that they have something to fight for. We have developed that spirit in our own country and we ought to be taking it into the Asian area, difficult though that might be. I would not attempt to tell the Government that it is an easy problem. I am simply exhorting the Government to do something about it.

Australia must take some leadership in this region, Wc must make sure that we are not called in after the bushfire has got out of control. It is not good enough for some great power merely to ask that Australian troops be sent to the region, without giving Australia any hand in preventing the bushfire in the first place. Unless other countries are prepared to help the have-not countries in this region, aiding them in some way or other, our job will be much more difficult. There is always a danger when foreign troops are en the soil of a country. While Australian fighting men are scattered throughout this region there will always bc a permanent problem facing us. The problem is simple if one’s country is invaded by another country. Clear-cut decisions can then be made. However, this is not Australia’s situation in South East Asia. The problems are greater when, following an internal insurrection, an outside country moves in to help the government of the day, which is perhaps not approved by the peoples of the world. This is one of the current world problems.

The United States of America and, to a lesser degree, Australia, have tackled the mammoth task of trying to prop up a government that is not acceptable to the rest of the world. Though it is not in a position to change governments, the Australian Government has sent its troops on to foreign soil. A government that stands idly by and lets insurrection take over is looking for trouble, but if it sends troops on to foreign soil it can be in just as much trouble. The Australian Government must go beyond thinking in terms of military pacts and stationing troops in foreign countries. Britain, with its genius in this respect, was successful in doing this sort of thing for many years, but I am afraid that Australia cannot mutch its genius. This is one of the great problems we must face. I do not know bow a vacuum can be partially filled, but one of the contentions put up following the announcement of Britain’s withdrawal is (hat Australia will partially fill the vacuum’ left by Britain’s withdrawal. Everybody agrees, of course, that Australia will not be able lo undertake this task in its entirely.

I have put forward these few thoughts on a very difficult situation. 1 do not think the Government has been forthright in any of these matters so far. lt has let things slide too much. Government spokesmen have talked about the great alliance with America, but they were left floundering at her heels recently when the radical change in American policy in Vietnam was announced. Senior Ministers of this Government were made to look ridiculous. Five clays before the American announcement was made, they were defending continuation of the bombing of North Vietnam, but at the same time the senior partner in this great alliance was in the process of moving away from this policy.

The Australian Government’s performance is not good enough. In South East Asia. Australia is the one country that must remain permanently as a representative of the western world. This has been emphasised time and time again, but the Government does not seem to have grasped it. It does not matter whether Britain moves out of South East Asia in 1971 or 1969, or even in .1.968. The fact is that Britain is leaving. There is nothing we can do to alter that situation. Therefore we must accept it, move in. and take leadership to the highest degree that we can. After all. Australia is the educated country in this region. We in Australia have been blessed in having many hundreds of years of civilisation handed down to us. This is our heritage. We can give these things to less fortunate people. We are the people who have the knowledge and the economic wherewithal to give less fortunate people a better chance in life. Let us make their countries worth fighting for, and then they will be ready and willing to fight for them.

I appreciate (he dangers that face Australia in discharging her future role in South East Asia. Australia has a highly developed system of justice. Not only do we have justice in our law courts; we like to think thai we have a system that gives people a fair go. Let us extend this system to give people in under-privileged countries an opportunity to improve their standard of living and to participate in cultural, social and economic activities about which they have so far only dreamed. We are the people who should assist in developing less fortunate countries. It would be a human tragedy if Australia failed in this task. We must do everything possible to improve the social and economic levels in Asian countries. We talk of democracy. How many democracies are left in the world today? There are only a few, but there are many military dictatorships, some of which are doing quite well. This does not mean that we want military dictatorship in preference to democracy. We do not want to see some of the things that occur under a military dictatorship happening in countries in South East Asia. lt will be all the worse for Australia if we are cast in the role of permanently opposing social, political and economic changes merely because they do not conform to our pattern. It would be impossible to maintain this rolfe over the years. Once a government embarks on such a course, it finds that the current position is always worse than the one before it. So today, with a new situation before us which presents great opportunities as well as great changes, the Government, for the first time, will have to bring its thinking up to date. So far. the Government has taken solace in the thought that reliance could be placed upon Great Britain for the defence of South East Asia. The presence of British forces in this area has had a psychological rather than a practical effect. This was proved by military operations in the area in the 1939-1945 war. Before that conflict great reliance was placed upon the impregnability of British bases in the Far East, but in reality this belief had no substance.

Now a new situation has developed. Almost simultaneously with the announcement of Britain’s withdrawal from the Far East came the announcement that America would reduce bombing activity in North Vietnam with a view to subsequent withdrawal of American troops. This possibility leads to a consideration of Japan’s final emergence in this area and the problem of the Philippines moving in with the other Malay countries. These are the challenges before us. One must not be hidebound in one’s thinking, relying solely on what has happened in the past, lt is clear now that Australia cannot rely overmuch on other countries of the world for support. It is essential that we in Australia bring our thinking up to date and get the latest information on world affairs.

We must act with courage and initiative in seeing that the less fortunate countries of South East Asia get the opportunity to improve their standard of living, as we in Australia have done. We must give them a chance to improve their social and economic life. If we give them the opportunity to develop in this way, allowing them to handle their own problems, there will be no more conflicts like the Vietnam war. The Government must really get down to work and shape up to the problem. It must develop a new set of values and acquire a new form of thinking, lt must bring these qualities to bear in conference not only with the old Commonwealth countries but also with other countries that must emerge in this area. In this way, and in this way only, there will be peace in South East Asia.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– This debate began some time ago and it has been said that since then the circumstances surrounding the conflict in South-East Asia have changed. I do not agree, however, that the views expressed by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck) are now out of date. Such criticism could be made of a speech made by any Minister in charge of international affairs in any government in these fast changing times, lt stands to reason that the emphasis on some events changes with the passing of time. As speeches are presented in one House and another, as adjournments take place, and as recesses occur and debates are resumed, it naturally follows that there will be some change in emphasis, some new relationships, and indeed some new problems. But one thing that does not change is the political philosophy that surrounds a contribution made by a Minister who speaks responsibly on behalf of his Government to the people on international matters.

At the outset I join with other honourable senators who have taken a moment to pay a tribute to the present Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck). Any Minister for External Affairs has a difficult road along which to move because international affairs are complicated and complex. As I said earlier, they change almost every 24 hours and therefore a Minister for External Affairs must have a degree of flexibility and an ability to move into any given situation with effectiveness and with a positive contribution. That means that a Minister for External Affairs may not be able to share from day to day with his colleagues and with the public information on events as they occur because in the movement of international affairs one happening, one speech, one sentence, one consultation has so much bearing on a number of others. So for the way in which he carries out all these duties, for the attributes which he possesses and for the way in which he deals with other nations I pay a tribute to the Minister for External Affairs.

This debate has arisen from what I suppose may be described as the normal forms of the House. The Minister delivered a summary of Australia’s activities in the international sphere and the situation existing at that time. It is important that he selected an item of more than usual value to a country like Australia, and developed it at length thus providing, through references to that and other matters, an opportunity for members of Parliament to debate not one but many aspects of international affairs of concern to Australia. We have many interests in the international field. We have a variety of commitments and a wide range of what I will call constructive involvements.

Let me deal with some of the points the Minister made. He commenced by pointing out that the main objective of Australian foreign policy was, to paraphrase it, to protect and advance Australia’s interests. While it is true that it is essential that we serve and protect our own interests, it is also true that our own interests are involved with those of other countries and we cannot be secure, safe and affluent if the rest of the world, the greater part of the world or the part of the world adjacent to us is in want, in danger or is being victimised by war.

The second point the Minister made was that Australia works for world order in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations. That may well be regarded as a kind of platitude because we have our opinions and have criticised the United Nations, but we believe in its major platforms and subscribe to its agencies. Our involvement with the principles and purposes of the United Nations implies, I suppose, a consciousness of the line-up of power structures and their influence on the movement of world events. We in Australia encourage the great powers, which is a broad and general phrase but I suppose most of us understand what is meant by it, to co-operate and prevent, if possible, extensive conflicts. We encourage them, from their position of strength, to relieve the tensions of the world and we encourage them, from their vast resources, to help those in need of aid and generally to influence the situation for good.

However, Australia also has an awareness of the place of other powers - the middle powers and the smaller powers. In the case of the middle powers, which again is a generality, Australia realises the need for good friends and allies and the obligation to contribute generously to the assistance of less fortunate countries. Our foreign policy also takes note of the smaller powers, particularly those within the United Nations. The Minister referred to the smaller powers when he was dealing with the United Nations. In today’s international society the smaller powers have a voice and an inr fluence that I suppose is rather larger than their size would appear to warrant, but in any world organisation which is striving for the good of all it is natural that the situation will exist in which small units will have a voice and an influence that seems to us to be out of proportion to their size. I describe it as a situation and nothing more.

The United Nations maintains charters, committees, commissions and a host of agencies. They relate to all groups of powers. Australia is part of that organisation and contributes to it in terms of money, personnel or ideas. Most of that might well be expected of powers which are stronger and larger than we are but our contributions enable us to exert an influence that our size in relation to the smaller powers might not otherwise permit. There are circumstances related to all of these matters but I point out that our involvement at all times and in all circumstances broadens our identification with the wide range of international activities and certainly becomes an effective part of our foreign policy.

When the statement on international affairs was presented in this House it assumed an altogether new proportion and a new dimension within almost a few hours. As has been stated earlier today, at that time there were announcements by President Johnson in relation to seeking talks with North Vietnam concerning the war in Vietnam. There were subsequent statements about his own political position in the United States. One realised at that time that here was a man who probably had gone through a period of very great difficulty. He became the President of the United States in extraordinary circumstances. Undoubtedly such circumstances would have an influence on a leader’s outlook and policy. His dreams for what I think he called the great society obviously had to be put to one side. As he led the country to identify itself with great international movements his plans f.pr the relief of poverty, hunger and racial tension within America had to lake something in the nature of a secondary place.

When the President of the United States made his statement recently it is true to say that he spoke from a position of strength having in mind the well-being of the people of the world, particularly the unfortunate people involved in the Vietnam war. He did not speak from a position of weakness or defeat. He has maintained over and over again that the United States can continue the military struggle to the point at which talks must take place, and he has assured South East Asia and the free world thai the United Slates will continue to meet the threat posed by Communism in the area. He said in his recent statement that America’s objective in South Vietnam had never been the annihilation of (he enemy; rather it was a desire to bring about a recognition by Hanoi that South Vietnam could not be taken over by force.

He reaffirmed the goal of peace and selfdetermination in Vietnam related directly to the future of South East Asia. That is a point about which we in Australia are vitally concerned. In spite of the problems of the area much has happened to inspire confidence in the people there. In the past 10 years a number of nations have shown what can be accomplished in conditions of security. We are all very well aware of the situation in Indonesia, the fifth largest nation in the world. Since 1966 Indonesia has had a Government dedicated to peace wilh its neighbours and improved conditions for ils own people. The point is that the progress achieved during the past 3 years would have been considerably less likely, if not impossible, if the United States and others, including Australia, had not taken a stand in Vietnam. So there is inherent in the President’s statement and in his moves for yet further talks evidence that the determination to help build better areas for both sides of the present conflict has not diminished. Indeed, I think the President has made the point that the present exigencies of the war have made it more urgent.

A debate of this kind, especially as events are placed at the moment, encourages what I. will refer to as long term thinking as far as Asia generally - and particularly Vietnam - is concerned. One does not move into this kind of thinking without realising that there is still a long way to go before peace is achieved in Vietnam. Any solution will take a long time. Discussion has already been protracted in the initial stages and a long time will pass before any practical plans are put down on paper. No-one imagines that the solution will be easy or that it will be achieved quickly. There will also be additional intervals in the time taken for the implementation of things which are agreed upon.

This war in Vietnam has so dominated our thinking and, indeed, has been made a matter of such pressing urgency that it has tended perhaps to remove from the thinking and from the view of those who live in Australia and who are neighbours of Asia the over all picture of this part of the world. Perhaps we have not. been aware that it has been undergoing quite a remarkable and al times profound and dramatic transformation. The non-Communist Asian governments are looking today more for a solution that will work than a solution that is related to doctrines. By this kind of anticipation and this kind of philosophy they are endeavouring to look beyond Vietnam and. indeed, are encouraging those who are involved with them to look beyond Vietnam.

T think that the presence in South East Asia of the allied forces has provided proof that Communism is certainly not necessarily the thing for Asia’s future. I referred to Indonesia earlier. The realisation of this point was a vital factor in recent events in Indonesia. Looking at things in a practical way, Australia’s involvement with Asia is a permanent one. Our geographical relationship is here to stay. Therefore, our strength needs to be the strength of a nation which can influence, defend and help. Earlier I mentioned great powers, middle powers and small powers. Australia - if I may call it a power in this context - as it is placed at present depends to a substantial degree on great powers. The question arises whether the departure of the United States of America from South East Asia would have any bearing on the kind of influence that we can wield in this area of the world and, probably more important, whether the departure of the United States from that scene is likely at all. The fact that the United States of America has fought three Asian wars in one generation is surely symbolic of that country’s deepening involvement with affairs around the Pacific. Surely it is a truism to say that the United States is a Pacific power. Its interests and its ideals seem to have propelled it towards the Pacific not as i con.querer but most certainly as a partner linked in a strategic, economic and personal way with the countries of the Orient as well as with Australia, New Zealand and the other nearby island nations.

Asia is changing probably more swiftly than any other part of the world. There is a rising feeling of national pride, there is a rising feeling of regional pride and there is a growing feeling of identification. A few years ago Asian people stood firmly opposed to those countries which we call the West because the West represented an intruding power and an alien power. But the West has now abandoned this kind of colonial code and it no longer threatens the independence of Asian nations. Side by side with this is the fact that Red China is a strong, dominant country. It has an enormous population and it is regarded as a threat. The West - which means the allied nations as we understand them - no longer represents an oppressor but a protector. When Mr Richard Nixon, the former United States Vice-President and a man very much in the news, was referring to this matter recently he said, amongst other things, that one of the legacies of Vietnam almost certainly will be ‘a deep reluctance on the part of the United States to become involved in a similar intervention on a similar basis’. I suggest that this makes it vitally important that we in Australia should be alert to changes that will take place and that it should make us very much involved and concerned in the philosophies and movements of nations around this area of the world as they look at this kind of situation.

One of the outcomes of the Chinese ambitions should be perhaps for the free nations of the world to establish an Asian framework which is designed for their own security and well-being. This means development in a regional way. It may be suggested that there could be regional defence pacts so that these nations could contain any aggression in the early stages at least. The United States authorities have made it perfectly clear that they have not reached the stage when they will fail to respond militarily to a Communist threat in some less stable part of the world. But it is pointed out that threatened aggression may be contained for a time by one of these regional defence arrangements and if this were to prove insufficient then a great power like the United States could become involved and make victory more attainable.

A further point concerning Asia lies in the curious fact that although not all of the governments of the non-Communist countries fit into the Western ideals of democracy and of parliamentary procedure as we know it, more and more governments of the countries within this area are now deliberately developing towards greater freedom of movement, greater liberty, greater abundance, broader choice and certainly greater opportunity for the people. The grim world of poverty is no longer accepted as a normal part of their development. True poverty is with them and with them in a very grave way but for much of their history they regarded it as something that they would always have. Now this apathy is disappearing.

It is interesting to observe that the cultural clash of earlier years between East and West has had its costs and produced its strains, but out of it all and looking ahead beyond Vietnam, one can see that it has produced a modernisation of the ancient civilisations. Some Asian countries are leaping centuries, so to speak. In recent years

Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Korea, Singapore and Malaysia have all been recording economic growth rates that are quite remarkable. Some have economic growth rates of 6% or more. Japan has sustained an average of 9% a year since 1950, Thailand has been averaging 7% a year since 1958 and South Korea has been moving ahead at an average of 8% a year since 1963. This indicates that beyond the present situation there is an area of involvement in which Australia must be associated and the Minister’s speech gives effect to this in philosophical terms.

Besides this group of smaller countries which are moving forward but nevertheless have their problems and dangers, there are, of course, four major countries which must be taken into account. I am thinking of India with its great population; Japan, to which I referred earlier; China, the world’s most populous nation; and the United States of America, lt is true that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics occupies a great deal1 of the land mass of Asia, but more of its inclination is in another direction. For our purposes and at close range the four powers that 1. have mentioned are the only ones that concern us. India is challenging as well as frustrating. It is challenging because of its promise and frustrating because of its problems.

I want to draw a line as far as the United States is concerned in its relation to the new growth that has obviously taken place in the Asian part of the world and which will certainly continue in an even greater and more vigorous way when we get through the difficulties of the present time. There is, according to my reading, a feeling of what is described as a new isol’ationism within the United States of America. This harks back to the quotation that I made a few moments ago from a speech by Mr Nixon. This feeling of isolationism, I suggest, naturally arises when a country is concerned in a conflict that is at some distance and it is difficult for the people on the home front to see the relevance of it all. However, any isolationism that might emerge would be a very dangerous line of thinking altogether.

There is a warning for us in that there can be no isolationism in relation to an area where more than half of the world’s population lives. We cannot be unconcerned about and isolated from this group of nations that house such a targe proportion of the world’s people and, indeed, where the world’s greatest explosive potential surely is placed. If the aggressive forces that threaten in Vietnam today were not recognised, Australia could become isolationist in its thinking. We have to prove our non-isolationist thinking not only to ourselves but also to the rest of the world. This, I suggest, is evident in the philosophy of the Minister’s speech, in his reference to our readiness to defend the free peoples, and in our involvement with their struggles, their economics and their growth.

The next point of the Minister’s speech about which I should like to say something is contained in one of his introductory paragraphs. He said that Australia has a direct and special interest in southern and eastern Asia, the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean, for this is where we live. The departure of the United Kingdom from this part of the world gives us more than a direct and special interest in the Indian Ocean. Other honourable senators have referred to this matter. I do so because I share the view that this is an area of the world with which in past years we have not had a great deal of involvement or connection, although it has a special relationship to us in a number of ways. Seventy per cent of our oil imports come from the Persian Gulf area. These supplies will be significant for some years, I suggest, even with our own increasing production. It has been put to me - and I. suppose it has relevance - that the Indian Ocean has a degree of importance so far as our total migration programme is concerned. It is true that great numbers come to our country by air today but there is still a great movement of people to Australia across the Indian Ocean.

It is interesting to look at the development surrounding the Indian Ocean. I do not suppose it could be said that a nation owned an ocean in the same sense that a nation may own an area of the world’s land surface but the United Kingdom in the old British Empire days went as far as possible in that regard in relation to the Indian Ocean through its involvement all along the African coast, on the Indian sub-continent and on the Australian mainland with what were known as British possessions. To them were added a host of islands in the Indian Ocean. Now only a fraction of these interests remains. The old red route, the old lifeline of the Empire, has gone with the Empire. These changes affect Australia. Another factor affecting this country is that in the process of developing the old empires of Great Britain, France, Portugal and the Netherlands, trade with their colonies was encouraged, but the routes of this trade went directly to Europe like spokes to the hub of a wheel. There seemed to be in the earlier days little planning or little interest in connecting one place with another.

Today, in spite of the tremendous advances that are being made in air transport, sea transport is, I suggest, still an economic proposition. This being so, let me refer back to the expression I used a few moments ago and ask: To whom does the Indian Ocean belong today? It is a wide ocean and the routes across it are varied. It is true that there are points of exit and entry that might be described as bottlenecks. Tension points have existed and I suppose they are likely to exist again. Whatever it is, the Indian Ocean is vital to Australia. Last year 46% of our exports and 56% of our imports crossed the Indian Ocean. India, Pakistan and the East African states use the Indian Ocean for most of their trading activities, but they are so occupied with their own land confrontations on the other side that they have virtually ignored the growing implications of the importance of the Indian Ocean.

So in two decades, which is not a very long time in history, from being virtually a totally British area the Indian Ocean has become an area in which a large number of countries now have interests. Although this is true, no particular group dominates the Indian Ocean, at least one country - Australia - has a major interest in it because we are open to it. It is our main highway to the world and until recently we enjoyed - in spite of what has been said earlier today - a protective element in it, insofar as the United Kingdom had an interest and its Services there. The Suez Canal remains closed but our normal trade via South Africa is unhindered.

Events now current in the Indian Ocean merit Australia’s attention. In recent weeks Soviet warships have been visiting Indian ports. Some people regard this as possibly the first move of Soviet penetration into the

Indian Ocean. A cruiser and two guided missile destroyers were in Bombay and Madras as recently as early this month. Since June of last year a Soviet force of some 35 ships has been maintaining a presence in the Mediterranean. Today the Indian Navy - 1 suppose, following British traditions - has an eastern command and a western command which are taking on a new degree of importance and rel’evance following the British withdrawal. Perhaps there is an Indian and a Russian desire that neither the United States nor China should fill the vacuum caused by the British withdrawal. This is purely speculation but sufficient is happening in international affairs in the Indian Ocean to necessitate Australia’s closely heeding what is going on there because this is an area vital’ fo our development and our life. We neglect this area at our peril. We should be aware of the attitudes which other countries are adopting towards the Indian Ocean.

May I suggest that there are certain similarities between the countries of the east coast of Africa and the countries of South East Asia. All of the nations involved in these areas are new nations. They are making progress in a variety of ways but most are incomplete, as it were, in their nationalities. They have group problems and minority problems, as a result of which they run certain internal risks, it could be said that apart from South Africa, bases which might always have been available may not now exist. True, the United States is stationed at North West Cape. True, it is in Ethiopia. The Soviet is looking at the Indian Ocean, but none of these people has a dominance or a power base. The reference by the Minister in his speech on international affairs to the Indian Ocean was very timely. This is something which we should note. It is something the significance and importance of which we should not lose sight in any general discussion of international1 events.

The Minister pointed out that Australia gives special weight to the economic element in international affairs. He said that Australia needs an expanding world economy and trade outlets. ‘ Australia contributes economic assistance to other countries and will continue to do so. The Minister said:

We believe that continued international action in the economic field is essential in tackling world problems.

In my view this statement underlines the Government’s involvement in international aid and reflects a line in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech when he said that help will continue. Last year we spent $142m in this field. This included expenditure in Papua and New Guinea but it included also a doubling of aid to Indonesia. Honourable senators will be familiar with the document provided by the Department of External Affairs dealing with Australian international aid in 1967. The document states that it is estimated that in 1967-68 every Australian will contribute approximately $12 towards international aid. The point is made again that all of Australia’s aid is given as gifts. It may well be that in the fullness of time this process, although a good and worthy one, may be subject to review.Itis not that Australia or any Australian would not want to give generously, without interest or repayment, but while we assist in programmes of international aid I think we are being helpful if we endeavour in some way to fix some responsibility on recipients of such aid. We should wish to see that Australia’s aid not only helps in a particular set of circumstances but also encourages self-help and makes possible a greater degree of responsibility and initiative in the recipient, countries. In the document which was distributed it was pointed out by the Department of External Affairs that it is well to remember that aid is not necessarily a spectacular exercise or an end in itself. Our obligations as far as international aid is concerned are not fulfilled simply by making available sums of money and regardingthis as an end in itself. The pattern of international aid has covered a great many countries. It is important to make some observations about this pattern in a debate of this kind.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. (General Business taking precedence of Government Business.)

page 657

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMMITTEE

Debate resumed from 13 March (vide page 30), on the following paper presented by Senator Wood:

Australian Capital Territory - Joint Committee - Report - and on the motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Tonight we are dealing with a special report by the Joint Committee on the Aus tralian Capital Territory on its freehold lands inquiry. It is of interest to note several features of the report. I trust that I will be able to deal with it quite thoroughly. The Committee was first appointed in November 1956. It was reappointed for the life of this Parliament on 7 and 8 March 1967. It is a committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It consists of five senators and four members of the House of Representatives. Five of its members are members of the Government parties and the other four are members of the Opposition. So in every sense it is what it claims to be - a joint committee.

Its first duty is to examine and report on all proposals for modifications or variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia ‘Gazette’ on 19th November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the Committee by the Minister for the Interior. The words ‘which are referred to the Committee by the Minister for the Interior’ are the operative words. The Committee’s second duty is to examine and report on such other matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to it by the Minister for the Interior. So it is clear that the Committee deals with matters that are referred to it by the Minister for the Interior and does not originate inquiries in its own right.

This evening I propose to give a fairly broad outline of the report, to refer to some of the reasons for decisions and to some of the recommendations and to leave it to other speakers to amplify those reasons and recommendations if they wish to do so. Later, if necessary, I will sum up on the recommendations as they appear towards the end of the report. The body of the report is concerned with a matter that began in October 1967 when a letter was sent to the Committee by the then Minister for the Interior, Mr Anthony. He asked the Committee to inquire into the control of the subdivision and use of the freehold lands in the Australian Capital Territory. I think it is relevant to read part of the Minister’s letter. It is contained in the report and is vital to the consideration in which the Committee engaged. The Minister said in part in his letter:

There is, however, a matter of very great importance affecting the Australian Capital Territory, and which calls for urgent attention. This matter is that of ensuring proper control of the subdivision and use of the freehold lands which exist in the Territory.

The need for such controls had not been evident until relatively recent times, when it became clear that without them these lands could be exploited by speculators, to the detriment and at the expense of the national public interest. There are at present no controls such as exist elsewhere. lt is important to appreciate that at the time of the Committee’s inquiry many of the controls for wise land use that normally exist were not in existence in the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, they are still not in existence. The Minister then referred to the temporary ordinance that the Senate disallowed. He pointed out in his letter that that action presented some problems because people still had the opportunity to do things which in the broader scale of interest it might not be wise or good for them to do. He impressed upon the Committee the urgency of its work. He said that it should do as much as it could in as short a time as possible and present reasons and recommendations for the control of the subdivision and use of the freehold lands in the Territory. This is no light matter. It touches upon property rights and the rights of individuals. Every member of the Committee approached the subject quite seriously and had in his mind the fact that he might be involved in depriving people to some extent of what they might regard as their legitimate rights. Under the chairmanship of my colleague, Senator Wood, we all took the view that we had been given a job to do in the public interest.

I mentioned earlier the ordinance that was brought before the Senate and disallowed on 2nd November 1967. I think it is appropriate to mention that the Committee told the Minister on several occasions that it felt there was much to be said for its being given in due course, if not then, the power also to inquire into city and industrial leasing. At the time of the inquiry that is the subject of this report the Minister had not seen fit to give the Committee a power which it felt it should ultimately have if it was to do a proper job for the Australian Capital Territory, namely, the power to consider the question of city and industrial leasing. Even now the Committee has not that power. It still has to bear in mind the fact that it deals with matters referred to it by the Minister and does not initiate inquiries on its own behalf. When the Committee began work it advertised in the local

Press. An invitation was extended to interested parties to come along and present oral evidence to the Committee. The Committee interviewed a very wide range of people. In all, twenty-eight submissions were received by the Committee and were dealt with exhaustively by it. Witnesses were examined on their respective submissions.

In the first place the history of the Australian Capital Territory had to be borne in mind in order to provide the background to the inquiry in which we were involved. The history is mentiond in the report but I believe that it should be elaborated upon. The area selected for the Australian Capital Territory was within the State of New South Wales, as required by section 125 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. By agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments in October 1909, the area was acquired by the Commonwealth for the purposes of the National Capital. At that time certain areas of freehold land totalling approximately 315,723 acres, while being incorporated legally into the Territory, were not actually purchased by the Commonwealth. The Territory consists of an area of approximately 900 square miles or 582,777 acres, of which the Commonwealth owns 83%. Only 17% - approximately .150 square miles or 97,621 acres - is freehold land. Practically all1 the freehold land is used for grazing and agricultural purposes. There are only about 98 acres in the villages of Hall, Tharwa and Oaks Estate. The Committee has included in its report for the service of the Parliament and of the community a map showing present land occupation in the Territory.

Of the 582,777 acres of the Territory, out of the goodness of its heart the State of New South Wales ceded approximately 254,350 acres to the Commonwealth for he purpose of forming the National Capital1. The Commonwealth itself acquired freehold land. Up till 1930 it acquired 213,830 acres at an average cost of £3.1 5s an acre. Since 1930 it has acquired a total of 11,100 acres, nearly 5.000 acres of which was acquired for the purposes of the Tidbinbilla Flora and Fauna Reserve. For the purpose of anybody who wanted to take the matter further, the Committee also caused to have prepared a full table of land acquisition since the inception of the Australian Capital

Territory, showing the area, the date of acquisition, the former owner and the compensation price, in order to establish a general! trend of values through time and to show what it was costing to acquire land for the purpose of consolidating the National Capital. That table is incorporated in the report also.

The report includes the comment that the Department of the Interior is responsible for the development, planning and administration of the Australian Capital Territory, with the exception of matters affecting health and justice which are set apart. The National Capital Development Commission was appointed in 1957 to undertake another set of functions. They were the planning, development and construction of the city of Canberra as the National Capital and to do all things incidental to the performance of this function. The Commission is empowered to provide, or to arrange for the provision of, within the Australian Capital Territory, buildings, roads, bridges, works for the supply of water or electricity, sewerage or drainage works and other matters and things for or incidental to that purpose. The report shows that the Committee came to the conclusion that some of the powers that the NCDC needed in order to do a thorough job outside the actual boundaries of the city of Canberra were not perhaps as strong as they might be if what was wanted was total development and total, overall management of the whole of the Territory. There was some doubt on the part of the Department of the Interior on the one hand and the NCDC on the other whether the total power was quite what it might be. This matter is not one for the Committee to argue in the report, but there is comment on it in the report.

In the process of the inquiry a number of points of view were expressed. The Canberra Chamber of Commerce made the point that the Commonwealth of Australia had a constitutional obligation to acquire all the freehold land. The Chamber took the view that under the Constitution this was an obligation which the Commonwealth could not avoid and if the Commonwealth did not acquire all the freehold land compulsorily and immediately it would be failing in its trust. This view was submitted to the Attorney-General’s Department which, having examined it, said that, in its opinion there was no justification whatever for the view, either in section 125 or in any other provision of the Constitution. The Chamber of Commerce submission, which is often given public expression that under the Constitution the Commonwealth as such has an obligation, that it ought to have carried out many years ago, to acquire all of the freehold land, is not supported at law. It might be supported economically or for reasons of growth or national purpose but it could not be argued that constitutionally, so far as the Committee could see, the obligation was in effect so placed on the Commonwealth. The Department of the Interior was concerned about the whole problem and an ordinance was placed before the Senate. As we know, it was disallowed.

Departmental officers stated in evidence that there was no direct legislative control of the subdivision or use of freehold land in the Australian Capital Territory, but: this had not. caused any great trouble to them until recent years. In the last few years there had been several proposals for subdivision and sale of land, for what might be called small farm holdings, rural dwelling leases or rural dwelling freeholds, which had given the Department quite some concern. Those members of the Committee, myself included, who travelled quite extensively throughout the Australian Capital Territory, saw some of these proposed small holdings. No-one, I am sure, believed that there was any virtue in a policy that would permit such land to be subdivided for the purpose for which it was intended. We believed that this proposed subdivision was not something which would help anyone in the future in any way at all. The land did not lend itself to subdivision into small farms, in any economic or practical sense. The Department took the view that the tendency was beginning to develop for subdivision into small blocks that would not be satisfactory for the occupants, which would not. make for tidy, rational development of the Territory, which would not make human life any better and which would not add to the sum of human prosperity. Indeed, such subdivision would involve us all in what might be described, without wishing to be unkind, as a kind of rural slum in years to come. No-one wanted to have that kind of development continue. These are some of the considerations which led the Department to try to introduce a land use control pattern and an ordinance, which the Senate disallowed.

The Minister then recommended an inquiry, the result of which is now before the Senate. The Committee had in mind some of the patterns and problems of the future growth of Canberra and the ACT. The National Capital Development Commission is concerned with the projection, planning and long term consideration of land use in the city. Its representatives said in evidence to the Committee that those portions of the ACT which are physically capable of development - not all the land, but that which is physically capable of being used - for urban, institutional and recreational purposes all will be required for those purposes within a foreseeable period. This was a definite statement. The witnesses were cross examined and their statements checked. Nowhere could the Committee find itself able to disagree with this view. Allowing for the land which could not be used because it was too remote or too steep, because it was a catchment area for water supplies or for other reasons - apparently within the ACT there is only enough land for the needs of the Territory when such needs are projected forward, for some years. The Commission estimates that Canberra’s population will reach 250,000 by the year 1980. From studies, which are continuing, the view held by the Commission is that the amount of urban land available would be sufficient for a population of 400,000. Although this is not stated in the report, in response to questions various witnesses stated that although it was’ difficult to be precise, that population could be reached by the year 2000. It was a reasonable assumption to make that by the year 2000, a little over 30 years from now, at the present rate of growth, the population could have reached 400,000. with the end of the available urban land if one wanted to develop as development has been proceeding.

Another factor that was introduced was that an integral part of the work of the NCDC was to plan for the institutional programmes in a city .like Canberra. This is the National Capital. It is the headquarters of the NCDC and the greater part of the activities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. There has been more than average activity in institutional development, such as in the provision of schools and university establishments. Such institutions require large areas of land to carry out their func tions effectively. This is a proper type of development for a national capital and the Committee looked at that situation. People might find it hard to belive that in time all the land worth using would be occupied. No member of the Committee believed that the evidence given on any of these matters was unreliable or not factual. I. found no reason to quarrel with the view that was put to us.

Quite a deal of evidence was given in relation to future water supply. This will be a matter of very real concern to most honourable senators. For the past 4 or 5 years we have had impressed upon us, whether we come from the land or from capital cities, that the water situation in Australia has become urgent and critical. We have been told that we cannot afford to take chances with water supplies. The evidence presented was that within the National Capital area dams and storages which are now under construction on the Cotter River will meet the water supply requirements of about 200,000 people. On present growth rates, the next storage system must be commenced by about 1972. Beyond that again, further projects will be required, and the departments concerned are examining the possibilities of the Murrumbidgee and what is called the NaasGudgenby valley. Within the A.C.T. itself, apart from the Cotter, which could well be fully utilised by about 1975, the only other practicable site for a water supply to serve a population that is expanding to the levels I have mentioned is that area which lies within the Naas-Gudgenby catchment.

The general view was that if a decision were made not to use the Naas-Gudgenby area within the next 2 or 3 years, then, without any doubt, it would be needed quite firmly within the next 15 years. So we were looking at a situation in which we had not only population expansion and a call upon land but also a very distinct limit on available water supply because the available water of the Cotter had been very nearly tied up and the only other source cif supply we had under our own control, the Naas-Gudgenby catchment, looked like being needed. Therefore, we had to consider very seriously the protection of the watershed within the NaasGudgenby catchment because much of the country in the southern part of the Australian Capital Territory which forms the catchment for the Cotter and the NaasGudgenby valley is land which is subject to a high erosion rate through over grazing or unwise land use.

I mentioned a little earlier some of the problems that arise in connection with subdivision. I mentioned that we did inspect some of the rural areas and some of the proposed subdivisions. I do not want to add to those remarks except to say that, in general, the land in the Australian Capital Territory which certain people were thinking of subdividing, is not what might be called highly productive land. It is not land that is capable of returning any sort of respectable income if it is subdivided into small blocks. Therefore, it was felt that the subdivision of such land, with the cost of adding necessary improvements, would be uneconomic. There was also the fact that one day the land might be needed for the purpose of augmenting the water supply for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. All in all, although some of us were very disturbed about having to put controls on freehold land, we found it very difficult to argue against the evidence that this was a rather particular position. Available land was by no means inexhaustible, calls upon the land were increasing greatly and there was a tremendous water problem confronting us. Therefore we could see that a case could be made for no other course than to have a very substantial measure of effective control over these lands in the Australian Capital Territory.

It was noted by the Committee with some very great pleasure that there was splendid co-operation between the Australian Capital Territory authorities and the local authorities in adjoining shires in New South Wales. There was every evidence that all were cooperating fully in an effort to ensure that development along the borders of the Territory and immediately adjoining shires was fairly uniform and according to a general overall approach.

We dealt also with the rights of the freeholder in the Australian Capital Territory. He is in a rather peculiar situation in that there has always been a feeling in the ACT that the land is Commonwealth land and that, if not acquired immediately, then ultimately it would be acquired. This placed the holder of freehold land in the ACT in a somewhat, different position from the holder of freehold land in other parts where land pressure was not so great. 1 have mentioned such matters as calls on the land for institutions, dwellings and urban development and the need for future water supplies. All these things combined made the position of the holder of freehold land here somewhat different from that of the holder of freehold land in more remote parts.

Then we came to the proposed legislation. This question was hammered out to the point where finally the Department of the Interior presented what it described as a basic ideas framework’. This basic ideas framework is dealt with on pages 7 and 8 of the Report. Substantially, this is the system: The area is divided into three zones. Zone I takes into account all the land required for urban expansion and extraurban use within a limited period. The suggestion was that this land should continue to be used for grazing and agricultural purposes while it is not needed for other purposes. It was suggested also that there should be no restriction on the erection of new dwellings or of additions. It was also suggested that no subdivisions should be allowed. Zone 2 relates to the villages of Hall. Tharwa and Oakes Estate which are really only minor matters. It was suggested that there should be some control over subdivisions in those villages. This then brings us to the residue of the land which is the freehold land other than that immediately needed for urban development and the village areas. It was suggested that these lands might continue to be used for grazing and agricultural pursuits and that there should be no restriction on the erection of new dwellings but that subdivision into areas of less than 500 acres should be disallowed. This was based on such considerations as wise use of the land, the kind of land available in the ACT for grazing and what that land will effectively do. It was suggested that subdivisions must be open to access and drainage and under some degree of supervision, and that they should be approved by a responsible authority, but there was provision for the right of appeal to a tribunal against rejection by the authority of an application to subdivide. It was suggested that the administration would be as provided in the clauses set out in the proposal. Provision was made also for the payment of compensation under the proper terms.

A draft plan was prepared indicating possible zonings. This was given to the Committee, and the Committee insisted not only that it be published in the Committee’s report but also that it be made available to the public of the ACT and, indeed, anybody else who might he interested so that everybody might know exactly what had been produced and nobody could argue that it was not possible to find out what was proposed. We insisted that the plan be made public property so that people who are interested or who have a problem might find out exactly what the position is.

Having been through it very carefully, wc decided as a committee that the basic ideas framework was acceptable as a basis for permanent legislation. The report we are considering tonight went forward to the Minister with the general case made that the basic ideas framework seemed to the Committee to be a framework which permits the drafting of legislation of a permanent character which would safeguard, and properly so, the interests of the various people concerned. We recommended that a tribunal be set up and that the chairman be either a judge of the Supreme Court or some other suitably qualified person. We suggested that there be two other members, one representing the planning authorities and the other representing the general public.

Then we made a case for the acquisition by the Commonwealth of the remaining freehold land in the ACT. There were two points of view expressed here - one by the Department of the Interior which said that, provided it could obtain effective controls over the freehold land, it did not desire to disturb or incommode the existing land holders, and one from the National Capital Development Commission which made it quite clear that in the absence of effective controls for the protection and preservation of rural areas it considered that it might be wise for the Commonwealth in the interests of future development, to acquire all the freehold land now remaining. This suggestion for the total acquisition was supported by quite divergent groups. On the one hand, it was supported by the Chamber of Commerce, and on the other by the Canberra Branch of the Australian Labor Party. It will be seen, therefore, that the Committee did canvass a wide range of opinion.

We came to the conclusion, as we have mentioned in the report, that acquisition by the Commonwealth on fair terms as provided under the Land Acquisition Act 1955-1966 should take place in the following manner: First of all, the Commonwealth should take steps to acquire and bring under control the land in what we call the catchment area’ of the Naas-Gudgenby valley and that such area as was to be acquired should be determined by an interdepartmental committee on which the NCDC would be represented, with a view to minimising risk of siltation and to ensure the purity and cleanliness of the water stored.

We stated in the report that we believed that the Naas-Gudgenby catchment area once defined ought to be acquired. We stated also that the Commonwealth should acquire the areas required for urban development of the National Capital during the next. 15 years, and the areas required for institutional and recreational purposes during the next 15 years. We went on to state that a study should then be made of the remaining area of land. If it is decided that the Commonwealth will want to acquire such land, a study should be made of the economics of buying it at today’s prices and leasing it out, as against what it might cost to buy that land at a later date when it may be decided that the Commonwealth wants it. This area is certainly open for development. I think the Committee was quite fair in saying that any areas of land acquired under the proposal I have stated - that is in the Naas-Gudgenby catchment area, for urban development and for institutional and recreational purposes during the next 15 years - should be leased back after acquisition to the people from whom it was acquired, should it not be immediately required for use by the Commonwealth. The former owners of the land should have the right to say whether they wish to remain on the land under these conditions. If so, they should be given preference over all others.

The conditions under which a lease should be granted are set out in the report. They are that the lease should be for a specified number of years, and that the Commonwealth should be allowed to withdraw any part or the whole of the land if needed. We commented rather strongly on the protection of the land against defoliation, soil erosion and possible siltation. T think all honourable senators will appreciate that a lot of the land concerned is in potential catchment areas. We would be recreant to our trust if we allowed erosion to develop in an area that one day might be used as a source of water supply. It could happen that a dam would prove to be too expensive to construct or it might happen that siltation would cause negation of water supply proposals. We believe that the maintenance of soil erosion prevention in a large area of the ACT is necessarily a condition in the public interest.

The Committee’s report also stated that an opportunity should exist for freehold land owners in the ACT to have their properties acquired by the Commonwealth. A man who says: ‘As far as I am concerned I would rather get out’, should be told ‘All right, the Commonwealth will have the right to acquire your property under the terms of the Lands Acquisition Act.’ Those terms are perfectly clear. We believe that the Commonwealth should be given the opportunity to have what is in effect the first offer of land put up for sale.

We made the comment - I think very properly - that there is a substantial need in the public interest for a development plan for the Australian Capital Territory. In the process of giving evidence quite a few people said that they had not been able to find out what was to happen. In Appendix 111 of the report is Map H which shows the possible future use of all rand in the ACT as envisaged by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Interior. The map shows clearly what those authorities believe should happen to the land. The details were given in evidence to the Committee. The map had not been displayed previously for inspection. The Committee believes that there is need for such a plan and that it should be displayed. There is need for an overall development plan for the whole of the ACT. We recommend that this work should continue. Such plans should be drawn up, displayed and made freely available for sale to the public. There should be no feeling that what is proposed for the ACT in total cannot be ascertained by the people who live in the Territory. 1 think the Committee can take great credit for in effect producing a plan for the development of the Territory which is now on display for the people who wish to see it. They can examine the land use pattern that one day will be implemented in the ACT. The Committee felt that the National Capital Development Commission was not quite as definite as it might have been with regard to future development. I personally had some reservations about its real ability to maintain total erosion control in the catchment areas of the Territory. This can be established by the proper authorities in due course.

In reading through the report 1 have dealt with it paragraph by paragraph. I. have dealt substantially with the recommendations of the Committee as they have arisen. A summary of the recommendations appears at pages 12-14 of the report. Other members of the Committee no doubt will deal with these matters. Perhaps I can touch on other factors concerned if I have an opportunity to do so. Professor Sawer of the Department of Law of the Australian National University gave evidence to the Committee. I would like to read to honourable senators a letter he wrote on 18th March 1968 to Mr J. R. Fraser, the Deputy Chairman of the Committee. I think it is of interest to honourable senators who follow these matters. He wrote:

Dear Jim,

, was very pleased indeed with the report of the Committee on ACT Freeholds. It is short, clear and sensible and should provide an admirable foundation for future policy. Will you please convey my congratulations to your Chairman.

I have read that letter because it is support for the belief that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives, drawn from all parties, can work together to produce a report which is substantially in the public interest. It is the result of a lot. of hard work. When 1 read it finally I was proud to have had a hand in it. It is quite an admirable job.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on the report now before the Senate. I think I should say at the outset that Senator Cotton has outlined very well the matters dealt with by the Committee. Honourable senators will recall that initially the problem of the subdivisional use of freehold land in the Australian Capital Territory was causing a good deal of concern to the Minister for the Interior and officers of his Department. As has been stated, at no time was there any legislative control over the subdivision and use of freehold land in the ACT. The Minister has the right to refer questions of this nature to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. lt should be understood that the Committee cannot undertake consideration of any of these questions unless they are referred to it by the Minister. The Committee assembled and attempted to establish the proper procedures and course to be followed to resolve the question which has become so difficult to deal with in recent years.

It has been a great pleasure for me to work on the Committee, lt is a joint parliamentary committee composed of members of the Senate and another place, drawn from members of the Government and Opposition parties. The Committee assembled and attempted to determine the problems relating to freehold land in the ACT. I have a background knowledge of local government procedures in Australia and for me this work was something of a challenge. I believe that all members of the Committee accepted the responsibility placed before them. We had the spirit that in dealing with problems related to the National Capital it was incumbent upon us to produce a report which would substantially clear the areas of difficulty which had been created in the Territory, particularly in recent years.

The main problem arose from the fact thai the growth of population in the Australian Capital Territory has exceeded the prediction of Burley Griffin, the original planner of the ACT, and others who have followed him in this profession. It is of interest to relate at this stage that the ACT comprises an area of some 910 square miles, of which approximately 17% is freehold, lt was a surprise to me as a member of the Committee to learn that 17%, or 9S.000 acres, was in fact freehold land. This would no doubt come as a surprise to most people in Australia. Indeed, many people would be surprised to know that there is still in fact freehold land in the ACT.

There was no direct legislative control over the subdivision arid use of this freehold land. One can imagine that any authority charged with responsibility for the orderly development of an area in the ACT would be seriously impeded in carrying out its duties if there were within the realm of its activities areas of land that were not subject to any legislative control. There was no law or regulation relating to the type of use to which this land could be put. In these circumstances it became imperative, particularly in view of the tremendous growth of population, to tackle the problem and find a solution. Burley Griffin predicted 75,000 as the maximum population of the ACT. I remind the Senate that even now the population of the ACT is 106,000. It is predicted that by 1975 - in another 7 or 8 years - the population will have almost doubled, reaching 200,000, and that ultimately the 910 square miles of the ACT will support a population of 400,000. This presupposes, of course, that all the land within the ACT will be available for development.

There are two authorities concerned with this problem - the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Interior, from which a great deal of valuable evidence has been obtained. These authorities work in close collaboration in resolving the various problems within their respective areas of operation. They and a great number of other organisations within the ACT submitted a great deal of evidence to the Committee for its consideration.

Throughout Australia there is a quickening of interest in this part of the country as the national capital, the seat of government. Tremendous numbers of people inspect this Parliament each year. An increasing number of tourists come each year to the ACT, in particular to Canberra. I cannot say off-hand the number of touristis that pass through the area, but it is substantial. Wherever one goes throughout Australia one hears comment - very favourable comment - about the type of planning and development of the national capital.

In recent years, consequent again upon the population explosion, the development of the ACT has changed quite radically. It became evident that areas of freehold land would have to come under the control, to some degree or other, of the planning authority for the ACT. Thus, this Committee was faced with the task of sifting all the available evidence, hearing submissions from all people concerned, weighing up all these matters and making recommendations as to the future use and subdivision of freehold land. A problem had already arisen regarding a number of subdivisional propositions put before the Government and the Department of the Interior, some of which did not accord with the thinking of the departments concerned on the overall1 concept of development of the national capital. The National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Interior were able to some degree - and I think quite a substantial degree - to draw on experience in such places as Ottawa and Washington where the authorities had also fallen into the trap of under-estimating the growth of population. We were in the rather fortunate position of having the benefit of experience in those two national capitals and the problems that they had encountered. We were able to draw on this valuable information in reaching our own conclusions on this particular problem.

One must concede that it was, in fact, known to freeholders in the ACT as far back as 1913 that they could not expect as much security of tenure as landholders in other parts of Australia. We started with the knowledge that this was to be the national capital. Surely it must be accepted that right from that time there was a threat to the existence of freehold land. The Committee took cognisance of the uncertain tenure of freehold land in the ACT, noting that whereas in most parts of Australia a freeholder had reasonable security of tenure, the situation in the ACT was substantially different in that there was a threat to the existence of freehold land, dependent on the rate, of development of the national capital.

The members of the Committee have had an opportunity to examine parts of the ACT, particularly the urban and immediately suburban areas, in company with highly efficient officers of the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Interior. We were able to examine such fields as planning, economics, engineering and administration, and in the course of our deliberations we had the benefit of the knowledge of experts in these fields. As well, we had an opportunity to assess the value of the work they are doing. Our thinking on this subject was substantially determined by visual evidence of the extremely valuable work that is being done here. Naturally, we all want to estab lish a city which is worthy of the name of a national capital. This is the city which will be held up as the centre of government. It is, in fact, the centre of government in Australia. We want to be proud of this national capital, which will be referred to as another Washington or Whitehall. Members of the Committee saw abundant evidence of the high degree of skill and planning that have gone into the development of this city. I believe they were convinced that the officers charged with this area of responsibility were, in fact, capable of carrying out their work with a high degree of satisfaction to all concerned. It was only natural for members of the Committee to take a good deal of notice of the submissions that were made by officers of the two authorities I have named.

In the course of my activities in the field of local government and as a member of Parliament with public responsibilities I have always noted a lamentable lack of ability to predict population trends and developments with any degree of accuracy. I said earlier that trend seems to be world wide and not confined to Australia. Whereas once upon a time we might have been content to work on the basis of a population of, say 100,000 people, we now have to think in terms of 400,000 people or perhaps more and of planning a modern city which will provide a water supply system, institutional facilities and all the factors necessary to cope with a population of that size.

I believe Senator Cotton mentioned that during the Committee’s deliberations the suggestion was made that in the not far distant future there may have to be negotiation with the authorities administering the areas adjacent to the 910 square miles of the Australian Capital Territory to ensure that there is a consonance of ideas and a dovetailing of plans in the development of the National Capital and the surrounding areas. That is some indication of the rate of development that is taking place.

Within the Committee itself there was a great fund of knowledge of what has happened in this field in various parts of Australia and that knowledge was used in the preparation of the report. In addition we had the benefit of the valuable information that was put before us by various authorities and persons. No-one was barred from giving evidence to the Committee and I think we should record our thanks to the people and organisations who made such a substantial contribution to the Committee’s activities.

In the course of a tour of the area recently 1 commented that we bid fair to have ultimately the finest city in the world if we continue along the lines we are following now with the development of this city; with the development of the commercial area; with the development of the parklands, reserves and so on; with the development of the institutional facilities of the area; with the development of the road system and with the development of the housing areas. I was thrilled and delighted to have the Canberra plan explained to me recently. There is the commerical area, there is the city area surrounded by parklands in which people can spend their meal hours and so on, and there are the residential areas. The institutional facilities, hospitals and scientific organisations have all been sited so that they form a part of the Canberra plan. The design, the layout and the planning of this city surely will make it one of the finest in the world, a city of which the generations to come will be very proud.

I think it is the earnest hope of every member of the Committee and indeed of every member of Parliament that the National Capital should be a city to be regarded with a great deal of satisfaction. It certainly should be because public funds have been expended at a high level in the Australian Capital Territory. Last year that expenditure amounted to about $45m and that, added to approximately $35m expended by private enterprise, brought total expenditure in the Territory to about $80m. That is a substantial sum of money and I suppose one has every right to expect some very fine facilities and a city that will be a great joy and delight not only to the people of the Territory but also to the people of Australia as a whole.

This sum of money has not been expended in a haphazard, higgledy-piggledy fashion. Everything has been planned in detail. The development taking place here surely must be the envy of every local government authority in Australia. There is a lesson to be learned from this. As a former municipal administrator, I look with a great deal of envy upon the activities in this area. I know that every municipal administrator throughout the land would be happy if he could plan the development of his particular area along the lines being followed in Canberra and without being faced with the eternal problem of finding sufficient finance to carry out his programme.

The Committee was given verbal and visual evidence of the fact that a saving of something like 20% is effected when the authority concerned is able to carry out work on the scale at which it is being carried out in Canberra, and is able to engage the services of contractors who have all the modern earthmoving equipment and so on to do the job. One has a great deal of sympathy for and understanding of the problems confronting local government authorities in other parts of Australia that know what is needed but are unable to carry out the necessary works because of the lack of funds.

We have come sufficiently far along the road of planning to realise that if one is constructing a pipeline, for example, it is wise to construct a 9-inch pipeline even though the needs of the population of the day do not warrant a pipeline of that size and even though the population is not sufficient to finance the loan necessary to carry out the work, but one knows that in a developing nation like Australia a pipeline of that size will be needed ultimately. Authorities borrow money for such works on a repayment period of 30 years or something like that and it has often happened that before the loan has been repaid the water supply has become inadequate to meet the needs of the increasing population in the area being served. That is one of the problems that beset local government authorities but which are not apparent in the Austraiian Capital Territory. Good luck to it. One wants to see a proper and orderly development of this Territory and I hope that I and other members of the Committee have been able to make some contribution towards the establishment and development of one of the finest cities in the world.

I do not want to detain the Senate by citing a lot of unnecessary information. The report is before the Senate. I understand that the Minister is not displeased with it. As Senator Cotton pointed out, quite a number of people who have been tremendously interested in the preparation and presentation of the report are very happy with it.

Senator Branson:

– Now honourable senators should seek an inquiry on leasehold land.

Senator DEVITT:

– Since Senator Branson has raised that point, I wish to comment on a recommendation that appears on page 14 of the report regarding the powers of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Paragraph 49 states:

Your Committee recommends that immediate action should bc taken to amend its Resolution of Appointment to enable it to undertake investigation upon its own initiative, lt feels strongly that it should not be restricted only to those matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to it by the Minister for the Interior.

I completely subscribe to that view, but in order that I shall not trespass upon territory with which other speakers will be dealing in due course, may I just say in conclusion that I believe that this is an area of activity which very well suits the character of this chamber. I have been associated with this Committee and other joint parliamentary committees and Senate select committees and I think that we can do tremendously valuable work in this way. I have often thought, and I have mentioned this to others, that to be rehashing something that has already been dealt, with in some detail in another place seems to be perhaps not so worthwhile an exercise. But here is an area of activity where we can feel free to move and where we can bring to bear all the knowledge that we have acquired from past experiences.

Senator Branson:

– It is the real role of the Senate.

Senator DEVITT:

– lt is the role of the Senate. I believe that the ACT Committee has well and truly fulfilled its objective and proved to the world at large that it is a worthwhile enterprise.

Senator Cotton touched upon certain aspects of the report. I have dealt more with generalisations than with specific aspects of. the report. I have been very happy with the work of the Committee. T hope that our contribution has been worthwhile. I am encouraged to believe that it has been worthwhile. I believe that inquiries of this kind undertaken by the

Senate can make a tremendous contribution to the work of the Parliament of this country.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– The report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory sets out the deliberations and findings of that Committee after receiving a number of representations. The recommendations are set out in very clear terms. This investigation was necessitated by the tardiness of the Government and the Department of the Interior in planning the use of the land surrounding the actual business and residential area of Canberra, lt indicates to me that Ministers who have occupied the Interior portfolio have not had much idea of what was required of them. If somebody had not wanted to subdivide land outside the built-up area of Canberra the problem that the Committee tackled would still not have been faced.

Anybody with experience of civic affairs and town planning would have naturally directed his attention long ago to having the whole of the land in the ACT zoned for usage. It was only because somebody wished to subdivide certain land and the Department of the Interior did not want that particular subdivision that attention was drawn to the situation. Honourable senators will recall that a regulation was introduced as a stopgap. But the situation should have been foreseen long ago by a Minister for the Interior or his officers. I think that in response to questioning it was admitted to the Committee that the planning should have been clarified earlier.

This city has been in existence for quite a long time. Of course the Burley Griffin plan covered only a limited area and over the years ideas about town planning changed. Anybody who has taken any interest in this subject knows that it is necessary to protect not only the area which is intended to be closely developed but also the surrounding areas including the water supply catchment. Very often cities and towns are limited by their boundaries and planning authorities cannot encroach on adjoining land, but here in Canberra the Department was fortunate in having a very big area under its jurisdiction. So it was able to plan traffic arteries and other essential features.

If honourable senators look at the report they will see that several very important matters have been mentioned. One particularly urgent and important matter, as has been evidenced by the drought conditions experienced at present, is the preservation of watersheds for the supply of water to this city now and in the future. I think it is pathetic that planning for this has been left to such a late stage. Apparently nobody was alert to the situation until somebody wanted to subdivide certain land. When it was realised that this particular development should not take place things began to move and as a consequence the matter was referred to the ACT Committee which then had to hear and sift the evidence. I feel that the people in authority should have been alert to Canberra’s requirements and should not have waited until some situation arose that more or less forced them to take action.

Senator Branson:

– The matter would never have been referred to the Committee if the Committee had not put the pressure on.

Senator WOOD:

– That is right. The matter would never have been raised if the Committee had not been watchful. It came to the Committee because of the situation that developed. The Committee has set out its recommendations but I do not propose to go into them in great detail as they are stated very clearly. What I would like to emphasise is that a proper plan must be made of any area that is to be developed, whether it is a town, a city or, as in the case of Canberra, a combination of a city and a rural area. It really does not require any great brain to administer a town plan once it is established. Canberra has been established for many years but, as Senator Branson stated, it was only because a certain situation arose that this Committee made its investigations. I believe that the most important recommendation is that the National Capital Development Commiss’on should collaborate with the Department of the Interior in the preparation of an overall development plan for the whole of the Australian Capital Territory. If that is done, the Committee will have achieved something that should have been done long ago. The Ministers who have been in charge of this Department can be charged with not. having had the foresight to ensure that this sort of thing was done years ago.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I am pleased to associate myself with the motion for the printing of the paper and initially I compliment Senator Cotton on opening the subject and on the very comprehensive way in which he dealt with it. He gave an excellent review and covered briefly practically every aspect of the matter. At this stage it would not be amiss if I were to acquaint the Senate with some of the history of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Along with one or two other senators I have been a member of it for a very long time. The members of the Committee associated with the report were Senator Wood, who is the Chairman, Senators Branson. Cotton, Devitt,. Sir Kenneth Morris and Toohey, and Messrs Daly, England, Fox and J. R. Fraser. In the early days when I was first associated with this Committee it dealt with very mundane things. Very little was referred to us by the Minister. Over a period we got the idea very strongly that we were more or less a committee of convenience, that in fact we were something, in the nature of a front. The only matters that I can recall being referred to us over many years were questions of new subdivisions in Canberra.

Senator Branson:

– And road access.

Senator TOOHEY:

– And road access and amenities.

Senator Branson:

– And the matter was a fait accompli when it came to us.

Senator TOOHEY:

– We were confronted with a series of maps and drawings of subdivisions and expected to give our blessing automatically to something which, as Senator Branson said, was already a fait accompli. I am not making this point for the purpose of trying to introduce a note of dissension into the debate. We acknowledge the role that Senator Branson, although he is no longer a member of the Committee, has played in giving it some teeth perhaps for the first time in its existence. He resigned from the Committee on 18th October 1967 and Senator Cotton was appointed on 2nd November 1967. It would not be amiss if I were to recount briefly the reason for Senator Branson’s resignation. I. hope he will not be offended if 1 do so. He resigned because he was dissatisfied, as was practically every other member of the Committee, wilh its operations and the way in which it was being treated by the Minister. 1 must say that that was not the present Minister. Senator Branson had a feeling, as had every other member of the Committee, of utter frustration and a growing belief that our activities were of very little use to the Senate, to the Parliament and to Canberra itself. If my memory serves me correctly, the matter that brought this discontent to a head was the Committee’s belief that the question of city and industrial leases which had become a matter of grave dissension in the community in Canberra should be investigated by the Committee. Because the Minister refused to grant to the Committee jurisdiction to investigate city and industrial leases in Canberra, Senator Branson brought the matter to a head by resigning. Perhaps it would be true to say that most other members of the Committee were prepared lo follow Senator Branson.

Senator Sir Kenneth Morris:

– That is quite true.

Senator TOOHEY:

– -The honourable senator agrees that practically every other member of the Committee was prepared to follow Senator Branson in resigning if immediate action was not taken to give the Committee some reason for its existence.

Senator Branson:

– Teeth.

Senator TOOHEY:

– To give it some teeth. ft is highly significant that immediately after Senator Branson resigned the Committee was given the worth while task of inquiring into the question of freehold lands in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Branson:

– The sacrifice was worth while.

Senator TOOHEY:

– It was, and we ought to acknowledge the role of Senator Branson in bringing about this excellent report that we have before us tonight. It is excellent not because I had anything to do with it personally but because of the combined efforts of people who devoted a tremendous amount of time and thought to what is a very important matter. It is a report which this Government and this Parliament will ignore at their peril if the development of Canberra is to proceed in a proper and orderly way. This may sound a rather dramatic statement, but I assure honourable senators that it is nothing more or less than a statement of fact. The report ought, to be read by every member of the Parliament and particularly by every member of the Cabinet. Our inquiries, which were exhaustive in many respects, revealed that there had been grave miscalculations in respect of the future requirements of the community in the Australian Capital Territory, water conservation needs, population forecasts and requirements for the resumption of land. The Committee felt that these were matters of grave concern.

It is not my intention to go into the details that are contained in the report because, as other speakers have said, they can be read and they should be read by every member of the Parliament. We have heard references by Senators Cotton and Devitt to the fact that the hasty and ill advised way in which some of these activities were carried out was shown by the need for an ordinance to be rushed through in order that, some control could be exercised by the Parliament over the subdivision of freehold land in the Territory. It was quite obvious that the regulation that was promulgated did not, because of the hasty nature of its preparation, meet with the approval of the Senate, and the Senate was forced to amend it. This is indicative of the way in which a sudden realisation of the dangers which ought to have been realised many years ago manifested itself, and this point should not be lost sight of.

During the inquiry the Committee received twenty-eight submissions. It is true to say that a tremendous degree of public interest was shown not only in the nature of the inquiry but also in what the Committee might recommend. It is interesting to note some of the things which the Committee ascertained in its inquiry and which are revealed in the report. For instance, I was shocked to learn that 17% of the total area of the Australian Capital Territory is at present owned under freehold tenure. This area amounts to 97,621 acres. It is estimated that 250.000 people will be living in the Territory by 1980. It is calculated that practically all of. the land suitable for subdivision, including the 97.621 acres of freehold land, will be committed by the time the population reaches 400,000. Officers of the National Capital Development Commission estimate that the population of the Territory will amount to 400,000 before the turn of the century.

Senator Branson:

– The Australian Capital Territory will have to be enlarged.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I am coming to that point. During the inquiry, I asked representatives of the Commission whether, in view of (heir evidence relating to population trends, there was a likelihood that the Commission would run out of land. The witnesses admitted, not only that there was a likelihood of running out of land, but that almost certainly the Commission would run out of land.

Senator Sir Kenneth Morris:

– This is quite true.

Senator TOOHEY:

– This evidence points to the fact that the Government should now be considering whether it should negotiate with the Government of New South Wales for additional land for the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Webster:

– The National Capital Development Commission promoted that idea several years ago, did it not?

Senator TOOHEY:

– I think it did, but has this Government done anything in the matter? Does Senator Webster know?

Senator Webster:

– The land is still there.

Senator TOOHEY:

– 1 do not suggest that the land will not still be there in 20 or 40 years time.

Senator Webster:

– I make the point that this is not an innovation within the last 3 months.

Senator TOOHEY:

– 1 know that. It becomes a matter of interest because if it has been recognised, as Senator Webster so rightly points out, for the last 4 years that inevitably the need for more land in the Territory will create a problem, why wait until the last minute to start negotiations with the Government of New South Wales which is the only government wilh which negotiations on this matter can be held? I think that we as a Parliament should ask the National Capital Development Commission what it thinks will be needed, in what direction it thinks the Territory should be expanded and where the land is that it has in mind to negotiate to acquire.

Senator Webster:

– How many years does the honourable senator think the Commission should look ahead?

Senator TOOHEY:

– That is a question I am not able to answer but already our Committee has been informed by responsible officers of the Department of the Interior and the National Capital Development Commission that in assessing the future population of Canberra there have been miscalculations and that population targets have been reached considerably sooner than had been expected.

Senator Branson:

– In some cases 30 years sooner.

Senator TOOHEY:

– Exactly. Had Senator Webster been in the chamber when Senator Devitt spoke-

Senator Webster:

– I have been here all evening. 1 have listened to the debate with great interest.

Senator TOOHEY:

– Then Senator Webster will have heard Senator Devitt say that the original concept of Canberra has been expanded fourfold. I do not suggest that anybody is blameworthy for underestimating the growth rate of Canberra. Possibly everybody has done this, lt is a mistake that is easily made. But having made this mistake in the past we should be directing our efforts towards ensuring that we do not make it in the future. That is the relevant point.

The matter of water supply foi: the Territory was an important aspect of the Committee’s report. We know that there will be great activity in this direction. Plans are already in hand for the Naas-Gudgenby area to become one of the major sources of water for Canberra. I think the Committee’s inquiries, coupled with the present drought, indicate clearly that Canberra’s water requirements have been underestimated considerably. It is encumbent upon this Senate to think urgently about the water needs of the Territory. In view of what has happened in the last 2 years we must ask ourselves whether existing plans in respect of water conservation will meet the needs of a population which is estimated to exceed 400,000 people. This is a matter to which we should be giving immediate consideration.

One thing that emerged from our inquiry was a conflict of interest. The Committee was concerned by the fact that the subject of our inquiry impinged on the lives of a considerable number of owners of freehold land in the Territory. 1 am sure that my colleagues on the Committee will agree that these people were deeply concerned about their position. They feared what the Government might do in the future. I believe that they had forgotten all about the possibility of resumption, even though they must have known when they settled in the Territory on a freehold basis that at some time the evil day would come when the Government might need their land because of the expansion of the community. But this thought was not uppermost in their minds. The activities of the Committee brought it to the forefront of their minds. This matter was of some concern to the members of the Committee.

Senator Devitt:

– These people were shocked by the thought.

Senator TOOHEY:

– They were, lt did not make members of the Committee feel any happier. When you have to make recommendations which impinge on the lives of people and in some way restrict their rights it: is not a happy task, but it is something that has to be done. The longer you delay, the worse the problem becomes. The things that wc were doing in 1968 should have been done 10 or 15 years ago. If they had been done 10 or 15 years ago the blow which these landholders experienced in the threat to their security for the first time would not have been as severe as it was. Frankly, 1 felt sorry for people who thought that they had their land for life only to find their possessions threatened because of the possible needs of the community.

The recommendation in paragraph 49 relating to the powers of the Committee is an important one. If the Committee had possessed the powers which it seeks in this report it may have been in a position to warn the Government what was happening as far as land in the Territory is concerned and may have been able to offer valuable advice on the subject. I hope that, instead of being a rubber stamp, the Committee will be given some of the powers that it seeks.

One of the most interesting facts that came out of the Committee’s inquiry was that, apart from the evidence of the treeholders who were the people most vitally affected by the activities and inquiries of the Committee, the evidence of the other people who took an interest in the Committee’s activities was overwhelmingly in favour of acquisition. The attitude of the Canberra Chamber of Commerce, as set out on page 3 of the Committee’s report, is interesting. Part of the submission from the Chamber reads:

  1. Control by Acquisition

    1. We believe this subject must be studied in the light of. section 125 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

The seat of government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth . . .’

  1. Thus it would appear that the 93,000 acres which are the subject of this inquiry should have been acquired by the Commonwealth and now be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth.
  2. Section 125 implies that the Commonwealth is the trustee for the nation in respect of all land in the Australian Capital Territory. The Commonwealth may be accused of failing in its trust if it does not assume absolute control of all land within the boundaries of the Territory.

Perhaps that is not a revolutionary view, but it is a very strong view that is held by a group of people who could rightly claim to be among the most responsible of Canberra’s citizens. If that is the view of the Canberra Chamber of Commerce, the question that naturally flows from it is: How much sooner should it have been the Government’s view or our view that these things should have been done and that a proper understanding with the leaseholders should have been arrived at? 1 believe that every member of the Committee will agree with me when I say that there is no doubt that the possible imminence of any government acquisition came as ari absolute shock to the landholders.

There is something wrong in the lines of communication between the Government and the people holding land that the planners know inevitably will be required for the future development of the Australian Capital Territory when these people hear with shock of the possible acquisition of their land which they hold so dear. People who hold land have this particular type of belief: They believe that there is nothing more desirable and nothing more worth keeping then the land that surrounds them. Many of these people had not ever dreamt that they would face the possibility of imminent acquisition. That indicates a deplorable lack of communication between the Government and the people affected. I do not want to sound over-critical. I believe that that is a fair statement of the position.

The summary of recommendations as read by Senator Cotton constitutes the unanimous views of the Committee, except on one or two minor matters on which I think Senator Wood disagreed and submitted a minority report. Generally speaking, I believe that the Committee applied itself well to its task. It has indicated the real value of joint parliamentary committees on which members of both of the major political parties can get together, examine problems affecting the Commonwealth, arrive at so much unanimity and submit so much useful information as a result of their deliberations.

Senator Gair:

– The honourable senator does not limit it to the major political parties, does he?

Senator TOOHEY:

– Had Senator Gair been a member of the Committee, I would have been quite happy to include the minor political parties. Let me conclude by saying that at times we rightly criticise members of the Public Service, including some of the heads of departments who from time to time meet the various committees that the Parliament establishes. But I believe that we should put the record straight by referring to the ability and dedication of members of the Public Service. Because of the considerable area of inquiry on which the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory embarked, we had before us many officers of the Department of the Interior and the National Capital Development Commission. Whilst the Committee did not always agree with what they said or accept their advice or beliefs, we were profoundly impressed by the great ability and dedication of these highly skilled men. I am sure that many of them could treble their earnings if they were working in some organisation outside the Public Service. I was most impressed by some of the officers of the National Capital Development Commission in particular. I acknowledge the very helpful service given by Mr Browning, who was the first secretary of the Committee and who, because of other business, was replaced by Mr Barlin. I pay a special tribute to Mr Barlin who did so much in compiling this excellent report, which I commend to the Senate.

Senator Sir KENNETH MORRIS (Queensland) [9.37] - As a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which is responsible for the report that we are debating, I associate myself with the comments that have been made. In particular I endorse the remarks made by Senator Toohey. I am completely in accord with all the comments that he made. Among them were some critical comments, but I believe that they represented perfectly justifiable criticism. He regards this matter as strongly as I do. In his comments there was criticism, but there was also commendation of the officers of the Department of the Interior and the National Capital Development Commission as well as other people who appeared before the Committee and gave evidence. There was considerable evidence of interest in work that is rather unusual, I pay my earnest tribute to those people.

I wish to refer to a couple of things that Senator Toohey said. He said that some, possibly many, members of the Committee had reached the stage of frustration because the only matters that were referred to us as a committee were very mundane subjects, to use his words. Quite frankly, although I have not been a member of the Committee for very long, I had come to the conclusion that it was a sheer waste of time to meet and just act as a rubber stamp on decisions which had been made and which we could not change, and on matters about which we were not thoroughly informed because we did not have the experience of seeing the areas that were under discussion. Then controversies about leases arose in the latter part of last year. Many leaseholders were not happy about the terms and conditions that applied to them and other leaseholders. They made themselves heard. Some of us members of the Committee felt that this was an area in which an inquiry by the Committee would be most advantageous. We took the matter up with the then Minister for the Interior. Knowing that according to the basis on which the Committee was formed we could deal only with matters that were referred to us by the Minister, we specifically asked to have this matter referred to us. That gave rise to the letter quoted by Senator Cotton and other honourable senators. The letter is quoted on page 1 of the report and reads, in part

There is, however, a matter of very great importance affecting the Australian Capital Territory, and which calls for urgent attention.

Honourable senators have heard the remainder of the paragraph read. The word however’ is the link between our request to have the matter referred to us and the former Minister’s reply that he would not agree to the matter of leases being referred to us. However, another matter of great importance had arisen and this was being referred to us.

I am bound to say that the work that has followed the reference of the matter to the Committee has been, for me, extremely interesting. I would be delighted to serve on a committee so unanimous as this one in its desire to do the best possible job. The members came from different political parties: some from this chamber and some from the other place. The matter was not looked at from a political point of view. Everybody worked genuinely to try to evolve a report which would be for the good of Canberra itself. I believe the report is in that category. However, I believe that we have to remember that, after all, this is only a report. The report is the result pf many hours work by those people who were on the Committee, but it is still only a report. As Senator Toohey said, the report deals with matters which seriously affect the future of many df the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. I have no doubt that those residents have read the report and studied it very carefully. The matter remains in doubt until the present Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) indicates that, he intends to accept the proposals contained in the report. I believe that the hours spent on the report will have been wasted unless the present Minister makes some definite statement. The reference to the Committee was made by the Minister’s predecessor, but ‘ that does not alter the fact-

Senator Wright:

– What reference did the Minister’s predecessor make?

Senator Sir KENNETH MORRIS:

– The

Minister’s predecessor referred the matter to the Committee. The report goes to the former Minister’s successor, who is pre sently the Minister. 1 appeal earnestly and seriously to the present Minister to indicate publicly his attitude towards the recommendations contained in the report. If he does so I will feel that not only has a very good job been done by the members of the Committee but also that it is bearing fruit. That is the most important aspect that I want personally to stress tonight.

I do not intend to deal with all the recommendations contained in the report. Honourable senators are able to see the recommendations for themselves. Senator Cotton gave a most thorough and careful analysis of the report. I again join with other honourable senators, Senator Toohey in particular, who stressed the urgency of the recommendation that applies to the water supply and catchment areas of Canberra. I believe that the matter is one of even greater urgency than has been stated already. Only yesterday Canberra residents’ were being warned not to use any more water than was necessary because of the grave emergency that existed. Certainly that position has been relieved somewhat by the rains that fell last night, but that does not give relief in the long term. I believe that the matter is a very urgent one.

The second matter that T consider urgent concerns the last recommendation in the report, which is contained in paragraph 49 on page 14. I reiterate that I believe the time has come when action should be taken to amend the. resolution of appointment of the Committee to enable it to undertake investigations upon its own initiative. The Committee consists of responsible members of both Houses who, in this particular report, have given evidence of their responsibility. I believe that the members should be regarded as so responsible in their task that they will not ask for authority to investigate matters that are not of considerable importance. I plead with the Minister to accept that recommendation as well as the other recommendations.

I would like to refer to one pleasant aspect. It is that since the report has been presented to the Minister and circulated, the Committee has had referred to it a further matter related to a feature of Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory. That is the matter of wholesale fruit markets and the desirability or otherwise of their early establishment. Perhaps this is evidence of a new approach by the present Minister.

He has referred the matter to us for investigation. I hope it is the forerunner of many other references. Unfortunately for myself, I will not then be a member of the Committee. I again associate myself wholly with the report and the comments of honourable senators, especially those of Senator Toohey.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Before 1 concluded my first series of remarks I said that, if I was given the chance to do so, after honourable senators had concluded their speeches, I would deal with the summary of recommendations, which is the real heart of the report on Australian Capital Territory freehold lands. Honourable senators will have gathered that the matter has been one of great interest to me, although regrettably 1 was a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory for only a very short time. The report deals with the varying areas of consideration and the various matters that were taken into account. It recapitulates some history and states some facts. At the end there are some recommendations and these are summarised on pages 12, 13 and 14. Honourable senators have stressed very forcibly the joint character of the work that took place in the Committee. Also they have stressed, as I bel’ieve they properly should, the seriousness of the recommendations. Some of them are not light recommendations. They have an affect on people’s lives and on people’s property. To some extent they propose to deprive some people of what they have regarded always as their inalienable rights. These matters were dealt with very seriously by all members of the Committee as Senator Toohey said. Nobody was happy about the thought that somebody might need to have his freehold purchased from him for reasons which were cumulatively greater than his own need. There were also other matters taken into account and, although they are not as precise, they are equally as important. They relate to the calculation of future need, the assessment of future problems that might arise and future difficulties that will occur if some thought is not given to them now.

It is quite fair to comment that it did appear to some of us that some of the action that was contemplated here, and recommended, ought to have been thought about a good deal earlier. But I imagine it is always the province of those who recommend to be able to say that some body else should have done certain things at a much earlier date. Suffice it to say that I would be satisfied if, fairly soon, this report resulted in the bringing down of legislation which guarded against people being able to say 40 years or so from now that the people who were in the Parliament in the years between 1960 and 1975 were recreant to the trust which they held on behalf of the people of Australia and the National Capital.

In considering these recommendations, thought should be given to two aspects of the problem. The first is what might be described in simple form as ‘some deprivation of rights which people have had for a long time’. The second is the future benefits to be derived from accepting the recommendations. The first recommendation contained in the summary in paragraph 46 is:

That all freehold land in the Australian Capital Territory should be subject to control of its subdivision and use.

That recommendation is important and its effects are far reaching and wide. I think that the Committee has demonstrated that its acceptance is necessary. The second recommendation is:

That the ‘Basic Ideas Framework’ proposed by the Department of the Interior with the modification recommended in paragraph 32, is suitable as a basis for permanent legislation for the control of the subdivision and use of freehold land in the Australian Capital Territory.

If this recommendation is accepted, then one might expect that at some point of time in the future the members of the House of Representatives and honourable senators will be called upon to debate and discuss the permanent legislation that ought to flow from the considerations outlined in the report now under consideration. If that does happen, then full consideration should be given to the adoption of the basic ideas framework which is dealt with in detail in the report.

The basic ideas framework is important because when the time comes when control is taken over the subdivision and use of freehold lands there are bound to be some who will not have taken the trouble to find out exactly what the position was and who will not have been worrying because they really thought that such a thing would not happen. They will find that, because of the good work that was done by the Joint Committee of the Australian Capital Territory, their lands are included in zone 2 and they are not allowed to subdivide. For example, a man who occupied a farm of, say, 1,000 acres and who wanted to subdivide it in order to give 330 acres to each of three sons might object to the introduction of the legislation on the ground that it represents a deprivation of his normal rights.

Senator Wright:

– ls there any opportunity given to the landholder to object?

Senator COTTON:

– Yes. In condition (e), relating to zone 2 it is provided that subdivision is to be approved by a responsible authority subject to the provisions of the proposed legislation and condition (f) provides for the right of appeal to a tribunal against refusal of an application for subdivision. The Committee did have that point in mind. It placed itself in the position of a man who might have a piece of grazing country further south and who now finds his holding included in zone 2. The man might have three sons and might want to subdivide his land in order to give each son a farm. Thar man might ask what right an authority had to refuse him permission to subdivide his land and to refuse permission for an appeal. This illustrates the five points which the Committee considered in its desire to ensure justice for all concerned.

I am sorry to be taking such a long time in discussing the report but, after all, we have not had such a great deal of time to deal with the matter, and I do say in all seriousness that if our proposals become part of permanent legislation, as I think they will, then no doubt that legislation will have a great effect on a lot of people who are now engaged in certain activities. The basic ideas framework is important in safeguarding the interests of future generations who will be occupying the Australian Capital Territory and this city. Under the zoning conditions, it will not be possible to subdivide certain lands; other lands may be subdivided, with limitations as to the areas into which they can be subdivided.

Some might ask why we have limited the subdivision to areas no smaller than 500 acres. Some might ask why we do not propose allowing subdivision into farms of 100 acres or some areas smaller than 500 acres. We heard a great deal of evidence on this matter, and in dealing with the point we gave consideration to the productivity of the land involved. In the main, the land is not very fertile. It has no great depth of topsoil. It does not have a very high potential. Certain members of the Commitee asked whether these difficulties could be overcome by the application of fertilisers. They were told that this would nol be effective as only a limited amount of water was available. We were dealing with land much of which might be called land of marginal utility’, which could not be converted into highly fertile farms where vegetables could bc grown for the people of the ACT. I repeat that the ability to improve the productivity of the land was given the fullest possible consideration.

When considering all these problems, we were faced with a number of factors. We looked forward to the problems of the future. It was rightly stated by Senators Wood, Toohey, Devitt and Sir Kenneth Morris that water supply presented a great problem. Here we had to endeavour to make certain of two things. The first was to ensure that we did not lose control over the catchment area with the result that the water supply would get out of our hands. The second important requirement was that adequate steps should be taken to prevent the destruction of this area’s potential as a source of future water supply by allowing over-grazing of the land, by allowing indiscriminate lighting of fires on the properties concerned and by not ensuring that steps are taken to guard against soil erosion and siltation. Broadly, that is the purpose of the recommendations we have made.

In coming to our conclusions, we have sought to bring about a situation that gives justice and some equity to those who are now in possession of the land while at the same time preparing for the future needs of the ACT in relation to land use patterns including recreation and the provision of future water supply for the kind of national capital and national capital territory that the population expansion in the Territory ensures will develop.

Question resolved in the affirmative. .

page 675

GENERAL BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to -

That further consideration of General Business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business,

page 676

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1968

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 Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

The primary purpose of this Bill is to give the force of law to a new agreement for the avoidance of double taxation that has been negotiated between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Bill also proposes some changes in the income tax law that arise out of provisions of the agreement. The new agreement was signed in Canberra on 7th December 1967 and has already been given parliamentary approval in the United Kingdom. Until we also approve it in Australia., however, it does not have the force of law in either country. Some months of careful negotiation preceded the new agreement. This has resulted in mutually satisfactory arrangements which, in the Government’s view, are far better balanced from Australia’s standpoint, than the arrangements the new agreement .will replace. The earlier arrangements are embodied in an agreement concluded in 1946 and will be terminated when the new agreement comes into force. 1 think honourable senators are familiar with the general aims and purposes of a bilateral double taxation agreement. Such an agreement, is of course, designed to prevent double taxation on income flowing between the two countries party to it. But it is also designed to apportion the tax collections on this income between the contracting governments on a basis which is satisfactory to each. If trade and investment between two countries are to be fostered and facilitated, it is clearly desirable that businessmen and investors living in one country should be able to plan their transactions in the other country with a large degree of certainty as to what their taxation liabilities will be, both at home and abroad. When the respective taxing rights of each country are spelt out in a double taxation agreement, businessmen and investors can more easily do this and, at the same time, be sure that they will not run into a situation where both countries tax the same income without either allowing relief for the tax of the other.

Conclusion of an agreement does, however, present some difficult problems. Double taxation of the same income cannot be avoided without one or other of the countries giving up some or all of the tax it would otherwise collect. This means, as I have already said, that some satisfactory way of sharing the tax has to be devised. There are no clear cut answers as to how this should be done, particularly where there is an imbalance in the flow of income between the two countries. On one view, any country should be able to look to its own residents to contribute at normal rates of tax, on all income they derive, to the cost of government of the country and the benefits it provides for its residents. Further, it can be argued that the country which is the source of capital invested in the other country, presumably to the benefit of that other country, is entitled to a reasonable share of the taxation yielded by the investment. In opposition to these arguments the country in which the income originates can argue that in providing the conditions necessary for producing the income it acquires the main right to the taxation revenue on that income.

In this general context, a number of methods are used to relieve double taxation. One method requires either the country of residence of the recipient or the country from which the income is drawn, to exempt particular classes of income from its tax. Another method requires the country in which particular kinds of income originate to limit its tax on that income, or the country in which the recipient resides to give credit against its tax for the tax of the country of source. Each of these methods is used in relation to the new agreement with the United Kingdom. From what I have said, it will be clear that on this aspect of double taxation agreements the aim must be to reach a compromise satisfactory in the light of each country’s general1 interests. The Government is confident that the new agreement, which was negotiated against the background of changes in the British tax law designed to make overseas investment less attractive than it had previously been, achieves just such a compromise.

The new agreement differs from the 1946 agreement in a number of important respects and I shall refer to these when speaking about particular aspects of the new agreement. First of all, I refer to dividends. Under the 1946 agreement, dividends paid by an Australian company to a United Kingdom company that wholly owns the Australian company are, in general, completely exempt from Australian tax. Other dividends paid to residents of the United Kingdom are subject to 15% Australian withholding tax, that is, half the general withholding tax rate of 30%. Under the new agreement the exemption for United Kingdom parent companies no longer applies as from 15th December 1967 and all dividends flowing from Australia to the United Kingdom will be subject to the 15% rate unless, speaking in a most general way, they are part of the receipts of a business carried on here. Conversely, dividends flowing from the United Kingdom to Australia will, unless they are receipts of a business carried on in the United Kingdom, be subject to 15% United Kingdom tax. The normal United Kingdom rate is currently 41.25%.

It is of interest to observe that profits of Australian public companies distributed as dividends to United Kingdom residents will initially have borne Australian tax at the company rate of 42.5%, so that out of each Si 00 of profit derived in Australia and distributed to United Kingdom shareholders, there is company tax of $42.50 plus withholding tax of $8.62; that is, 15% of the $57.50 of profit remaining after payment of the company tax. The total Australian tax is thus $51.12. I suggest this represents a reasonable contribution to Australian revenue and that the arrangements 1 have outlined secure a fair share of the tax revenue to Australia without, in any way, discouraging investment here of United Kingdom capital.

Where, speaking in a general way, dividends are part and parcel of the proceeds of a business carried on in one country by a resident of the other, the country where the business is carried on will be able to exact its full rate of tax on the dividends by ordinary assessment processes. A corresponding provision will apply to royalties and interest in respect of which, as 1 shall go on to explain, the country of origin will otherwise be required to limit its tax. Most royalties are subject to tax only in the country of residence under the 1946 agreement. The new agreement provides that the country where royalties originate may tax them, but generally its tax is not to exceed 10% of the gross royalties. This means that Australia is regaining significant taxing rights that it had forgone under the 1946 agreement. Another Bill which will be introduced later on is designed to ensure that the taxing rights regained will prove fully effective. As to interest, the new agreement provides that each country is generally to limit to 10% its tax on interest flowing to the other. The normal rate of Australian withholding tax is, of course, 10%. The British rate, on the other hand, is currently 41.25%.

The treatment of shipping and airline profits is also of interest. Under the 1946 agreement - as indeed under our other three agreements with the United States, Canada and New Zealand - the basic principle is that the country of residence of a shipowner, or of an airline company, has the sole right to tax shipping and airline profits. The new agreement with the United Kingdom continues this as regards profits derived in the course of international traffic but concedes taxing rights to the other country as regards profits from voyages or flights solely between places in that country.

Turning to business profits of an enterprise resident in one country, the new agreement follows the customary arrangement that these may be taxed in the other country if, broadly speaking, they are derived there through what amounts to a branch or, as it is termed in double taxation agreements, a ‘permanent establishment’. The definition of permanent establishment for this purpose is a comprehensive one viewed as being quite satisfactory to Australia.

I have now dealt with the principal classes of income to which the agreement extends. There are other provisions, customary in international tax agreements-, regarding the income of visiting businessmen, entertainers, teachers and students. For a visiting businessman who is an employee or director, the general rule is that his remuneration is not to bc taxed in the country visited unless bis visit exceeds 183 days in a year of income. This rule does not apply to entertainers. These may be taxed by the country visited on income derived from their activities there. The length of the visit is not relevant. Pensions, either governmental or private, will be exempt from tax in the country of source whether or not they are taxable in the country where the pensioner resides. The remuneration of government employees will, on the other hand, be generally taxed only by the paying government.

A most important feature of the agreement is that it provides comprehensive arrangements which ensure that, where both countries tax the same income, the country in which the taxpayer resides will give credit for the tax of the country of source. The general effect is that the total tax payable cannot exceed the higher of the taxes imposed by each country. A further substantial point is that, except where otherwise specified in the agreement, the country of source of income will retain its full rights to tax the income on whatever basis it considers appropriate from time to time. In Australia the new agreement will apply as from 1st July 1967 and the 1946 agreement will be terminated then. There are, however, some transitional provisions to apply for the 1967-68 income year. These will facilitate smooth transition from the operation of the 1946 agreement into the application of the new agreement.

In addition to giving the force of law to the new agreement, the Bill makes some amendments to the existing income tax law that were announced in the statement which the Treasurer made on 15th December 1967. Except as to dividends, Australia’s general way of relieving its residents from double taxation on income derived abroad, and taxed there, is to grant an exemption from Australian tax. Dividends taxed abroad are taxed again here but a credit is allowed for the foreign tax, up to the amount of the Australian tax. The Bill proposes that this credit system be applied also in respect of interest and royalties on which the United Kingdom tax is limited by the agreement to 10%. Honourable senators will appreciate that it would be unduly generous on our part to allow these classes of income to go free of Australian tax merely because they have borne a rate of tax no higher than 10% in the United Kingdom. Moreover, to do so would mean forgoing revenue that the United Kingdom has conceded to us by the new agreement.

The credit system will be applied to interest, royalties and dividends from the United Kingdom by including the gross amount of this income in Australian assessable income, ascertaining the Australian tax payable on the income, comparing that with the United Kingdom tax paid, and allowing a credit for the United Kingdom tax to the extent that it does not exceed the Australian tax. Since this kind of income may form only a component part of Australian taxable income, formulae are required to ascertain the Australian tax on it. These are provided by the Bill. Because of a rebate allowed in Australia, dividends derived by Australian companies from the United Kingdom are effectively free of Australian tax. There will accordingly be no credit for United Kingdom tax on these dividends. Detailed explanations of technical aspects of the agreement and the Bill are contained in a comprehensive explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators and I do not think I need say more about them at this stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 678

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1968

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 Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The primary purpose of this Bill is to insert a definition of ‘royalty’ in the income tax law and to specify the circumstances in which a royalty derived by a non-resident is to be treated as having a source in Australia. These amendments are designed to correct some deficiencies in the law relating to the taxation of royalties flowing from Australia to residents of other countries. A general principle of the income tax law is that a non-resident is subject to Australian tax in respect of income that has its source in Australia. The law provides that an amount derived as or by way of royalty by a non-resident is, subject to any exempting provisions, liable to Australian tax if the payment has an Australian source, lt does not, however, contain a clear definition of the meaning of royalty or any specific provisions for determining the source of a royalty payment to a non-resident.

Under our double taxation agreement, Australia retains the right to tax royalties. However, except in the new agreement with the United Kingdom, royalties are not defined and this means that the term must take whatever meaning it has under the Australian income tax law. The lack of a clear definition of the term in that law tends to place narrow constraints on the operation of the agreements in respect of items of income that are in the general nature of royalties. For example, payments for industrial know-how or the right to show films may have to be treated as income other than royalties. Another and probably more important reason for our inability to tax substantial amounts of royalty income flowing overseas is that, although the income has a very definite connection with Australia, in that it is paid out of profits earned here and for rights used here, it does not have a source in Australia as the term source’ is interpreted under our law. There is an increasing trend for an Australian source to be avoided by arrangements such as the execution of the relevant contracts abroad and by providing for payment of the royalties to be made abroad.

The Bill proposes two measures designed to establish a liability to tax on these amounts in order to secure an appropriate contribution to the Australian revenue on royalty income now flowing overseas free of Australian tax. Firstly, the Bill proposes that the term ‘royalty’ be defined. This is being done by adopting into the income tax law a definition of royalty in the new double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom. In this connection, I point out to honourable senators that a definition of the term ‘royalty’ along these lines is not uncommon in the international sphere. For example, a similar definition has been included in the standard double taxation agreement devised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada are amongst the countries which are members of that Organisa tion. The definition proposed will encompass any consideration derived in the form of income for the use of, or the right to use, items of industrial property such as patents, trade marks and copyrights, and for the supply of knowhow. It will also include payments received as income for the use or letting of machinery or other equipment and for the right to show films.

The second measure proposed will modify the general source rules that now govern our ability to tax royalties paid to non-residents. A royalty paid by an Australian resident to a non-resident will be treated as having a source in Australia except to the extent that it is attributable to a business carried on by the payer outside Australia. Where a royalty is paid by one non-resident to another non-resident, it will be treated as having an Australian source to the extent to which it is an expense of a business carried on in Australia by the payer. In this connection I recall to honourable senators that these source rules correspond with those adopted in legislation enacted last year to introduce a withholding tax on interest payments flowing overseas from Australia. I also mention that the rules proposed are ones that receive wide international recognition.

Royalties that are exempt from Australian tax under specific provisions of double taxation agreements will continue to be exempt. Copyright royalties paid lo residents of the United States, Canada and New Zealand are in this category. The new provisions are to apply to royalties paid on or after 1st July next. Amounts to which the new provisions apply will be subject to tax in Australia by assessment processes. This means that deductions will be allowed to the non-resident, in accordance wilh ordinary principles, for expenses incurred in deriving the royalty income, and the net amount of the royalties will be taxed al the appropriate general rates of tax. The Australian tax on royalties flowing to the United Kingdom will, however, be limited to 10 per cent of the gross royalties. Under existing provisions of the income tax law, a payer of royalties is obliged to deduct amounts sufficient to cover the tax that will ultimately be assessed. The Bill proposes to strengthen these provisions in minor respects.

Other provisions of the Bill which are associated with the new double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom are explained in the explanatory memorandum on the Bill being circulated for the information of honourable senators. That memorandum also contains more detailed information about the proposed royalty amendments.I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 680

ADJOURNMENT

Political Parties - Beach Erosion - Death of Air Vice-Marshal Bostock

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I was surprised on reaching home on the day after we went into recess 3 weeks ago. to read in the Press that on the adjournment in another place an attack had been made on a gentleman named J. P. Forrester by Mr James. M.P.I thinkI had better read his words as they appear in a report thatI saw. Referring to a dispute in the airways organisation, it reads: . . This dispute’ has all the hallmarks of being: a conspiracy in which Ansett-ANA and the Secretary of the Flight Stewards Association of Australia are acting in collusion to damage Ansett’s chief rival, Trans-Australia Airlines and to wreck the overseas airlines Qantas. I believe that the flight stewards are being misled bytheir secretary, Mr J. P. Forrester, who is, I believe, part of the conspiracy deliberately to ground TAA and Qantas aircraft. For a long time now it has been genuinely accepted that. Ansett Transport Industries has been contributing to Australian Democratic Labor Party funds. It is also well known that Mr J. P. Forres ter is a considered agent of the Democratic Labor Party and the National Civic Council.

Mr Hayden He is a member.

Mr James I am reminded that he is a member.

I read that with some surprise because I have never heard of this conspiracy. Reading on, I learned that the information was contained in a pamphlet printed about Mr Forrester by someone who docs not like him and had provided no evidence of the conspiracy. However, I do not want to talk about the large number of people and organisations Mr James attacked on the basis of this pamphlet. They can speak for themselves. I want to speak for the DLP. Mr Hayden said that Mr Forrester is a member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. 1 have made inquiries of our office in Sydney and have teamed that Mr

Forrester has never been a member of the DLP. On the contrary he has been for years, and still is, a member of the Australian Labor Party. If the ALP has any unwanted babies let me say to it: ‘Please do not dump them on our doorstep. Dispose of them yourself wherever you feel you can do so’.

Three weeks ago Mr James could not have heard of the very eloquent decision of the ALP last week to the effect that members of the Party should not attack one another publicly because his action in attacking a fellow member of the ALP under the cloak of privilege is an obvious breach of that rule. He went further and sought to justify his action by claiming that the man is a member of the DLP. He is not and never has been a member of the DLP. I have been informed by our representatives in Sydney that when the DLP was formed there following the split in the ALP Mr Forrester firmly refused to leave the ALP. He made it perfectly clear that he would remain with the ALP.I understand that he is still a member of that Party.

Apparently the suggestion is that there is a conspiracy, that Mr Ansett has given money to the DLP and that Mr Forrester has been influenced to do certain things. I should like to see the evidence on which Mr James based his claim that Mr Ansett contributes to the DLP.I have not any evidence to that effect and I should like him to supply it. As a man of truth, I am sure that he would not have acted unless he had evidence to support him. Since he has raised the question of help from Mr Ansett, let me direct his attention to the 1 5th March 1968 edition of ‘Fact’, the official organ of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party. Everyone knows that the journal’s literary quality would not lead anyone to buy it. Everyone knows that the name ‘Fact’ is a complete misnomer and everyone knows that its circulation is so small that when anyone places an advertisement in it he is really, making a donation to the Party. The 15th March 1968 issue contains a large block on page 3 in which appear these words:

This space has been kindly donated by Ansair Ply Ltd. Bulla Road, North Essendon.

There is a straightout donation to the ALP by Mr Ansett.Yet a member of the ALP says: ‘It is a shocking thing for anyone to take money from Mr Ansett because he is a conspirator’. I have produced evidence that Mr Ansett makes donations to the ALP because ‘Fact’ states:

Tin’s space has been kindly donated by Ansair Pty Ltd.

I should like Mr James to produce evidence that the DLP is supported in that way.

Probably on the basis of the pamphlet which has been printed by this gentleman of whom no-one has ever heard, Mr James claims that the Flight Engineers Association is located at 324 Pitt Street, Sydney, and goes on to list all kinds of undesirable organisations that he says are located in the same building or on the same floor - the New Settlers Federation, a couple of legal firms - he claims they are no good - Mr Forrester and a number of other people. From inquiries I have learned that the offices of the Joint Airways Association are no longer in that building. They may have been at one time but for 12 or 15 months they have not been in this building in which Mr James claims all these suspect bodies are located. The offices of the Association are at 926a Botany Road, Mascot.

Even if they were in that building that surely does not give rise to suspicion because one could have an office next door to a person whom somebody does not like. In Melbourne I have an office in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices. Next door to my office is Mr Whitlam’s office. I hope no-one will draw any undue inferences from that because if anyone does so I can point out that on the other side of Mr Whitlam’s office is Senator Murphy’s office and on the other side of the passage is Mr Barnard’s office. I am extremely flattered by the fact that when those three gentlemen asked for offices to be made available to them in Melbourne - no doubt they had a choice of any location in the building - they chose to cluster around me.

Senator Webster:

– I am on that floor too.

Senator McMANUS:

– Yes, the honourable senator is there as well. I hope no-one will draw any undue inferences from the fact that those gentlemen have their offices next to mine.

If the ALP thought that Mr Forrester was an undesirable person I wish it had warned me. When he was in Canberra a couple of months ago fighting for some legislation of concern to his union his case was taken up by members of the ALP who put up a very good fight for him. He came to me and made it clear that he was a member of the ALP and that the ALP was conducting his case but he also wanted to put his case to us. I spoke a few words on his behalf in the firm belief that the ALP, from the manner in which it had accepted him, regarded him as a reputable trade union official. If, on any occasion in the future, the ALP lacks confidence in a trade union official who is a member of the Party and a former member of the State Executive of the Party, 1 think it should let me know.

I conclude by saying that 1 have no evidence nor have I received evidence from anyone that Mr Forrester is anything but a reputable trade union official. I believe him to be such and I intend to treat him as such until I receive some real evidence that he does not deserve that treatment. In my view he is a reputable official. 1 am surprised that being a member of the Australian Labor Party, he was attacked in. this way under privilege by members of his own Party who accused him of belonging to another Party.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to deal with the subject of beach erosion. At the outset let me say that this is one of the many facets of development in this country in relation to which eventually the Commonwealth Government will have to assume responsibility just as the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada have done. Honourable senators may recall that late last year I asked question No. 343 in response to a request from a number of New South Wales north coast municipalities - simitar questions had also been asked in the Queensland Parliament - seeking information on what the Commonwealth Government was prepared to do in this field. I received a letter dated 19th January 1968 from Mr Fairbairn, Minister for National Development, which had been cleared through the Prime Minister’s office, in which he stated that the Commonwealth Government did not propose to intervene in matters outside the Australian Capital Territory that were specifically a State responsibility.

In the intervening period I have made extensive investigations, in company with shire and municipal representatives, along the New South Wales coast from the northern beaches of the Sydney metropolitan area to the Queensland border. It is obvious that the problem will increase in magnitude and that the financial resources of the municipal councils will not be able to cope with it. To give honourable senators an idea of the magnitude of such a problem 1 point out that at present in California over $lm a year is spent in an effort to preserve beaches and combat sand erosion. Without any lengthy discourse by me on this subject, I think honourable senators will accept that in this modern world in which we live we have a problem with sand erosion. With all the high density housing and the untrammelled development operations that are occurring a lot of the sand dunes are being levelled out and stripped of protective grass. Jetties and other intrusions into rivers and oceans are interfering with the normal pattern of currents and serious erosion is being caused at so-called high energy beaches.

In the United States of America is a Federal agency which is actually an appendage of the United States of Amenca Army Corps of Engineers and it is known as the Beach Erosion Board. This instrumentality has done extensive research into certain types of sea grasses that will bind sand dunes. Beyond that, methods of transporting sand back to denuded beaches have been developed. The important thing here is that this is being done by a Federal agency and not by the States. Across the border in Canada some kindred projects - and I use the word advisedly because I do not want to get into the subject of water pollution which 1 know is dear to Senator Henty - involve a three-tier approach by municipal, State and Federal authorities. In one State in Canada the councils are paying 15% of the expenditure and the residue is being met by the Government of Canada and the provincial government. I am endeavouring to make a point that while at this stage the Commonwealth is a bit diffident, if we are to link this erosion with our responsibilities in regard to tourism we will have to intervene to some degree at some stage. I believe that now is the time.

Taking the problem down to the lower echelons we find that we are confronted with the difficulties of the smaller organisations. May I take as a classic point the

Byron Bay subdivision of the Richmond electorate. I received correspondence from Mr D. G. McDonald, who is the convenor of a group up there in this relatively sparsely populated area. People may ask what the community is doing towards this problem. These people took me along with them and showed me an area now about 40 yards out in the surf, where there had been a tennis court 4 years ago. I asked them what they had been doing and they said that they bad organised working bees with sand bags and various fillings. They had also tried certain grasses but found that they could only do a certain amount. The shire council could only do a certain amount and they had all looked in vain for government assistance.

Somebody may ask what the State Government is doing. I noticed earlier this week that the New South Wales Premier, Mr Askin, was very critical of the handouts that he has received from this Government. It is not for me to buy into a dispute between Mr Askin and the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), but it seems to mc as an Australian - each one of us in the Senate is supposed to look at things in a broad national way - that if we let the problem of beach erosion develop as it is developing at present we will find at some point of time that we will have to spend millions of dollars whereas today much smaller sums would suffice. I know that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), who is sitting at the table, had a very lengthy service in local government. The first submission I make to him is that our Embassy in Washington be directed to confer with the United States Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Board and obtain all the necessary reports. This information could then be conveyed to the various State and local government authorities for examination. Secondly, there is no reason why we could not give the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation a considerable sum of money for research on grass and shrub binding and then compare the results with those produced by certain vegetation that has been successfully experimented with in Carolina and other American States. I think that these two initial efforts would be an indication to local government authorities that the Commonwealth Government was trying to do something positive.

The Minister for National Development - a glorious tide - seems to have only one role and that is to act as master of ceremonies when there is a big project for the handing out of some of our national resources. He does not seem to be doing much about conserving for the future. I make this appeal to the Leader of the Government in the Senate to undertake to convey to the Prime Minister and attendant Ministers the suggestions that I have made and which I hope will be acted upon. I hope that when research has been undertaken by CSIRO and there has been an evaluation of the American experience the Department of National Development will set up the equivalent of the Beach Erosion Board, which is virtually a Federal agency in the United States, to do something positive in the conservation field. I hope that the fear of going into new fields that seems to affect this Government at times will be overcome and that relief will be given to our coastal residents through the partnership which is the cornerstone of our Federal system.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD (Victoria) [10.36] - 1 would like to take this opportunity to place on record the regret of all honourable senators at the death of a former Victorian member of the House of Representatives, Air Vice-Marshal William Dowling Bostock, who died at Benalla on 27th April this year. The late Air Vice-Marshal Bostock was elected to the House of Representatives for Indi, Victoria, at the general elections in 1949, 1951, 1954 and 1955. He was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs from 29th February 1952 to 4th November 1955.

Air Vice-Marshal Bostock had a very distinguished military career. He enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force on 23rd November 1914 and embarked on 22nd December of that year. He transferred to the Royal Flying Corps as a lieutenant on 18th February 1917. He enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force in 1921 and was at the Royal Air Force staff college at Andover from 1926 to 1928. Air ViceMarshal Bostock was Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, RAAF, from 1939 to 1940 and he was Air Officer Commanding RAAF Command Allied Air Forces in 1941. He was then appointed to General Brett who, under General Douglas Macarthur, commanded the Allied Air Force in the South

West Pacific during World War II. He directed most of the RAAF squadrons in all their spheres and at times major elements of the United States Fifth Air Force in the South Pacific.

He was awarded the OBE, DSO and the Belgian Croix dc Guerre in 1918, and he was created a Companion of the Bath in 1942. He was awarded the Medal of Freedom with Silver Palm, United States of America, in 1946 and retired on 19th April 1946 with the rank of Air Vice-Marshal. Air Vice-Marshal Bostock, whom I knew very well, was a devoted family man. He is survived by a widow, two daughters and three sons, to whom we offer our deepest sympathy.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I should like to associate myself personally and other members of the Opposition with the expressions of condolence to the family of the late Air Vice-Marshal William Dowling Bostock, who died on 27th April last. During the time that he was in this Parliament he endeared himself to members on both sides of both Houses of the Parliament as a man of great character, of very pleasant and affable personality and of obvious strength. In his long and distinguished career, he saw the birth of the Royal Australian Air Force. Having been in the Royal Flying Corps in the 1914-18 War and joined the Royal Australian Air Force, he saw this Service right through from its infancy to its days of greatest activity, accomplishment and achievement in the serious situation that confronted Australia in the Pacific in the 1939-45 war. He was honoured at both the military level and the civil level with very high honours that are bestowed on great servicemen and great citizens. He led an active and purposeful life. When he was in the Parliament and after retiring from it he was able to find the well earned reward of life on the land as a grazier at Benalla. The last time I saw him he seemed to have rounded off a very meritorious and well spent life devoted to his country and his fellow men. I offer to his widow and family our very deep sympathy in the great loss of a very fine gentleman.

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

– Members of the Australian Country Party would like to be associated with these expressions of condolence to the family of a very fine man. His military service has been recounted. Australia has been very fortunate indeed to have service from a man of the calibre of Air Vice-Marshal Bostock. He was unknown to me personally but he would have been known to Senator Sir Walter Cooper. We join with members of other parties in offering our condolences to his sorrowing relatives.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I should like to join in the expressions of sympathy in connection with the passing of Air Vice-Marshal Bostock, which were initiated by Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood and supported by Senator O’Byrne on behalf of the Opposition and Senator Mc Kell ar on behalf of the Australian Country Party. Perhaps I could round the matter off for all of us by saying that we as a Senate wish to convey to his widow and family our very real sympathy on his passing. I knew him well. He was a fine character. It comes to very few men to serve their country with such distinction as he achieved in peace and] in war. Air Vice-Marshal Bostock served this Australia that he loved so much gallantly in war and as a devoted member of the National Parliament. I am sure that all of us would want his widow to be aware of our very real sympathy in her bereavement.

Senator Mulvihill raised a matter in relation to beach erosion and stated a case for Commonwealth intervention. He said that the mutter had been put previously to the Commonwealth and the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) had indicated that the Government’s view was that the matter was not within the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The substance of the honourable senator’s case, I felt, was built on experience in combating beach erosion in the United States of America. It seems to me that if his argument were taken to its logical conclusion, inevitably the point would be reached at which, when anything which seemed worth while had not been done by the third tier of Government - local government - or by a State government, one would immediately say that this was something that the Commonwealth should do, should be doing or should have done. I find this to be not a sustain able argument. We have a constitutional system in which responsibilities are defined.

I do not think it is quite accurate to suggest that local government authorities do not carry out extensive work against beach erosion. I well remember in my own days in local government that although we did not have beach erosion we certainly had river flats, and one of the stirring items in our policy for election was the reclamation of swamp and river flat areas. I suppose there would not be a municipality or shire near the water which does not have a continuing job on reclamation in some form or other. Very frequently it is done in conjunction with garbage disposal. Huge areas are reclaimed, filled with soil and made into beautiful parks and playgrounds. At the State government level, tremendous work has been and is being done on the problem of beach erosion. We know that Acts of Parliament in relation to the winning of valuable mineral sands like rutile provide for restoration of the foreshore. I find it hard to accept that the Commonwealth should undertake responsibility for beach erosion. I have a property at the beach. I suppose every beach - and there are many of them - in the Cumberland County Council area, both south of Sydney Harbour and north of the Harbour, and right up the coast to Queensland, has some degree of erosion as a result of the storms that we have had. Municipalities and shires have a responsibility for dealing with it.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about research?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I shall come to research in a moment. Councils are gatherers of revenue for expenditure on work that falls within a restricted compass and in my opinion they should accept responsibility for the type of work which we are now discussing.

I agree that a tremendous amount of research into this problem remains to be done. 1 was interested in the technique adopted to save houses at one of Sydney’s beaches during the last big storm in the area. I refer to what was done at Bilgola Beach near Avalon. It is my understanding that on that occasion the ratepaying owners of properties had to accept the financial responsibility for what was done because the local council felt that it was unable to do so.

Already a certain amount of research is being carried out by Commonwealth organisations such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and organisations interested in matters relating to water research. I am sure that if State authorities charged with a responsibility in the matter of beach erosion were to seek information about specific measures from interested Commonwealth agencies, those agencies would co-operate to the best of their ability. The Government cannot accept responsibility in the matter of beach erosion in Australia. The mere magnitude of the problem would place it beyond the scope of Commonwealth responsibility.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.52 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 April 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19680430_senate_26_s37/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant