Senate
23 September 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1969

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1165

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to reports of a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of allied governments fighting in Vietnam, and especially to the statement attributed to the Foreign Minister of South Vietnam that there was no question at this point of any troop withdrawals by allied governments other than the United States Government. I ask the Minister: Are we to take it that the Australian Government has not even raised the question of Australian troops being brought home from Vietnam and that the conscription of Australians for service there is to continue indefinitely?

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has based his question on Press reports for which he has given no foundation. I consider that no Minister should be required to answer a question of that nature.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I will let the question go through to the Minister. 1 suggest that he answer that part of it which comes within his responsibility.

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

– If I answer only the part of the question that is within my responsibility there is very little I can say because Senator Cohen drew his own conclusions and then based a question on his conclusions rather than on the reports. For that reason I am not competent to answer, nor do I intend to give an answer on what Senator Cohen thinks or wants to think. But it is true that there has been a meeting in New York of troop contributing countries. It was one of a series of regular consultations amongst the allies at which developments in Vietnam are reviewed. To the extent that the honourable senator’s question is based upon reports of that meeting, I can say it is true that there has been a meeting. There has been no change in the position of the Australian Government regarding Australian forces in Vietnam. As the Prime Minister stated in another place on 19th September, Australia will continue to be involved in close consultation with the Republic of Vietnam and other troop contributing countries on all aspects of the situation in Vietnam, including the level of assistance to the Republic.

page 1165

QUESTION

IMPORTED MEAT

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, ls it a fact that each year more than 1,000 tons of whale meat is imported through the port of Melbourne, without any health inspection, by American pet food manufacturers? ls it also a fact that this uncertified meat is stored in the Victorian State Government’s cool stores and that there is no identification on the cartons stating clearly that the meat is unfit for human consumption? Is there any Government audit of this imported meat to guarantee that it reaches its stated destination of Wodonga without being diverted to smallgoods manufacture or to the retail meat trade? ls it also a fact that for the past 3 years these American companies have been allowed to import this whale meat, described as inedible and unfit for human consumption, and have avoided paying the necessary customs duty on imported foodstuffs? Should not this question be treated with the greatest urgency in view of the dangers inherent, as a result of this situation, to the public health and to our disease free primary industry?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator raised two points. He asked a series of questions concerning imported whale meat and then went on to ask whether the conditions under which it is imported are a disturbing factor from the point of view of health and the possible infection of our livestock. I cannot give the honourable senator an answer to the particular points that he raised, but I shall mention them to the Minister for Health and obtain an answer for him when I can.

page 1165

QUESTION

FARMING

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to a report in yesterday’s ‘West Austraiian’ stating that the Governor of Western Australia, Sir Douglas Kendrew, in opening the Royal Agricultural Show, said that conditions were bleak for small farmers? He pointed out, however, that much progress had been made in secondary industry, mineral production, banking, commerce and housing and said: ‘We can withstand shocks and bumps that even 5 years ago would have upset our standard of living’. Can the Minister inform the small farmers and me how this progress to which the Governor referred will make their situation less bleak?

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

– I regret to say that I have not seen the newspaper report referred to by the honourable senator. Therefore I ask that he put his question on notice.

page 1166

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry give the Senate any information regarding the Commonwealth-Queensland sugar agreement? Will the agreement be renewed for another year, as was done last year, or is a longer term envisaged?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– It is expected that in the very near future the Prime Minister will make an announcement about the nature and details of a new agreement between the Commonwealth and the Queensland Governments. The period of operation of the 1962 sugar agreement has been extended to 30th September to allow arrangements for the new agreement to be completed.

page 1166

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. In view of an earlier assurance given me, when electoral redistribution proposals were under discussion in the Senate, that the Chief Electoral Officer would undertake measures to inform electors transferred to new Commonwealth divisions of the new name of the electorate, when does he expect such action to commence?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Following the proclamation of the boundaries of the new divisions and subdivisions notifications were issued in the Commonwealth Gazette and in newspapers setting out the subdivisions and divisions for which the electors were enrolled previously and the subdivisions and divisions for which they are enrolled now. Also, in specific cases, action was taken by divisional returning officers to notify electors individually of the changes. The Chief Electoral Officer has prepared a special instruction which will be issued to polling officials to make them aware of changes in boundaries that have occurred since the last election. Assistance will be give to electors where required in recording votes for the correct divisions. In fact, presiding officers will be required to check the official lists of streets, roads and so on, or the alphabetical list of polling places wherever that is necessary. Publicity about the changes in the boundaries will also be given through the news media before polling day.

page 1166

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATION AT COURTHOUSE

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Has the Attorney-General any grounds or reason for believing that the demonstration which occurred at Williamstown courthouse last Friday when the son of a well known Communist agitator was charged with an offence under the National Service Act was part of an organised preelection campaign by left wing elements opposed to the National Service Act? ls the Minister able and prepared to make a statement to the Parliament indicating the events which took place, the organisation and arrangements which preceded the events, and the source of the subsequent attacks which were immediately made upon the police who had endeavoured to maintain order? Is the Government prepared to cooperate with the State authorities to publicise effectively the source and character of the proposed further demonstrations?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The honourable senator has referred to a most regrettable incident. It seemed to be a concerted effort accompanied by degrees of force to prevent the administration of justice. It is also regrettable, I think, that as reported in the Press-

Senator Wheeldon:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy President. Is it not a fact that prosecutions arising from this matter are pending, and it is therefore sub judice?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I do not know. I call Senator Wright

Senator Cavanagh:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. It is known that prosecutions are pending and the Minister’s reference to a regrettable incident against the Act indicates a decision of guilty before the people charged have been tried before a court.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If Senator Cavanagh says that the question-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I am not upholding the point of order. I call Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I was about to say that it is regrettable, I think, that this concerted attempt to interfere with the course of justice has been endorsed by the executive of a political party. So far as the question asked me to publicise the events and proceedings, I shall refer it to the AttorneyGeneral and recommend the proposal for his acceptance.

page 1167

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which I direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to current Press reports that the Prime Minister and the Victorian Minister for Transport have been conferring about finance to build a new underground railway in Victoria, and also to current reports that it is possible that $40m will be granted to Victoria and New South Wales for railway works. I ask: Is there any substance in the reports? If so, how is it that South Australian claims for finance to connect Adelaide with the standardised system have still been refused, a survey has been let to a group of consultants whose reports will not be available until January 1970 and there is no guarantee at this stage that South Australia will get a Commonwealth grant? Does the Prime Minister intend to give the same consideration to South Australia’s claims as he has apparently given to those of Victoria and New South Wales?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question is based on a Press report. I have seen the Press report to which he has referred. I repeat what I have said so often in this chamber, that the Premier of any State has the right to make representations to the Commonwealth Government for grants under section 96. As I read the report, it canvassed the fact that certain assistance was being sought in relation to projects in Victoria and New South

Wales. 1 suppose tomorrow the Press could canvass a proposition put by South Australia, Western Australia or any other State in relation to a particular project for which it considered there was justification for assistance in accordance with section 96. I think the report was only a canvassing of the fact that representations were being made.

page 1167

QUESTION

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. As allegations made by honourable senators on Thursday last were regarded as justification for withholding naturalisation in the case of a migrant who is a member of the Communist Party because his loyalty to international Communism would conflict with an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, would not the same principle apply in relation to the oath of allegiance when a person is called up for military service? Therefore, can Communists be accepted for military service?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The question being argumentative in nature, I ask that it be put on notice so that the argument can be considered.

page 1167

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the importance of the Freedom from Hunger campaign which aims to give scientific and technical knowledge to countries which are experiencing serious food deficiencies, will the Minister representing the Treasurer ask his colleague to reconsider his decision not to allow donations to this worthy appeal to be deductible for income tax purposes?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s submission to the Treasurer.

page 1167

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that the Prime Minister will be speaking at a meeting at Rockhampton Airport in Queensland at 3.30 p.m. on Monday, 20th October 1969? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the meeting will be open to the public? Will those in attendance be subject to the control of the Department of Civil Aviation? If a Labor member of

Parliament wishes to conduct a meeting in similar circumstances on Commonwealth property, will similar facilities and privileges be granted to him?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As yet I have not had the advantage of looking at the Prime Minister’s proposed itinerary for the election campaign.

page 1168

QUESTION

RIOTS

Senator WHEELDON:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister-iii-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs ask his colleague to institute an inquiry into incidents relating to the recent serious disturbance at Laverton, Western Australia, over the weekend in which one person was killed and others were injured, submit a report to Parliament as soon as possible on the position in that part of Western Australia and notify Parliament what steps the Government intends to take to avoid a repetition of this most unfortunate incident?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall place before my colleague the matters the honourable senator has raised and discuss them with him. I shall forward to the honourable senator whatever information I can obtain.

page 1168

QUESTION

HEARING AIDS FOR CHILDREN

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health satisfied that existing facilities at the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories in Sydney can give prompt service to mothers who desire to have early tests made to determine whether a child, particularly a very young child, needs special forms of education to counter hearing deficiencies?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am very conscious of the importance of such tests as the honourable senator has mentioned, especially in relation to young children. 1 have some information concerning this matter which I think will be helpful to him. Appointments currently are being made from 22nd October onwards for children’s hearing aids at the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney. However, where an appointment is requested for a very young child or where, from the information available, a child appears to require a hearing aid, a hearing test will be arranged before that date. Unexpected arrivals from country areas are dealt with immediately.

Good facilities are available for testing children. A wailing time of a month, with provision for prompt attention for urgent cases, is considered satisfactory. However, because of the specialised nature of the work with children, it has been difficult in the past to ensure the availability of adequate trained staff and long delays have occurred. The honourable senator will be interested to learn that this week three psychologists will be concluding a course to fit them for work with school children. Their training is expected to enable them to carry out the more exacting work that is required for infants and pre-school children. With the increasing availability of trained staff the present satisfactory position will be maintained if not improved.

page 1168

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Acknowledging that the most important criteria for appointments to the High Court of Australia are legal erudition and skill as well as judicial suitability, and further acknowledging that the most recent appointment to that high office, His Honour Mr Justice Walsh from the Supreme Court of New South Wales, is accepted as meeting those criteria most adequately, does the Minister experience concern that since 1946, with one exception, those qualities have been discovered only in practititioners in the State of New South Wales, not discounting the possibility that appointments may have been offered to gentlemen who have refused them? Is this any indication, which would be disturbing, that the law schools of the other States or the nature of the legal practices conducted there no longer generally equip practitioners for the highest judicial appointment in the land? Will the Minister take any steps necessary to ensure that a situation is developed where, consonant with the application of the principal criteria I have mentioned, the High Court will reflect in its personnel, at least substantially, the component States of the Federation of which the Court is, under the Constitution, its highest judicial tribunal and interpreter?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I would offer the view that State boundaries are completely Irrelevant considerations in the appointments to the High Court of Australia. I would further say that the prestige and standing of His Honour Mr Justice Walsh is such as to preclude any concern with regard to the appointment which has been made.

page 1169

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Minister will recollect that during the debate on the estimates for the Parliament I asked him to provide the Senate with information as to the terms and conditions of, and wage rates and allowances paid to attendants in Parliament House and persons employed by the Joint House Department. I have now received a letter from the Secretary of the Joint House Department in relation to that Department in the following terms:

So far as my Department is concerned I have provided the Acting President of the Senate, Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman. D.F.C., with the information on the matters you raised, and he has suggested to me that I might personally explain these matters to yourself and other senators concerned.

The Secretary of the Department goes on to say that he will make himself available to do this. I ask: Does the Minister intend to provide the information requested during debates on the Estimates or will honourable senators have to go round to the various parliamentary heads and seek the information confidentially?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I recall quite well the question being asked and I recall my answer, which I gave in good faith. The communication the honourable senator has read rather suggests that information has been made available to the Presiding Officer, under whose jurisdiction the matter rests. Senator Cant is implying that because Of this I, as Leader of the Government and representative of the Prime Minister in the Senate, have circumvented his question. I think I should take the matter up with the Presiding Officer to see on what basis the information should be made available to the honourable senator and the Senate. I shall certainly do that later in the day.

page 1169

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government been drawn to reports that Russia intends to wipe out China’s atomic potential by nuclear attack? Has the Government any information to support this? If so, will the Government convey its apprehension to the Soviet authorities to allay any suspicion that Australia may support such an attack as part of its new approach to foreign policy?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– This question is based on a Press report and for that reason I do not believe I should give a reply to it. In any event, it relates to the foreign affairs of other nations and quite obviously it would be improper for me to make a comment upon it. If it will help the honourable senator he may put the question on the notice paper and I shall refer it to the proper authority for comment.

page 1169

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the newspaper report that informations have been issued in the Central Court in Sydney against a number of people alleging breaches of the Crimes Act in encouraging young people not to register for national service, and that such informations have been laid by the Secretary of the Committee in Defiance of the National Service Act, a Mr Simon Townsend? Is the material on which the informations are based the same material as that which the Attorney-General has earlier said has been carefully drawn so that any prosecution launched on it would undoubtedly fail? In these circumstances, is the preparation of the material and these informations a contrived arrangement of a pre-election character to make a farce of the law? May private informations be prosecuted under the Crimes Act? Is the Government proposing to take any action in respect of the informations?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In reply to the honourable senator I would only say that what he says would appear to be so. But I have not had the advantage of considering the material in any of the cases individually or collectively and therefore it is a question that L will have to refer to the AttorneyGeneral for his answer.

page 1170

QUESTION

SCHOOL LIBRARIES

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. As many parents have alleged to me that there will be a maldistribution of moneys provided by the Commonwealth Government for library purposes in schools in Catholic dioceses in Queensland, will the Minister cause to be made extensive and intensive inquiries with a view to seeing that there is an equitable distribution of the moneys between Catholic girls and Catholic boys schools? Will he provide periodically a list of the amounts of money made available to individual schools, as was done in the case of grants for science laboratories?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator will recall that the legislation for assistance to independent schools specifically provides for an annual report which will show the payments made and the recipient schools each year. With regard to the distribution of library moneys the honourable senator can expect a statement by the Minister this week giving full details of the stage that has been reached in the library administration.

page 1170

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In view of Mr Fairbairn’s statement that the Monduran Dam would not be commenced until 1972 and that this would then enable the Commonwealth to assess fully many of the features of the scheme, does the Minister understand that under the initial development proposal there is no plan at all to build the Monduran Dam? In order that the Minister may be properly acquainted with the complete proposals for the development of the Burnett-Kolan irrigation scheme, will he agree to meet a deputation from a committee in Bundaberg and surrounding areas which has prepared detailed submissions for the implementation of this urgent irrigation scheme proposal?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I have to advise that the State Government of Queensland, with the help of the Commonwealth, works out priorities for dams needed within the State. It seeks assistance from the Commonwealth to build those dams. I understand that the Queensland Government made representations in respect of the Monduran dam as its first priority and the Burnett-Kolan irrigation scheme as its second priority. The others, including the Burdekin Dam, followed after that. As the honourable senator is asking questions now in respect of other projects I ask him to place that part of his question on notice so that I may obtain an answer for him.

page 1170

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Do not the two questions asked today by Senator Greenwood, suggesting that they were some part of a pre-election campaign, indicate that Vietnam and the National Service Act will be in the coming election live issues of which the Government is afraid?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Certainly not. I would expect that the contestants in the election campaign would be interested in debating before the electors both the National Service Act and our engagement in Vietnam. That, I should think, would be an ordinary democratic process.

page 1170

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing (he Minister for the Army by drawing his attention to the figures for national servicemen serving outside Australia as set out on page 1101 of Hansard of 18th September this year. The Minister will recall that a promise was made to obtain the information. Will he now inform the Parliament of the designation of the units to which ninety-one national servicemen in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are attached? Can he advise also in which countries 275 other national servicemen are serving and what are their duties in those countries?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The answer to that question will necessitate a reference to records. I shall have that reference made and give the honourable senator the information as early as possible.

page 1171

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I shall give the honourable senator an opportunity after question time.

page 1171

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development follows on the question asked by Senator Milliner. Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Minister for Irrigation and also the Queensland Commissioner for Irrigation and Water Supply and members of the Bundaberg Irrigation Committee met the Minister for National Development this morning in Canberra?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I have to advise that I was not aware.

page 1171

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that members of the Commonwealth Police were present at the Williamstown courthouse during a demonstration last Friday? If so, is the attack of the Australian Labor Party Executive in Victoria on the police who endeavoured to maintain law and order, and the accusation that they acted brutally and provocatively, in accord with the facts known to the Attorney-General? If not, will the Attorney-General issue a categorical denial of the Labor Party’s attack?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have no definite information, but I understand that members of the Commonwealth Police Force were present at the court. I think it is most regrettable that any political party should accuse members of the police force of making deliberate and provocative attacks in the carrying out of their duties. I think it would be generally accorded that on this occasion the police acted with great credit.

page 1171

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– In what way does the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain the clear contradiction between the views of Senator Wright and of the Minister for External Affairs on the question of Soviet inspired collective security arrangements? I refer first to Senator Wright’s speech in the Senate on 10th August when he described Mr Freeth’s new policy pronouncement of 14th August as ‘simply an expression that the Government would naturally consider a proposal for collective security on the part of one Communist giant as a means of dividing the collectively secured countries of Asia against the other Communist giant, Communist China’. I refer next to an interview between-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I am afraid that I cannot let the honourable senator give any more information. He must ask his question.

Senator GAIR:

– I have to lead up to it. I was referring to an interview between Mr Freeth and a journalist of the Melbourne ‘Sun’ published on 20th August-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator must ask his question.

Senator GAIR:

– Which Government spokesman is correct - Senator Wright or Mr Freeth? Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree with Senator Wright’s contention, which was expressed later in the speech from which I quoted, that it is on the basis of his version ‘that the Australian people are entitled to make their judgment upon the policy of the Government’?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– All I can say in reply to the honourable senator’s question is that the Prime Minister has made abundantly clear the Government’s view regarding our relationship with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As I recall it, I have repeated in this House what he has said. The interpretation which any honourable senator may wish to place upon a speech or an answer to a question given by any Minister is a matter for himself. The Government’s view was categorically expressed by the Prime Minister.

page 1172

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

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

– There are some thirty answers to questions on notice to be given. In view of all the circumstances, I would ask for as many honourable senators as possible to allow the answers to questions to be incorporated in Hansard, because if we read them all I think it will take a very long time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have marked twelve questions for which oral answers have been requested.

page 1172

QUESTION

MILITARY DISCIPLINE

(Question No. 1336)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

What action, if any, has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Committee which was established to inquire into the revision of regulations relating to the treatment of military detainees.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

Those recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into the Service’s Detention Arrangements which apply to a particular Service are being put into effect by the Service concerned. An Interdepartmental Committee established in my Department is responsible for co-ordinating the action required to put into effect those recommendations which apply to more than one Service. The services of a former member of the Committee of Inquiry, Mr J. A. Morony, former ComptrollerGeneral of Prisons for New South Wales have been retained to ensure that action taken is in accordance with modern penological practices.

page 1172

QUESTION

DEPORTATIONS OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS

(Question No. 1347)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Did the United States’ Government submit any report to the Australian Government outlining the reasons for the deportation of Melbourne students Philip Sandford and his wife, Isobel.
  2. Who paid the travelling costs of Mr and Mrs Sandford to and from the United States.
  3. How many such deportations have occurred inthe last 3 years involving Australian citizens temporarily residing in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Mexico, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. Yes. We were informed that Mr and Mrs Sandford were admitted into the United States for study purposes and their deportation was ordered because of their failure to register for classes.
  2. No information is available. The matter of liability for deportation costs back to Australia would have been one for the United States Government to determine. The Australian Government was not involved in travel costs either way.
  3. Information has been obtained from the following countries concerning deportations to Australia in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968:

The above figures relate to both Australians and persons normally resident in Australia. The figures for U.S.A. relate to the financial years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69.

In respect of Greece specific figures have not been obtainable but it has been indicated that no more than six persons have been deported back to Australia in the period.

Information which isstill awaited in respect of U.S.S.R. and Mexico will be notified to the honourable senator as soon as it is available.

page 1172

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: ROADS

(Question No. 1376)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Does the Commonwealth have any plans for constructing a bitumen road between Alice Springs and the South Australian border; if so, when are such plans likely to be implemented.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The question of the road and rail links between Alice Springs and Port Augusta in South Australia is under examination by an Inter-departmental Committee. The Government’s decisions on the matter will be made when the Government has considered the Committee’s report.

page 1172

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

(Question No. 1379)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. During the last financial year, what portion of the Commonwealth allocation was spent on housing.
  2. How many houses were constructed or purchased for Aborigines.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. $2,297,000.

page 1173

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1383)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What was the total amount expended on pensions during the financial year ended 30th June 1969.
  2. What percentage of the total was paid to persons receiving part pensions, and how many such recipients were there.
  3. What was the total amount spent on the Pensioner Medical Service.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. The total amount expended on social service pensions during the financial year ended 30th June 1969 was as follows:

These amounts include allowances for wives and children of pensioners and supplementary assistance.

  1. Separate figures of expenditure on maximum rate and reduced rate pensions and the number of recipients of such pensions during the year are not available.

Based on the number of pensioners and the annual liability for pensions at 30th June 1969, however, estimates of the annual liability for part rate pensions and the number of such pensioners at that date have been made. The following table shows the position:

  1. The total expenditure on the Pensioner Medical Service for the year ended 30th June 1969 was as follows:

page 1173

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

(Question No. 1386)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development the following question, upon notice:

Have arrangements been made with a Japanese organisation to carry out research on the Great Barrier Reef; if so, is it the same organisation that sponsored the scientific survey carried out last year in the Barrier Reef waters.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

No arrangements have been made with a Japanese organisation to carry out research on the Great Barrier Reef.

page 1173

QUESTION

BAUXITE

(Question No. 1432)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What royalties will the company known as Amax Bauxite Corporation pay to the Western Australian Government.
  2. Will aborigines who have tribal title to the area being mined receive any portion of the royalty; if so, what percentage.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Royalties payable by Amax Bauxite Corporation to the Western Australian Government under the Alumina Refinery (Mitchell . Plateau) Agreement Act (No. 22 of 1969) will be:

    1. for the first 21 years. on bauxite shipped - 12.5 cents per ton; on bauxite used in the refinery - 7.5 cents per ton; on special grade bauxite produced for refractory or special purposes (other than for processing into alumina) and shipped to points within the Commonwealth - 25 cents per ton; on special grade bauxite produced for refractory or special purposes (other than for processing into alumina) and shipped to points outside the Commonwealth - 40 cents per ton.

The royalty payable will increase or decrease proportionately to the increase or decrease in the mean quarterly world selling price of aluminium above or below$A500 per ton (the mean quarterly world selling price of aluminium is the average expressed in $A’s of the four prices first listed in the London Metal Bulletin in respect of Canadian primary aluminium 99.5% purity f.o.b. Toronto in each of the four quarters immediately preceding the quarter in respect of which the royalty return is required).

  1. the rate of royalty will be reviewed by the State prior to the commencement of year 22 and prior to the commencement of each seven yearly period thereafter.

  2. in relation to clay and other minerals (other than bauxite) mined by the company from the mineral lease, royalties will be payable under the relevant provisions of the Western Australian Mining Act.

    1. The Western Australian authorities have informed me as follows:

Amax Bauxite Corporation currently holds a number of temporary reserves in Western Australia for the purpose of extracting bauxite. None of these are being mined at the present moment. When these reserves are converted to a mineral lease under the provisions of the Alumina Refinery (Mitchell Plateau) Agreement Act 1969, there will be no encroachment on any Aboriginal reserves. Royalties when collected from the company will be paid into the State Consolidated Revenue Fund’.

page 1174

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1468)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

How many patients at the Baillie Henderson Hospital at Toowoomba are in receipt of an age, invalid or other social service pension.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

A total of 258 of the patients in the Rehabilitation and Training Division of the Baillie Henderson Hospital receive a social service pension or benefit.

page 1174

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1469 )

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Are only those persons who were eligible to receive an age, invalid or other social service pension at the time of admission to the Baillie Henderson Hospital at Toowoomba now in receipt of a pension; if not, when do patients at the hospital become eligible for, and finally receive, a pension.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

This hospital has two broad divisions. The first is the mental hospital division that provides custodial care for patients suffering from long-term or severe mental illness. Under the Social Services Act pensions are not payable to patients in a mental hospital. Provision is, however, made for payment of pension to dependants of a married mental hospital patient. The remaining division, referred to as the Rehabilitation and Training Division, provides short-term treatment (of a kind often given in psychiatric wards of a public hospital) and rehabilitation and training, under open ward conditions, directed towards early discharge of patients back to the community. Patients in the Rehabilitation and Training Division may receive all social service benefits subject to the usual conditions of eligibility.

page 1174

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS

(Question No. 1470)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What Commonwealth benefit is payable on behalf of patients in the Baillie Henderson Hospital at Toowoomba, excluding those who are in receipt of an age, invalid or other social service pension.
  2. To whom is the Commonwealth benefit, if any, paid.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. and (2) Subject to conditions prescribed in the Social Services Act, benefits under that Act are payable to patients in the Rehabilitation and Training Division of the hospital. The Act does not provide for payments for patients in the mental hospital division.

page 1174

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1471)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Are patients suffering from mental illness, and admitted to the Baillie Henderson Hospital at Toowoomba, entitled to receive an invalid pension or other social service pension, when they are not qualified by age to receive an age pension; if not, why not.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

Please see my answer to question 1469.

page 1175

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1403)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. How many of the 250,000 new pensioners, mentioned by the Treasurer in hisBudget Speech, will receive the hospital, pharmaceutical and other fringe benefits at present available to age pensioners.
  2. Is it a fact that 150,000 of these people will be refused these benefits.
  3. Can the Minister ascertain the total cost of extending the full benefits which are granted to age pensioners to the whole of the 250,000 new pensioners.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. and (2) In his Budget Speech the Treasurer, in referring to the ‘tapered’ means test stated:

It is expected that approximately 250,000 persons will be eligible either for pension for the first time or for increased pension under the proposed “tapered” means test’.

All existing part rate pensioners will receive increased rates of payment under the proposal. These pensioners, who comprise approximately half the number of persons expected to benefit, already receive all fringe benefits made available to pensioners by the Commonwealth and will continue to do so. The fringe benefits, however, will not be available to persons receiving pension solely as a result of the introduction of the ‘tapered’ means test.

  1. These hypothetical costs are not capable of accurate estimation upon information at present available.

page 1175

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

(Question No. 1404)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Australian National Line is contemplating freight increases on the Australian coast and that the main justification for this action is the unprofitability of certain trades, particularly theDarwin trade.
  2. Is it a fact that the Australian National Line has had to live with the problem of the Darwin trade for many years and has always managed to make a reasonable profit.
  3. Is it also a fact that the Tasmanian trade accounts for approximately half of the Line’s profit and has been a most lucrative one for the Australian National Line.
  4. Why should Tasmania, the only State wholly dependent on shipping, now be obliged to carry additional freight burdens in order to maintain the Australian National Line’s profit margin.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. The Australian National Line has indicated to me that costs have risen substantially in all general cargo trades and that, as a result, it seeks to increase its freight charges. In its case for an increase in freight charges the Line points out that although costs have continually increased in all trades, no increase in general cargo freight rates has been made since 1965.

The Darwin trade has operated at a loss and the loss increased in 1968-69. This is not the sole cause of the decline in the Line’s profitability. In other general cargo trades, profits have declined considerably, with losses being incurred in several trades as well as that to Darwin.

At the present time, the Line’s case is being examined and further information sought.

  1. Whilst in previous years the Australian National Line has been able to make reasonable profits despite losses incurred in the Darwin trade, the present situation is different in that cost increases have adversely affected the profitability of all general cargo trades.

The losses in the Darwin trade during the past 2 fiscal years have been aggravated also by the slow turn round in the port of Darwin. It is expected that the introduction of a specialised ship for this trade in mid 1970 should improve the turn round and help to reduce losses in the trade.

  1. Profits derived by the Australian National Line from the Tasmanian Trade cannot be described as lucrative. They account for much less than one half of the Line’s total profit in 1968-69 and with some vessels incurring a substantial loss.
  2. Under the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act the Australian National Line is charged with earning a reasonable profit on its capital, whilst making its shipping services available at the lowest possible rates of charges. There is no suggestion that Australian National Line freight rates to and from Tasmania will be raised merely to offset losses elsewhere and maintain the Line’s overall profit margin.

page 1175

QUESTION

OVERSEAS SHIPPING

(Question No. 1405)

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Japan-Australia consortium will be commencing operations shortly.
  2. Is it a fact that the Japanese ‘K’ Line- a partner in the consortium - is having difficulty in obtaining a reasonable tonnage quota: if so, will this have an adverse effect upon the two partner companies, the Australian National Line and Flinders Shipping.
  3. Could this situation place these two companies in an adverse trading position compared with other Japanese shipping companies and Overseas Containers Ltd who are operating in the Australia-Japanese trade.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. The Eastern Searoad Service commenced operations on 27th August when the Australian National Line ship ‘Australian Enterprise’ sailed from Kobe in Japan. The ship has now completed, most successfully, its first voyage from Japan to Australia.
  2. and (3) Each partner in the Eastern Searoad Service has negotiated with the Conferences between Japan and Australia to obtain an equitable percentage share of the cargo carried in this trade. Following its negotiations to date, the K’ Line has the same share of the north and south-bound trades which it previously held as a partner in the Japan/ Australia Line. In order to accommodate the operation of its vehicle deck ship in these trades the ‘K’ Line is endeavouring to increase this share and negotiations are still continuing.

I understand the parties concerned are now giving their- earnest attention to this question in order that it may be resolved.

page 1176

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

(Question No. 1406)

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

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

  1. What is the actual loss shown on the Melbourne to Darwin shipping run conducted by the Australian National Line.
  2. Will the Government take up with the Australian National Line the possibility of putting the Melbourne toDarwin runin a separate category, with a view to causing that run to stand on its own two feet, so that it will not be responsible for increasing freight rates over the whole of the services conducted by the Australian National Line.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Losses incurred by the Australian National Line in operating a shipping service to Darwin have been referred to by the Chairman in Annual Reports of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. The loss for 1966-67 amounted to $395,000 whilst that for 1967-68 was $743,000.

The Chairman said that the losses imposed an impossible situation for the Commission, and the uneconomic nature of the service was likely to continue until the container/bulk ore carrier, which is expected to be completed mid 1970, is commissioned.

  1. It is not practicable to completely separate the Line’s Darwin activities from its other trades. Although losses in the Darwin trade have been substantial, the decline in profitability experienced by the Australian National Line in the past 12 months can be attributed to increasing cost pressures in all general cargo services, and not only the Darwin service.

The Australian National Line will introduce in mid 1970 a specialised container/bulk ore carrier which, it is hoped, will enable losses in the Darwin service to be appreciably reduced.

It is also hoped that the introduction of new more efficient vessels in other parts of the Line’s operations during the next year will help to offset the continuous cost increases which the Line is experiencing, and which it has been absorbing in recent years.

page 1176

QUESTION

IRRIGATION

(Question No. 1424)

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

In view of the fact that 82% of those farmers within the projectedCressy-Longford irrigation area scheme have voted in favour of the proposal and have indicated that they will enter into it, can the Minister state when the necessary enabling legislation will be introduced to authorise the payment of the $750,000 of the Commonwealth funds to Tasmania for the scheme to enable it to commence at the earliest possible date.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

Information has now been received from the Premier of Tasmania that 82% of the landholders in the proposed Cressy-Longford Irrigation Scheme have indicated their acceptance of the Scheme, as was stated in the honourable senator’s question.

Legislation has now been passed by the House of Representatives.

page 1176

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 1426)

Senator BISHOP:

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

  1. What action has the Commonwealth Government taken to ensure that the entry of the Australian National Line into the AustralianJapanese trade, in partnership with the ‘K’ Line, is commenced under reasonable arrangements for an equitable share of the traffic.
  2. In the event that the Northbound Shipping Conference refuses to negotiate a reasonable arrangement, what measures are proposed by the Government to provide fair operating conditions for the Australian National Line.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian National Line’s share of the Australia/Japan trade has been agreed at121/2% of the northbound and 9% of the southbound trade. In order to accommodate the operation of its vehicle deck ship in the Eastern Searoad Service, the ‘k’ Line has been endeavouring to negotiate a greater share than it now holds in the Conferences. These negotiations have been going on for some time and are still continuing. The Minister for Shipping and Transport and senior Government officials have had many discussions onthe matter with their counterparts in Japan. The Chairman of the Conference is also well aware of the importance that is attached in Australia to resolving the matter. Discussions are continuing in an effort to arrive at a reasonable solution.

page 1177

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1427)

Senator GREENWOOD:

asked the

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

  1. What prosecutions (apart from prosecutions for failure to register) have been instituted for breaches of provisions of the National Service Act (a) in the year ended 30th June 1968, (b) in the year ended 30th June 1969, and (c) since 30th June 1969.
  2. Who were the persons prosecuted.
  3. What was the outcome of each prosecution.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for

Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (3) Prosecutions for breaches of the National Service Act other than for failure to register are set out in the following table. Each person prosecuted was convicted and a summary of the penalties imposed is shown.
  2. The names of individuals who are convicted of breaches of the National Service Act are, in their own interests, not published.

page 1178

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1428)

Senator GREENWOOD:

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

  1. How many persons required to register under the provisions of the National Service Act are known not to have registered (a) prior to 30th June 1968, and (b) since 30th June 1968.
  2. Have such persons been prosecuted; if so, who were the persons prosecuted and what have been the results of the prosecutions.
  3. How many persons liable to prosecution have not been prosecuted and what is the reason for such non-prosecution.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Section 48 of the National Service Act provides that it is an offence for ‘a person who being required to register under this Act-

  1. fails so lo register; or
  2. while the liability continues, remains unregistered under this Act’.

Persons who are liable to register and fail to do so at the required time thus render themselves liable to prosecution and to be called up for service regardless of the result of the ballot conducted for their age-group. All cases of apparent default are investigated to determine the person’s liability to register and whether a prima facie case which warrants prosecution exists. The great majority of persons who fail to register at the required time subsequently register either voluntarily or when requested to do so by the Department.

Records are not maintained of cases cleared of default nor are the reasons for late registration classified. Proceedings are initiated in all cases where a prima facie case exists and prosecution appears warranted. Prior to 30th June 1968, 426 persons were prosecuted for failure to register. Four hundred and sixteen persons were convicted and fines ranged to $100, the most frequent penalty being S20.

Since 30th June 1968, 358 persons were prosecuted for failure to register. Three hundred and thirty-nine were convicted and fines ranged to $75, the most frequent penalty being $40.

As at 31 August 1969, 91 prosecutions for failure to register were awaiting hearing.

The names of individuals who are convicted of breaches of the National Service Act are not published by the Department, although some cases are reported in the press.

page 1178

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1467)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. Did Trans-Australia Airlines apply for a subsidy on its Tasmanian intrastate service. If so what was the result of that application.
  2. What amounts were paid by way of intrastate subsidies during the last financial year and to which operators were they paid.
  3. Under what conditions does an air service become an essential rural service.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Trans-Australia. Airlines has applied in the past for a subsidy on its Tasmanian intrastate service but subsidy has not been approved.
  2. The following amounts were paid to the operators shown by way of intrastate subsidies for developmental and essential rural services during the financial year ended 30th June 1969.

A developmental subsidy of $499,025 was also paid to Connellan Airways in respect of services in the Northern Territory. Whilst the Connellan services are confined mainly to the Territory itself, they do extend at certain points beyond the boundaries of the Territory. As the subsidy paid is related to the company’s total operations, it is not possible to determine the amount applicable to the services within the Territory.

A similar situation exists in the case of TransAustralia Airlines in relation to its Channel Country Services. These extend from Queensland into South Australia, and have been classed as intrastate in the table.

  1. An essential rural service is distinguished by the following criteria:

    1. The service is operated over a route on which there are no competitive services operating;
    2. The route over which the service is operated is unprofitable;
    3. The traffic on the route is sufficient to justify the operation of a regular public transport service;
    4. The service links the rural communities served with the nearest commercial centre; and
    5. Compared with any available road, rail or sea transport the service results in a substantial saving in time.

page 1179

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1473)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. At what stage must passengers and crew be strapped in, on civil aircraft, prior to landing.
  2. Is this regulation waived under certain con ditions; if so, why.
  3. Is it a fact that on peak-hour trips in jet aircraft hostesses are unable to complete all their tasks before the appropriate time to be seated for landing.
  4. Can any safety precaution, either for crew or passengers, be jeopardised in order to provide service to passengers.
  5. Will the Minister investigate the possibility of eliminating either drinks or meals on any such flights.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Air Navigation Regulation 244 (1) requires that seat belts shall be worn by all crew members and passengers during landing. A ‘landing’ is not defined, but for the purpose of this Regulation it is accepted as the stage from a point on the approach approximately 1,000 feet above the aerodrome until the aircraft comes to rest.
  2. The requirement referred to in answer to the first question applies in all cases except where an authorised officer of the Department is undertaking examinations, inspections or checks of the work of an aircraft’s crew or the operation of an aircraft or its equipment. The Air Navigation Regulations make specific provision for this exception.
  3. It has been reported that on occasions, cabin staff do not become seated and fasten their seat belts until after the aircraft has commenced final approach. This mainly occurs where the passenger refreshment service has been delayed or interrupted by some flight condition such as turbulence, with the result that the planned time for stowage of the passenger service equipment and checking of the passengers seat belts by the cabin staff is reduced.
  4. The requirements relating to safety inflight make no exceptions that would allow safety precautions to be ignored in order to provide passenger refreshments.
  5. Depending upon the duration of particular flights drinks and meals can be provided without affecting safety in any way and 1 can see no justification for eliminating these services from the flights on which they are currently provided. However, in some cases when faster aircraft are introduced the duration of flight time will be shortened to an extent which makes necessary a reduction in the standard of cabin service. For example the introduction of DC.9 aircraft to the Sydney/Canberra/Sydney route has led to a revision of the meal and refreshment services available.

page 1179

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1477)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What Commonwealth subsidy is payable to Queensland authorities for each patient in the Baillie Henderson Hospital at Toowoomba who is in receipt of an age, invalid or other social service pension.
  2. What amount from each pension is retained by the Queensland authorities, and does this retention have the approval of the Commonwealth Department of Social Services.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. and (2) The pension is paid to the hospital authorities as agent for the pensioner unless the pensioner prefers to be paid his pension direct. The amount paid by a pensioner for his maintenance in the hospital is a matter for the hospital authorities. It is understood that the amount generally charged for maintenance does not exceed the proportion of the pension specified in section 50 of the Social Services Act for maintenance in a benevolent home.

page 1179

QUESTION

OIL

(Question No. 1486)

Senator CANT:

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

  1. Has the gas flow from the damaged SEDCO drilling rig been controlled; if not will the services of another drilling rig be required to control the gas flow.

    1. If a drilling rig is required to control the gas flow, have arrangements been made for the use of a rig for this purpose, in view of the report that the damaged rig will be in Singapore for four months for repairs.
Senator SCOTT:

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

  1. No. Arrangements for the services of another drilling rig to assist in the control of the gas flow are being made.
  2. See (1).

page 1180

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 1487)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Government announced in the 1968-69 Budget a $350,000 loan to install a pipeline from the Jardine River to the Bamaga Aboriginal Settlement on Cape York Peninsula.
  2. Why is it that, 12 months later, the negotiations for the loan are still proceeding.
  3. Why has the work not commenced.
  4. Who is responsible for the delay.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. Yes.

    1. The Prime Minister is in correspondence with the Premier of Queensland on the question of the term of the loan and the rate of interest.
    2. The Office of Aboriginal Affairs has been informed by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs that the main pipe to the main storage at Bamaga is complete and that reticulation from this point is proceeding.
    3. There has been no delay in putting the work in hand. In respect of the delay in finalising the loan please see (2) above.

page 1180

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS

(Question No. . 1492)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. If a member of the House of Representatives chooses to be enrolled in the Commonwealth Electoral Division which he represents, as distinct from the Commonwealth Division in which he resides, is he also required to enrol in the State Electoral District within the Commonwealth Division in which he is enrolled.
  2. As the States of Queensland and Western Australia do not operate on joint CommonwealthState electoral rolls, do Commonwealth Parliamentarians in these States have the same rights as Commonwealth Parliamentarians in the other States to decide whether they enrol in either the electorate they represent or that in which they reside.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. No. In respect of State enrolment, a member of the House of Representatives is in the same relative position as any other elector. He is required by State law to enrol for his place of living in the subdivision of the State Electoral District concerned.
  2. Yes.

page 1180

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS

(Question No. 1493)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How many objections have been lodged during the past 6 months by electors in the Division of Lowe, New South Wales, against the retention of other electors’ names on the roll for that Division.
  2. How many such objections were sustained.
  3. How many objections were deemed frivolous and, in such cases, were the people who lodged the objections fined.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. Nil, see (1).
  3. Nil, see (1).

page 1180

QUESTION

DINGOES

(Question No. 1495)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Has the Minister noted a report in the Twenty-first Annual Report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation showing the futility of aerial baiting to eliminate dingoes.
  2. In the light of this report will the Minister discuss with the appropriate State Ministers the question of outlawing this practice which may be a menace to other forms of wildlife.
  3. Did the experiments conducted by the CSIRO on aerial baiting of dingoes show any signs of bails causing the deaths of any other wildlife in any region.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science has supplied the following answer:

  1. Yes.
  2. The report describes the results of only one poisoning campaign. The results suggest that control of the dingoes in the area could be achieved if changes were made in the techniques used. A move for discussions such as those suggested is considered to be premature at this stage. More information is needed, not only on the effectiveness of aerial poisoning in controlling dingoes, but also on related questions such as the actual pest status of the dingo, the effects of poisoning campaigns on other native fauna, and the possibility of developing alternative methods of control should these be shown to be warranted. CSIRO’s dingo research is long-term, and is designed to yield basic biological information which is necessary to an informed consideration of the problem.
  3. No.

page 1181

QUESTION

SYDNEY (XINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

(Question No. 1501)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the

Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. Did the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works report on9th October 1968 that the proposed extension of the north-south runway at Kingsford-Smith Airport was behind schedule even before it was out of the planning phase.
  2. Did the Committee also report that, if the Government intends to provide facilities commensurate with the needs of modern civil aviation, it has a responsibility to plan with more energy and imagination than was shown in this instance.
  3. What was the date on which it was decided to extend the north-south runway from 9,100 feet to 13,000 feet.
  4. What was the date on which tenders were invited for the extension work, and when did lenders close.
  5. When were tenders called for the carrying out of the dredging in Botany Bay in connection with the work.
  6. How many dredges will be used on the work, and will any be required to come from overseas.
  7. Has actual dredging work yet commenced; if so, on what date.
  8. What is the anticipated date of completion of the extension.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Approval of the Parliament to proceed with the work following the Public Works Committee report was given on 29th November 1968.
  4. and (5) Technical brochures and plans outlining the construction work and dredging involved were distributed to interested tenderers as from 27th January 1969.

Tenders were formally invited on a world wide basis on 12th April 1969 and they closed on 11th June 1969.

It is expected that a contract will be awarded within the next week.

  1. It is anticipated that at least three dredges will be required, two of which will probably be from overseas, and one, a smaller one, will be available locally. Consideration has been given to the possible use of Australian dredges.
  2. No.
  3. The runway extension is expected to be completed in the early months of 1972 as planned.

page 1181

QUESTION

CURRENCY

(Question No. 1502)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did the Royal Australian Mint have dies made which could be used for the production of 50-cent pieces bearing the date 1967 or 1968; if so, (a) how many coins have been struck from them, and for what purpose, or (b) will the dies be defaced before any coins are struck from them.
  2. In view of the fact that the New Zealand Treasury finds it both necessary and practicable to issue 40,000 polished specimen sets of its 1968 currency to the public, at a cost of$A6 per set, why has the Royal Australian Mint limited its issue of 1969 proof sets of coins to 20,000 at a cost of $A10 per set.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No dies for 50-cent pieces dated 1968 were manufactured. One obverse working die dated 1967 was made and used for experiments in connection with the replacement 50-cent piece. After nine experimental 50-cent pieces dated 1967 had been produced in various shapes, this die was defaced to prevent its further use. The experimental pieces are now in the Royal Australian Mint Museum.
  2. The polished specimen sets of New Zealand coins are made from standard dies and their quality is not comparable with that of the Australian ‘proof coins. The Royal Australian Mint proof coins are made to a very high standard, being struck on hand polished blanks by specially manufactured polished and frosted dies. The number of these special sets is limited by the availability of production facilities, and by the extreme care required in manufacturing processes necessary to achieve the now internationally recognised high standard of these Australian coin sets. ‘Proof sets of coins of this quality are costly to produce and therefore need to be sold at a price which attracts only a limited demand.

page 1181

QUESTION

CURRENCY

(Question No. 1503)

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Do the statements by the Reserve Bank of Australia, which were published on page 3294 of the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’ of 30th June 1966, indicate that an Australian note of £20 denomination was issued between 27th April 1966 and 25th May 1966.
  2. To whom was the note issued.
  3. By what authority was the note issued.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 am informed by the Reserve Bank of Australia that the apparent increase of one note in the amount of £20 notes on issue appearing in the Reserve Bank Note Issue Department statement of position as at 25th May 1966, resulted from an accounting error. A correction was made as at 30th June 1966. In fact no £20 note has been issued since 1936.

page 1182

QUESTION

WHEAT AND CLOVER

(Question No. 1520)

Senator CANT:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that, as a result of the Government’s policies, wheat growers will be forced to diversify their interests.
  2. As clover has been developed to grow throughout the wheat areas of Western Australia, and as this will further spread the problem of clover disease, what steps are contemplated by the Government to investigate this problem immediately and on a worthwhile scale.
  3. Why has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation not undertaken this type of research in Western Australia.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science has supplied the following answer: 1 suggest that the first part (1) of the honourable senator’s question be referred to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry.

The following information is provided in answer to parts (2) and (3):

Considerable research undertaken by CSIRO in Western Australia, followed by work in collaboration with the Western Australian Department of Agriculture, has led to the development of Rose clover and Cupped clover which are now being vised increasingly in the wheat belt of Western Australia. As far as can be determined by extensive tests, these two clovers are free of the agents which cause ‘clover disease’ of sheep. Further, considerable efforts are being made in co-operative work between the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry, the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and the University of Western Australia, to test new varieties of subterranean clover which have been selected for the wheatbelt and do not cause clover disease’. These include the varieties Northam A and Seaton Park.

Other varieties of subterranean clover to replace the toxic variety Yarloop have been introduced by CSIRO and, again, developed in co-operation with the University of Western Australia and the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia. Some of these varieties are now undergoing field testing in Western

Australia and also in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.This work has been in progress for 9 years and is continuing.

In addition to the above research aimed at producing non-toxic clovers, many other aspects of ‘clover disease’ are being investigated. The programme is a closely integrated national research effort involving close contact between the bodies involved. Co-operating authorities include the CSIRO Divisions of Plant Industry, Animal Health, Animal Physiology, Tropical Pastures, and Applied Chemistry; the Departments of Agriculture in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia; and university workers in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.

page 1182

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA: DEAF AND DUMB CHILDREN

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 28th August Senator Webster asked me a question in the following terms:

My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, relates to educational facilities for handicapped children in the Trust Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Has the Commonwealth or the Territory Administration ever made a survey of the incidence of deafness and blindness or the number of dumb children in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea? What facilities exist in the Territory to assist in the alleviation of afflictions in children or to afford educational benefits to such children? If it be that no survey has been undertaken or that no real facilities exist for the education of these less fortunate persons, will the Commonwealth demonstrate a recognition of its obligation in this matter by promptly considering the best method of having a survey undertaken and by further encouraging, by financial assistance, the establishment of privately organised schools and facilities so that people experienced in specialised training may be used in the Territory?

The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There have been no Territory-wide surveys of the incidence of deafness, blindness or dumbness though there have been specific surveys of such defects as glaucoma.

At this stage a number of considerations militate against the establishment of special schools for children with these handicaps. Firstly, the advisability of taking these children out of the village environment for education is questionable. Handicapped children are generally well-accepted in the village and have few adjustment problems if they grow up there. The separation of these children to attend special schools would bring the possibility of poor social adjustment In return for the uncertain benefits they might derive from a formal education. Few handicapped children can attain an education much above the primary level, and this would not be sufficient to assure them of employment outside the village.

Secondly, there are serious practical difficulties in the way of providing special education. It would be necessary to obtain not only specially qualified teachers of the handicapped but teachers who are competent in the Territory languages, of which there are some 700.

Thirdly, as there are still only 50% of primary school-age children being educated it is considered doubtful that the diversion of scarce resources to the education of a small sector of the community who suffer special handicaps would be justified.

It is not therefore considered that at the present time efforts should be made to promote the establishment of special schools, nor for this reason would a survey of the incidence of these handicaps be warranted. The situation will, however, change as detribalisation and urbanisation increase.

page 1183

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 28th August Senator Greenwood asked me a question in the following terms:

In view of the large numbers of transistor radios in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, the extensive use made of radio by the Administration and the desirability of promoting awareness and appreciation of proceedings of the House of Assembly, has the Government given consideration to the broadcasting of those proceedings? If not, will the Government give serious consideration to this proposal?

The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

On 3rd September 1968 the House of Assembly resolved -

That in view of section 17 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Ordinance 1964-1965 which states that no broadcast or re-broadcast of any portion of the debates or proceedings of the House, or of the Committee shall be made except by the authority of the House and in accordance with such conditions as are determined by the House, the House Committee and the Standing Orders Committee, sitting jointly - investigate and report on the conditions under which the proceedings of this House may be broadcast or re-broadcast.’

The Committees presented their report to the House of Assembly on 11th March 1969. They recommended that:

‘The Department of Information and the ABC. be asked to consider rebroadcasting questions without notice, but that otherwise no action be taken at this stage for the broadcasting of proceedings of the House, either in part or as a whole, but that the House have the matter reviewed from time to time, in the light of changing conditions.

The Committees commend the existing coverage of Parliament given by’ both Administration and the A. B.C. radio stations in the form of news items, summary programmes and adult education activities, and welcomes their stated intention to develop these activities as their resources permit’.

The Government accepts the recommendation of the Committee as being realistic in the light of present conditions in the Territory.

page 1183

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

- Mr Deputy President, you indicated that after question time I might be given an opportunity to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY PRESIDENT:
Brockman · Senator Drake

– Yes. I shall give the honourable senator that opportunity. Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes. During question time I directed a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General regarding appointments to the High Court. In the course of his reply, Senator Wright used words that may have suggested that I was reflecting in some way upon the most recent appointment, that of Mr Justice Walsh. I rise to indicate that my question explicitly acknowledged the appropriate qualities of the honourable gentleman. Insofar as the question may have been open to inference, I ask the Minister to accept that no such inference interpreted as subject to that inference was intended.

page 1183

QUESTION

REPORTS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS ‘ COMMITTEE

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– I present the One Hundred and Eleventh and One Hundred and Twelfth Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr DEPUTY PRESIDENT; Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:

The One Hundred and Eleventh Report concerns the Treasury Minute arising from your Committee’s One Hundred and Third Report which relates to Financial Regulations. Your Committee would invite attention to its observations contained in chapter 3 of the One Hundred and Eleventh Report in which it has expressed the view that ministerial approval should be obtained by instructing departments for all proposed amendments to regulations involving a change of policy, irrespective of the significance of that change, before drafting instructions are submitted to the Parliamentary Draftsman. The One Hundred and Twelfth Report relates to Commonwealth advertising and, in particular to the Commonwealth Advertising Division of the Department of the Treasury.

Arising from that inquiry your Committee believes that the Department of the Treasury should examine carefully a claim made in evidence that there is no danger of large-scale advertising agencies represented on the Commonwealth Advertising Council gaining the bulk of Commonwealth advertising business. The evidence shows that the arrangements existing between the Commonwealth Advertising Division and advertising media for the placing of Commonwealth advertising contracts or orders exceeding $1,000 in value are invalid in terms of the requirements of Treasury Regulation 52. However before developing proposals to amend that regulation so as to validate the present arrangements, your Committee believes that tenders should be invited for advertising contracts exceeding the value referred to and the results assessed carefully. In this regard, your Committee believes that competitive tendering should ensure that certain benefits currently enjoyed by agencies from Commonwealth advertising contracts are obtained only by those agencies that are demonstrably the most efficient.

The evidence also shows that all departments should maintain specific records of their expenditure incurred on advertising placed through the Commonwealth Advertising Division. In addition it appears that, contrary to the requirements of Treasury Direction 31/41, some departments have placed advertising material direct with media but have failed to notify the Commonwealth Advertising Division. This practice should cease. It also appears to your Committee that, having regard to the requirements of Treasury Regulation 52 and a recent relevant legal opinion, the basis of engagement of advertising agencies in Australia by the Department of Trade and Industry should be reviewed. Moreover, proposals put forward by the

Postmaster-General’s Department to remove a lack of continuity in its relationships with advertising agencies should be considered by the Department of the Treasury in relation to the needs of all departments and also in relation to your Committee’s conclusions regarding the basis of engagement of such agents. Finally, your Committee believes that in view of the affinity of function and probable similarity in staffing skills existing between the Commonwealth Advertising Division and the Australian News and Information Bureau, the Public Service Board could, with advantage, examine carefully the desirability of amalgamating these two organisations and assess the economies of administration that might be achieved. I commend the Reports to honourable senators.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 1184

DIVISIONAL STORE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DARWIN

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

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

Divisional store, Department of Health, Darwin, Northern Territory.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator BRANSON:

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

  1. There is an urgent need for the accommodation proposed in this reference.
  2. The proposal to air condition staff occupied areas and selected stores areas is supported.
  3. The site selected is suitable.
  4. The Committee recommended the construction of the work in this reference.
  5. The estimated cost of the work when referred to the Committee was $737,000.

page 1184

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON OFF-SHORE PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Senator COTTON (New South Wales)On 26th March last the Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources presented to the Senate a progress report on the work of the Committee and, among other things, informed the Senate that it hoped to furnish its full report during the present period of sittings. Although the Committee has worked towards this goal, and members have devoted as much time as possible in an endeavour to complete the very formidable task committed to them, the Committee is unable to conclude its inquiry and report to the Senate this session.

The Committee’s investigation is nearing its completion and it has in fact given preliminary consideration to several draft sections of its report. However, the impending general elections resulting in the earlier than anticipated close of this session, and the extended days and hours of sittings of the Senate preclude the Committee finalising many matters and reporting in adequate terms to the Senate at this stage. The Committee hopes that, early in the life of the new Parliament - Twenty-seventh Parliament - the Senate will see fit to reconstitute the Select Committee on OffShore Petroleum Resources with power to consider and make use of all the records of the present Committee so that its work may be completed and a report submitted at an early date; and the Committee recommends accordingly.

page 1185

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I present the Twenty-sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, being a general report on the activities of the Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BISHOP:

– I present the Twentyseventh Report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, together with an index and appendices.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BISHOP:

– I present the Twentyeighth Report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1185

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I present the following paper:

Audit Act - Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General upon other accounts, for year 1968-69.

page 1185

CUSTOMS (PROHIBITED IMPORTS) REGULATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– by leave - Honourable senators are aware that regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations prohibits the importation of literature and articles that are blasphemous, indecent or obscene, or unduly emphasise matters of sex, horror, violence or crime, or are likely to encourage depravity. Honourable senators also know the regulation provides that even though a book is prohibited under regulation 4a the Minister may approve any application to import such works provided a report has been received from the Chairman of the National Literature Board of Review or the Director-General of Health.

When regulation 4a was introduced in 1963 the then Minister undertook to report annually to the Senate in respect of books released in accordance with the above provisions. This report, the sixth to be presented, covers the period 1st July 1968 to 30th June 1969. During this period 57 applications were received. Of these 47 were approved and 10 were refused. Details of the medical, psychiatric and sociological works released are: 12 to university researchers; 7 to university lecturers; 7 to medical practitioners; 2 to artists; 2 to psychologists; 1 to a public library: I to a State health department; 1 to a police college; 1 to a publisher and 1 to a Commonwealth instrumentality. Similar details in respect of fictional works are: 6 to university lecturers, 5 to university researchers and 1 to a psychologist.

page 1185

PRIVILEGE

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I desire to raise a matter of privilege relating to a report which appeared in the Brisbane

Telegraph’ of Friday, 19th September 1969 and in similar terms in the Melbourne Herald’. It refers to an incident which occurred in the Senate on Thursday night last concerning Senator Buttfield who withdrew and apologised to the Senate for certain statements she had made about Senator Georges. The report states in part that Senator Buttfield said, apparently on Friday:

The Senate can compel you to apologise but they can’t compel you to mean it.

Later in the report she is quoted as saying:

I said it was a great pity he was allowed to be here. Anyone who wants Communists to be allowed citizenship should not be allowed here.

The report contains various other statements apparently made outside the House. With the concurrence of the Senate I table photostat copies of the relevant parts of each of the publications. I have directed attention to this matter in accordance with the practice of the Senate to raise these matters at the earliest opportunity. In order that honourable senators generally and, in particular, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), perhaps Senator Buttfield and, not least of all, yourself, Mr Deputy President, may have an opportunity to consider the position, I ask for leave to continue my remarks at some convenient time later in the day.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1186

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

– I move:

I should explain that 1 am in a position where I am trying to accommodate everybody. On the one hand, Senator Cohen has indicated that he is not ready to proceed with the education Bills today and on the other hand the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) has indicated that she is not ready to proceed with orders of the day Nos 4, 5 and 6. I believe that the Senate will be in a position to deal with the orders of the day that I have indicated. If those matters are concluded today, as I hope they will be, the Senate can revert back to the debate on the Estimates. But 1 would wish to push on with as many of the Bills on the notice paper as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1186

INCOME TAX BILL 1969

Bill received from the Mouse 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:

This Bill will declare the general rates of tax for the financial year 1969-70. Special rates of tax to apply to certain income of superannuation funds, trust estates and members of partnerships will be declared by a separate Bill. The rates of tax declared by this Bill do not differ from those which applied for the previous financial year. As foreshadowed in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr McMahon), however, the Bill does provide for liberalisation of the age allowance provisions in several ways. As honourable senators will recall, the age allowance is available to men and women of at least 65 years and 60 years respectively, who are residents of Australia.

For the 1968-69 financial year an aged person was not required to pay income tax if his own taxable income did not exceed $1,248 or, where he contributed to the maintenance of his spouse, if the combined taxable income of the couple did not exceed $2,184. These exemption levels are to be lifted, for the current financial year, to $1,300 and $2,262 respectively. It is also proposed to extend the ranges of taxable income within which the age allowance provisions limit the amounts of tax payable by aged persons, and to reduce the amounts of tax payable under these limiting provisions. In 1968-69 these provisions imposed limits on the tax payable by aged persons whose taxable incomes did not exceed $1,532 or, where the married couple concession applied, if the combined taxable income of the couple did not exceed $3,514. For 1969-70 these limiting provisions will apply up to $2,275 and $4,121 respectively.

Apart from extending the income ranges to which the tax limiting provisions apply, it is proposed to substitute graduated shading-in rates for the flat shading-in rate used until now for the purposes of these provisions. The amount of tax payable by an aged person to whom the tax limiting provisions apply is at present limited to nine-twentieths, or 45%, of the amount by which his taxable income - or combined taxable income in the case of married couples - exceeds the relevant exemption point, plus the 21% additional tax. For 1969-70, shading-in rates ranging from 16i% to 66!% will be applied to specified parts of the excess of taxable income - or combined taxable income - over the exemption point in order to arrive at the maximum amounts payable. The 2i% additional tax will not bc added to the limited amount of tax calculated at the shading-in rates I have referred to.

The new shading-in rates are designed to fit in with the tapered means test for age pension purposes, under which the age pension will be reduced by 50c for each $1 by which means as assessed exceed the free level. Under the new pension arrangements no pension is payable when means as assessed reach $2,080 per annum or, in the case of a married couple, when joint means as assessed reach $3,640 per annum. The new 66)% shading-in rate that will apply to the top shading-in ranges, that is, when taxable income exceeds $2,080 or combined taxable income exceeds $3,640, is greater than the existing flat rate of 45%. However, the increased exemption levels together with the new shading-in rates of less than 45% to apply to the lower shading-in ranges will ensure that, in every case, the tax payable will be lower under the proposed graduated rates than under the existing flat rate.

It is important to appreciate that these shading-in rates are used only to calculate a limitation on the tax at normal rates that would otherwise be payable. The proposed shading-in rates will be applied only to specified parts of income above the exemption levels and not, as the normal rates of tax are, to the whole of the taxable income. The amount calculated under the shading-in rates is substituted for tax at normal rates only when it is less than the tax at normal rates. The liberalisation of the age allowance will result in worthwhile increases in the disposable incomes of aged persons. For example, the tax payable by a single aged person in receipt of income consisting of a superannuation pension of $1,500 per annum, and having concessional taxation deductions of $150, will be reduced from S47.04 to $8.33- a benefit of $38.71. That is only part of the assistance the Government proposes for elderly people, however. Under the tapered means test for pension purposes, the aged person I have mentioned will become entitled to an age pension of $290. His disposable income will therefore be increased by a total of $328.71. Honourable senators will find further explanations of the proposed age allowance provisions in a memorandum being circulated for their information and I do not think it is necessary to say anything more at this stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1187

INCOME TAX (PARTNERSHIPS AND TRUSTS) BILL 1969

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 purpose of this Bill is to declare special rates of income tax for the financial year 1969-70 on income of certain superannuation funds, trust estates and members of partnerships. These rates are related to legislation enacted in 1964 with the object of countering certain types of tax avoidance arrangements. They do not differ from the rates that applied for the 1963-69 financial year. The Bill declares that tax at the rate of 50% will be payable in respect of the income of a trust estate, other than a deceased estate, to which no beneficiary is presently entitled and which is not taxed as if it were the income of one individual.

The taxable income of a superannuation fund that does not qualify for exemption will also be subject to a rate of 50%. This rale will not. however, apply to the investment income of a superannuation fund that is subject to tax only through the fund’s failure to comply with the ‘30-20’ public securities investment rule. The rates on such income are proposed by the Income Tax Bill 1969. A rate of further tax, sufficient to bring the aggregate rate to 50%, will be imposed on income from a share in a partnership over which a person lacks, or is deemed to lack, real and effective control and disposal. An exemption from further tax on partnership income is provided, as in previous years, for people who are eligible for age allowance benefits. For the current financial year, further tax will not be payable by a person qualified by age and residence whose taxable income does not exceed $2,275 or by a qualified person who contributes to the maintenance of a spouse if the combined taxable income of the couple does not exceed $4,121. These changes are, of course, in line with proposals relating to the age allowance in the Income Tax Bill 1969. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION) BILL 1969

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.

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to borrowings by the Commonwealth not exceeding the equivalent of $US31m ($A27.7m) to asssit in financing the purchase of one Boeing 727 jet aircraft and six Douglas DC9 jet aircraft and related equipment by the Australian National Airlines These aircraft, the total cost of which will be approximately $US38.4m ($A34.3m), are due for delivery between March 1970 and March 1972. After they have all been delivered, TAA’s fleet of jet aircraft will consist of 6 Boeing 727’s and 1 2 Douglas DC9’s.

On previous occasions when we have introduced legislation for borrowings to assist in the purchase of new aircraft by Qantas Airways Ltd and TAA, the loan agreements have already been signed but have usually been conditional on suitable legislation authority becoming available later. This is normally possible in a private borrowing in which securities are not offered to members of the public through the issue of a prospectus. On this occasion we have not yet been able to settle any firm borrowing arrangements although it appears that some favourable opportunities may arise in the course of the next few months. In the difficult borrowing conditions generally prevailing at present in oversea markets, we must be in a position to take advantage of any such opportunities without delay.

At this stage it appears that it may be possible to arrange for up to one-half of the amount to be borrowed by a European unit of account loan, which would seek subscriptions from members of the public in seventeen European currencies. If such a public borrowing eventuated, it would be necessary to demonstrate in a prospectus the full legal chain of authority upon which the Commonwealth was borrowing the funds. It would also be necessary to establish that the Commonwealth could legally pass on the loan proceeds to TAA. Other possible avenues of finance being explored include assistance from the Export-Import Bank of the United States in conjunction with the aircraft manufacturers. The Bill has been drafted to provide for these possibilities.

I should perhaps mention that the borrowing authority we are seeking would be no different in principle from the standing authority which is already available under the financial agreement and associated legislation to arrange public loans for the Commonwealth. Similar arrangements also apply under the Loan (Defence) Act 1966 for a series of borrowings for defence purposes. The other arrangements for the loans will be similar to those approved by Parliament for previous loans for TAA and Qantas in recent years. The Commonwealth will be the borrower in the first place, and the full proceeds will be made available to TAA on terms and conditions to be determined by the Treasurer pursuant to clause 6 of the Bill. These terms and conditions will be the same as those under which the Commonwealth itself borrows the money. As the airline will be required to meet all charges under the loan agreements, the Commonwealth will, as usual, merely assume the function of an intermediary in these arrangements.

The detailed terms and conditions of the loans to be arranged will be subject to approval by the Australian Loan Council. The total amount to be borrowed has been authorised under the 1969-70 programme approved for the Commonwealth at the Loan Council meeting in June 1969 and will be additional to the Commonwealth’s approved programme of $!32m for State housing purposes. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 1189

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Scott) read a first lime.

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– ‘1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr President, this Bill provides for the validation, until 30th April 1970, of customs duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the Parliament since 14th August last. Honourable senators will appreciate that legislation to enact these changes could not properly be debated before the Senate goes into recess. A Bill to enact the tariff changes can be introduced into the Senate in the next session. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

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

page 1189

STATES GRANTS (DWELLINGS FOR AGED PENSIONERS) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland Minister for Housing) [3.21] - ! move:

Thai the BUI be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to seek Parliament’s approval to pay grants, amounting to $25m over 5 years, to the States for the erection of self contained accommodation for single age pensioners and those who qualify for service pensions by reason of age. Mr Deputy President, I think we all would agree that those persons most in need of housing assistance include single elderly pensioners living in miserable accommodation or paying too high a proportion of their pensions in rent. These pensioners are independent people who are capable of looking after themselves and include those who, because they live in deplorable conditions, sometimes suffer an untimely breakdown in their health. Experience has shown that, when they can be moved into adequate modern housing, their health frequently improves and their life expectation is increased. If they are required to pay only a reasonable rent, their financial worries are reduced and more of their pension is available to provide them with a modest standard of living. Too often rent is the killer.

Eligible pensioners are defined in this Bill as single persons in receipt of the age pension and those who qualify for service pensions by reason of age, all of whom arc receiving or are eligible to receive supplementary assistance under section 30a of the Social Services Act or under section 98a of the Repatriation Act. To be eligible for supplementary assistance their means as assessed must be less than $3 per week apart, of course, from the pension. They are the most needy, and comprise at least 80% of all single applicants to lease aged persons units from State housing authorities. To meet their needs, there must first be alternative accommodation of a reasonable standard to offer them at rents they can reasonably be expected to pay. Secondly, if they are not to suffer substantial personal disturbance, the alternative accommodation in the majority of cases needs to be offered in the vicinity of the places where they are now living. The localities in which a large proportion of them are living and where most of them wish to continue to live are the older inner suburbs of our capital cities.

The purpose of our offer of advances to the States is to assist them to carry out a number of building projects. A project may include the purchase of land, the preparation of land for the erection of a building, the planning and erection of a building and the installation of water, electricity or other services to provide self contained dwellings for eligible single pensioners. In making this offer to the States we have not overlooked the very considerable amount of aged persons housing built by many charitable and other non-profit organisations throughout Australia with the assistance of the $2 for $ 1 grant under our aged persons homes scheme. Under this scheme self contained units and, in addition, hostel type accommodation and nursing home beds have been provided for many of our elderly citizens. We wish to see the activities of these charitable and other organisations expand further under our offer of assistance to them, for as long as there is an insufficient supply of suitable aged persons accommodation.

Nevertheless there are still large numbers of needy aged pensioners who are far from adequately housed. Many of these are living in the poorer inner suburbs of our capital cities. There is a large unsatisfied backlog of demand for decent and moderatelypriced accommodation for these pensioners. This problem is mainly being tackled by the State housing authorities. A more rapid reduction of the backlog is an urgent welfare need for those involved, and this may most efficiently be achieved by providing finance to the States to permit them to expand their activities in this field.

The $25m has been allocated among the States broadly in the proportion that the number of age pensioners receiving supplementary assistance in a State bears to the total number of these pensioners in the six

States. The proposed legislation does, however, provide that, in the unlikely event that a State does not wish to accept the full amount of its share of the $25m, any shortfall may be transferred to another State which is willing and able to spend it on the approved purpose. An amount equal to one-fifth of the $25m will be available to the States for expenditure each year, and any amount available but not advanced during a year will be available for expenditure in the succeeding year.

As more aged persons’ accommodation is urgently needed, and as the purpose of our offer is to achieve this, each State has been asked for an assurance that it will spend from funds other than our grant during the 5-year period commencing 1st July 1969 not less than five times its average annual expenditure for this purpose during the 3 years ended 30th June 1969. Where neither a State nor its housing authority has as yet built homes specifically for aged persons capable of looking after themselves, such a State will be expected to agree to spend for this purpose a reasonable and increasing amount from the funds available to it other than the grant.

Clause 4 of the Bill empowers the Minister to approve a building project, and clause 6 provides that the grant may be spent only on approved projects. An approved project may include that part of a building being erected by a State authority that contains specified single person units reserved solely for occupation by pensioners eligible under this scheme. Approved projects may include those whose construction commenced on or after 1st July 1969. Projects to be built with our advances will only be approved if they are to be provided in localities in which there is a demonstrable need, and if the homes to be erected will be of an adequate size and standard and be offered at reasonable rentals.

As early as practicable after the end of each financial year each State will be required to supply to the Minister a statement certified by the Auditor-General of its expenditure out of advances under the Act on each approved project, and a statement of its expenditure during the year on the erection of aged persons’ accommodation from funds other than the Commonwealth grant. As soon as practicable after the receipt of this information, the Minister will be required to report to Parliament on the past year’s activities under the scheme. In the interests of all those needy pensioners who stand to benefit under this scheme, I have rauch pleasure in commending this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1191

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

This is a Bill seeking the authority of the Parliament for the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) to guarantee, on behalf of the Commonwealth, loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd in financing the purchase of one Boeing 727 and six Douglas DC9 aircraft. Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia now have six DC9s, and will acquire their fifth Boeing 727 in November, bringing the total domestic frontline fleet to twenty-two jet aircraft.

Early this year, the Government considered proposals by the two airlines that each should purchase another Boeing 727 aircraft and a further six DC9s for delivery between March 1970 and March 1972. These proposals were based on a careful appraisal of the likely traffic growth in 1969, 1970, 1971 and beyond, and studies by the Department of Civil Aviation confirmed that the additional aircraft planned by the airlines would be essential if there was to be sufficient capacity to meet the growing demand of the main air routes. This is especially so as the remaining turboprop Electras and Viscounts are to be progressively phased out of service. By early 1971, the two airlines hope to have standardised their fleets on the Boeing 727 and

DC9 for front line operations, both types having proved to be eminently suited to Australian conditions.

In the light of all the circumstances, the Government has approved the aircraft acquisition programmes of the airlines and has also agreed to facilitate the financing of the purchases by seeking parliamentary approval to raise loans on behalf of TransAustralia Airlines and to guarantee, if requested, any loans raised for the purpose by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. The latter arrangement is needed to ensure, as far as possible, that the private airline can borrow on terms comparable with those available to the Government airline, a vital consideration in a project which will cost each operator some $36m in all. Similar guarantees have been given with the approval of Parliament in respect of the company’s purchase of its six DC9s and its fifth Boeing 727.

Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has indicated that it will endeavour to borrow up to $28.6m or 80% of the estimated cost of its seven new aircraft, in accordance with the normal procedure in projects of this kind. The Bill places a limit of $US32m on the loans subject to Commonwealth quarantee, this being the equivalent of $A28.6m. Time has not yet permitted the company to complete its negotiations, but it expects to raise approximately$16.3m in Australia from a bank and other financial institutions, and the balance of$1 2.3m in the United States.

The Bill now submitted is along similar lines to the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill which was approved by Parliament last year. It provides that, before giving a guarantee for any loan, the Treasurer is to be satisfied the moneys are borrowed on reasonable terms and conditions, that proper security is given to the Commonwealth over the aircraft and associated spares and equipment, and that undertakings are given by the company on such matters as insurance, mortgages, and export of the aircraft. The company will also be required to make available its financial accounts and records to an officer authorised by the Minister for Civil Aviation while any part of the loans remains unpaid.

In assisting Ansett Transport Industries Ltd in this way to obtain suitable finance for the next phase of the company’s equipment programme, the Government aims to ensure the continued operation of its successful two-airline policy. In common with Trans-Australia Airlines, the company will, with Commonwealth support, be able to obtain much needed aircraft within a reasonable time. At the same time, each airline will be able to finance the purchase of their aircraft on a similar basis.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 1192

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I move:

With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 21 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act which provides for the establishment and operation of the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund. Under this section, royalties received by the Commonwealth for minerals or timber taken from the land which has been reserved for the use and benefit of Aboriginals, are appropriated out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and paid into the Trust Fund. The Minister is authorised to approve payment out of the Fund of moneys which are to be paid or applied to or for the benefit of Aboriginals. The Trust Fund was established in 19S2 at the time Aboriginal reserves were opened for mining exploration and prospecting. The intention behind the establishment of the Fund was to give some compensatory benefit to the Aboriginal people for the loss of the use of land reserved for their benefit and any disturbance to their way of life because of mining operations. In 1961 the Act was amended to include in the revenues of the Fund the amounts received by the Commonwealth for royalties on timber taken from reserves.

The rate of the royalty to be paid in respect of mining and timber operations carried on in reserves is fixed by Ordinance. With regard to mining, the standard royalty payable is 2i% of the gross value of the minerals taken, less certain statutory deductions, and this is twice the royalty paid where mining is carried on outside an Aboriginal reserve.

With the development of manganese mining at Groote Eylandt and bauxite mining at Gove, the Trust Fund will be a very important source of finance available to assist Aboriginals. Royalties from Groote Eylandt are expected to rise progressively to about $400,000 annually in 1975. Royalties from Gove are expected to commence in 1971 when about $600,000 should be paid to the Fund. This figure should rise to about $870,000 annually in 1975. From these two projects alone, the income of the Fund will be in excess of $lm a year in 1975 with a total revenue up to that time of about $5m. There is, of course, a possibility of other major mineral discoveries on reserves and if a wood chip industry were later established in Arnhem Land this could produce up to $250,000 additional revenue for the Fund each year.

In view of the growing importance of the Fund as a source of assistance of Aboriginals in the Territory, the Government has reviewed the whole concept of the Fund and the way in which the Fund should operate. The Bill now before the Senate proposes certain legislative amendments to the Act with regard to the Fund and later I will also inform the Senate of the principles which the Government would wish to see followed with regard to the use of the revenue of the Fund. In brief, the changes proposed by the Bill are that:

  1. rentals from leases of land on Aboriginal reserves, other than mining leases be paid to the Trust Fund in addition to mining and timber royalties;
  2. the Minister may determine that other revenue derived from land within an Aboriginal reserve be paid into the Fund;
  3. payments of interest on, or repayment of, any loans made from the Fund are to be paid into the Fund and security can be taken in respect of loans granted;
  4. the Minister may authorise the offsetting in whole or part against revenue from timber royalties, expenditure by the Commonwealth in connection with the establishment and development of planted forests or the development of native forests;
  5. similarly, the Minister may authorise the offsetting against revenue from lease rentals, Commonwealth expenditure on land subdivisions including the provision of roads, water, sewerage and other services;
  6. the expenses of administering the Fund to be met from the revenues of the Fund.

Leases on reserves for pastoral and agricultural purposes will be granted only to Aboriginals. As reserves have been established for the use and benefit of Aboriginals generally, it is considered reasonable that net revenue from leases of land should be paid to the Trust Fund.

The Commonwealth could be required to expend considerable sums of the development of forests and the subdivision of land on reserves. In normal circumstances revenue from timber royalties would be regarded as including the re-imbursement of government expenditure incurred for silviculture, fire protection and forest management. Revenue from lease rentals similarly is regarded as meeting some part of the cost to a government in making serviced land available to lessees. It is considered reasonable that the Act should make provision for the application of these principles to forestry operations and the provision of serviced land on reserves, although the Bill proposes that the Minister should have a discretion both with regard to whether there should be any offsetting of costs against revenue in particular cases and the portion of those costs for which the Commonwealth should receive repayment.

The Bill also proposes to reinstate the earlier provisions, omitted when amendments were made in 1965, that mineral and forestry royalties from land which at any time after 2nd September 1953 was a reserve shall be paid to the Trust Fund. The date referred to was the date of commencement of the legislation which permitted prospecting for minerals on Aboriginal reserves. Excisions from reserves are not contemplated at present, but in the event of any future change in the status of land which is now reserved for the Aboriginal people, Aboriginals will continue to receive the benefit of royalties and other revenues from that land. It is also proposed that action be taken administratively to establish a committee to advise the Minister on the allocation of moneys from the Fund. This committee will have an Aboriginal majority; initially there will be some places on the committee for officials who have responsibilities in Aboriginal affairs.

One of the principal uses of revenue from the Fund is seen as grants to Aboriginal communities for community facilities such as halls, council houses, and sporting facilities. It is proposed that these grants will be made to local bodies representative of the community,and that the representatives will decide how the money is to be spent. Because it is thought important that local communities be identified as closely as possible with major economic developments in areas where they reside or hunt, it is proposed that, as a first priority, consideration be given to grants to communities, such as Yirrkala, where there is some major development taking place. AH Aboriginal communities wholive on reserves and Government settlements and mission stations will however be eligible for such grants.

Other purposes for which the moneys of the Fund might be used include the making of loans or grants to assist Aboriginals either individually or in groups to establish themselves in productive industries or in commercial undertakings especially on reserves, and the provision of finance for Aboriginal equity participation in substantial commercial undertakings on reserves. It is proposed that loans should also be available from the Fund for the purchase of furniture, or to build or purchase houses, and for assistance in special cases for education and training which might be additional to any assistance normally provided by the Government or through existing schemes. Loans for houses will be additional to the Government’s normal housing programmes for Aboriginals.

It seems desirable to state the relationship of this Fund to the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises which is administered by my colleague, the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth). The Capital Fund can be used only for the purpose of making loans to assist Aboriginals to engage in business enterprises. There may, however, be cases where with an initial grant of part or even all of the capital required, the venture can succeed. In such cases capital grants from the Trust Fund are a possibility. There could, of course, be occasions when it would be appropriate for assistance to be granted from both Funds to a particular enterprise so that the resources of the two Funds can be used jointly in the best interests of Aboriginals.

In the past, the Government has, of necessity, concentrated its efforts on improving the social situation and the educational standards of Aboriginals and giving training to adults which would give them skills on which they could support themselves. The time has come when the Government considers that without relaxing efforts being made on social advancement, there should be an additional concentration of effort to improve the economic position of Aboriginals in the Territory. There are substantial natural resources, particularly in the Arnhem Land Reserve, which we intend shall be developed by the local people. Proposals are now already under consideration for pastoral projects in particular areas and we are looking at proposals for additional assistance to missions which have already started various projects which appear to have potential to become economic businesses under Aboriginal ownership, though with European management in the early stages until the Aboriginal people gain experience.

Other projects being looked at or developed are the logging and milling of timber, fishing on a commercial scale in various centres, contract fencing and mineral prospecting. The feasibility of these projects is being studied by the Department of the Interior and the Office of Aboriginal Affairs where finance from the Capital Fund is a possibility. Already one group at Yuendumu has been provided with loans from the Capital Fund to establish a plant at Yuendumu for extraction of copper from local ore. Recently the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) approved a loan from the Trust Fund to enable another group to build and operate a kiosk at Standley Chasm.

A major decision made this year will increase the responsibility of Aboriginals for maintaining themselves and their families and give them experience in living in a community which is based on payment in cash for goods and services supplied. This was the introduction of higher training allowances which have been paid on settlements from February of this year. This replaced the old system of Aboriginals being given food, clothing and housing, etc., plus a minimum amount in cash for the training they are undergoing on settlements. The Government has also provided subsidies to the missions in the Northern Territory to enable them to pay the same training allowances to residents of mission stations from 19th August.

I see these financial decisions as being of major importance. They reinforce the programmes of housing and home management training which are encouraging more of the people to live as family units, with the housewife managing her own family budget and seeking better furniture and home equipment. As I have said, it is contemplated that some of the Trust Fund moneys should be available for loans for the purchase of furniture and houses. Looking at the Government’s efforts and achievements in the field of Aboriginal welfare in the Northern Territory, it would be impossible to measure the results of those efforts in any quantitative way and come up with a picture which would represent the true result. There are certainly areas where more could be done given the funds and physical resources necessary to correct deficiencies.. Also in some areas where considerable effort has been expended, the results on the surface may appear not to be very tangible. Nevertheless, if we look back 10 or 20 years we can see that the position has improved out of sight. People who were living in the most primitive of circumstances, with very little being done for them and little possibility of change are now in touch with the wider community. They have access to health services, their children are going regularly to school, a great many are becoming accustomed to nouses, to a settled life, and to regular employment.

The position of the Aboriginal people must be looked at in human terms. The reactions of Aboriginals cannot always be looked at in the terms of the reactions of a European in the same situation. There are complicating factors for the Aboriginals of tribal customs, rules and relationships and the effect of the change to living in an environment which is so greatly different from their past. We need to know more about Aboriginal thinking and the problems as they see them. While it would be foolish to claim that the story of Aboriginal welfare in the Northern Territory is one of unqualified success, it has its successes as well as its failures. Complete success cannot be claimed until the Aboriginal people are living at social and economic levels which do not place them at a disadvantage compared with their fellow citizens. It is, however, true that to-day twenty children who attended Kormilda College last year are now attending the Darwin High School; it is true that to-day Aborigines on settlements and missions have more of the skills necessary to enable them to contribute to the development of the areas where they live; and it is also true that many Aboriginals are now showing a positive response to opportunities to take up business enterprises on their own account and that expanded financial assistance is available for this purpose.

There is a great deal of sympathy and interest expressed by people and organisations throughout Australia for the Aboriginal people. This is most commendable and 1 welcome and applaud it. I would ask, however, that those who feel that not enough is being done in a practical way to assist Aboriginals, remember that there are dedicated people working on mission stations and settlements who have given many years of their lives to the cause of Aboriginal advancement. These are the people who have to deal directly with situations as they are on the ground, and live with disappointments and frustrations as well as enjoying the satisfactions of seeing and contributing to social and economic progress. It will take considerable effort by the people who live and work amongst Aboriginals to ensure that the economic projects proposed will be successful, and there is room for more dedicated people in this work.

I hope that my remarks have conveyed the important role which is seen for the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund in advancing the social and economic position of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory and that all honourable senators will not only support the measure before the Senate but also support the principles which the Go vernment considers should be followed in administering the moneys available in that Fund.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1195

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 917), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– This is a Bill to impose increased air navigation charges on domestic airlines and general aviation operators. The increase is 10%, and it takes effect from 1st January of next year. The rates of air navigation charges payable by international operators are left unchanged under the Bill. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) in his second reading speech told us that the Government had had regard to the substantial charges which were imposed on international operators from 1st January of this year. At that time the charges rose by about 21%, and the international operators complained that the charges were too high and that they were being required to meet more than a reasonable share of the costs of developing airports and airport facilities within Australia.

It is interesting to note that last year there was a general increase of 10% for domestic operators, but for aircraft of more than 200,000 lb all-up weight, that is to say, aircraft operated by international companies, there was a further increase of 10.7%. As the Minister stated, in the round this amounted to an increase of approximately 21% as from 1st January 1969. The international airline operators protested about this type of increase and at the same time actually refused to pay the higher charges, although I understand from the annual report of the Department of Civil Aviation that they have subsequently done so. The Minister now informs us that there has been established a working committee of officials from the Departments of Civil Aviation and the Treasury, coupled with representatives of local aviation operators and international companies, for the purpose of examining the problem of the Department’s costs. The Minister hopes that this working group will determine what proportion of costs is attributable to each section of the industry. But it would appear that pending receipt of the working group’s report the local domestic operators are to be hit further whilst the international operators, for the time being, are being permitted to retain the status quo.

I know that the report of the working group is not expected to be received until some time next year, but when it is realised that the number of international passengers being set down and picked up in Australia on scheduled services, including charter flights, rose by 16%, to some 795,000 people in 1968, one comes to the conclusion that international operators should be bearing some proportion of the increased charges; particularly when one remembers that compared with the increase of 16% in the number of international passengers, according to the annual report of the Department of Civil Aviation, there was a growth of about 10% in domestic traffic. In addition, I understand that international operators are not required to pay any tax on fuel in Australia, whilst the domestic operators are required to pay tax on fuel. According to some figures submitted in another place by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), in the last financial year this tax amounted to some $12,817,000, whilst air navigation charges collected from domestic and international operators combined totalled $12,804,000. In fact, the amount of tax on fuel paid by the domestic operators in Australia last financial year was more than the total air navigation charges paid by the domestic operators and the international operators during that year. The domestic operators are carrying a great part of the burden of air navigation charges, as is apparent from Appendix 11 of the annual report of the Minister for Civil Aviation. With the concurrence of honourable senasenators, I incorporate that appendix in Hansard.

The Opposition does not oppose the Bill, but we certainly believe that the Government should be asking the working group that has been established to expedite its deliberations so that the burden of the costs and charges can be apportioned more equitably. After all, a great deal of the expenditure that is being undertaken on airport development and extensions, particularly at Kingsford-Smith Airport in Sydney and Tullamarine in Melbourne, will be of tremendous benefit to the international operators when the work is completed.

I do not know that it is completely fair of any of them to say that Australian charges are the dearest in the world, because there is little, if any, similarity between the way airports are financed in Australia and the way some overseas countries finance their airports. In Australia airport construction is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. In some parts of the United States, I understand, the airports are constructed by local organisations and city corporations. Other airports in that country are provided by the United States Government. In some areas navigational aids are owned by the airline companies. When all these matters are taken into consideration, it must be very difficult for international operators to come to the conclusion that Australia’s air navigation charges are the dearest in the world. There can be no doubt that Australia needs an efficient and not costly airline industry because of the sparseness of the population and the great distances that are involved in travelling within Australia. However, the Opposition believes that it is unfair to load the burden on to our domestic services most of the time and to let the international operators get off the hook for the time being.

During the Committee stage, on behalf of the Opposition I will be moving an amendment aimed directly at preserving the curfew that exists on the operation of pure jet powered aircraft between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. at Kingsford-Smith, Essendon, Tullamarine, Brisbane and Adelaide airports. We do not oppose the motion for the second reading of this Bill, although I take advantage of this debate to request the Government to ask its working group to expedite its deliberations on the overall question of costs.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– We will support this Bill which has been brought down by the Government. We recognise that the airline operators faced up to tremendous difficulties in meeting the capital cost of providing aircraft fleets in the early days of their operations. It was necessary for the community at large, through the government, to accept some responsibility for the facilities which were made available and without which the airlines could not function. I refer to facilities such as the airfields and the attendant buildings and navigational aids.

However, there seems to have developed now a discrepancy between the expenditure of the Department of Civil Aviation and the amount that is recouped. We readily recognise that we can never expect to have an equation between these two factors because airfields can be put to a great many other uses. For instance they are also part of the defence establishment. For that reason alone it is very necessary to have them in a modern society. The availability of commercial airfields during a time of national crisis would be of inestimable value to any government trying to protect the security of the nation. So we readily recognise that part of the burden should be shared by the taxpayers as a whole.

However, it is difficult to justify the discrepancy that exists at this stage, when commercial airlines have developed to a point at which if they are not running on a reasonably profitable basis they should be, and they should be accepting their responsibility for a larger share of the cost. The criticism has been made that air navigation charges have been increasing Budget by Budget. But we must realise that in the beginning very advantageous circumstances had to be provided for the commercial and partially government sponsored airlines, as it were, to get them off the ground.

One of the great aspects of the development of this country is that we have been one of the leading nations in the world in the field of domestic airlines. I well recall that as far back as 1952, having used the airlines of this country somewhat sparingly, I was abroad and was able to make a comparison between our domestic airlines and those of other countries, including the allegedly advanced country of the United

States of America. In 1952 one seldom had to wait for an aircraft in Australia; our aircraft ran according to schedule. In my view, at that time we had the most efficient domestic airlines in the world.

Unfortunately, my experience in the last 12 months has been that half of the flights are late. I make a number of flights, as does every other member of the Federal Parliament. Today we have reached the stage of incompetency that was endured by the people of the United States of America about 20 years ago. 1 wish that we had not developed to the extent that we have, because somewhere along the line we seem to have lost some of our efficiency. That is a criticism of our domestic airlines. It is made without full knowledge of all the circumstances that they have to face up to. I am certain that I had many infuriated parliamentary colleagues at the Canberra Airport only last Friday week, when many flights were delayed for up to 3 or 4 hours. The facilities to deal with the emergency seemed to me to be totally inadequate. I do not know whether the increase in air navigation charges will improve that aspect of domestic aviation and get us back to where we were years ago, when in my view we were the leading aviation country in the world because of the efficiency of our domestic airline.

It appears to us that the increases suggested in this Bill are fully justified in view of the losses that are being sustained by the Department. It seems reasonable to us that if the international airlines are protesting that our charges are higher than those of any other country there should be, as has been advocated, an inquiry into that matter without accepting that the protests from the international airlines are justified or unjustified. We would be prepared to await the result of that inquiry before we offered criticism or otherwise and said whether the charges imposed on the international airlines should or should not have been increased in this legislation. I think that as practical Australians we must recognise that there has to be a clash of requirements in this field. We just cannot have our airports at a disadvantage with other international airports if we wish to participate in the volume of international tourism as it is at the moment. As we know, international tourism is increasing rapidly day by day and year by year. This increase is occurring purely and simply because air transport is so convenient. It enables tourists to travel the world in such a space of time and therefore makes tours available to a far larger section of the world’s population than ever before.

It is to Australia’s ultimate advantage that we should participate in the international business that is going on in this sphere. We would be foolish to inhibit our own opportunities by allowing our airport charges to become so excessive, by comparison with those in the rest of the world, that we limited our opportunities to participate in this type of business. Here again we are forced to take into consideration all aspects of the problem. We must consider not only what we think is fair, right and just for the needs of our own domestic airlines and our own community but also for our interests in international trade. This is true whether it be in respect of tourism by air transport or the export of our commodities, either rural or manufactured. We have to make concessions to an international market in regard to goods that are manufactured and developed in this country. I think that an inquiry will reveal whether we are placing ourselves at a disadvantage by charging international airlines excessively. These airlines have protested and have said that that is so. The Government proposes to inquire into that matter and has at the moment more or less declared a situation of status quo in that there will be no increases until the inquiry is completed. We think that that is reasonable and proper. We suggest that this Bill should pass through all its stages and we are prepared to support it.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I spoke in relation to this matter when dealing with the Budget. It is a matter that has concerned me for some time, that over a period of, I think, 8 years the Government regularly has increased this charge to the domestic airlines by 10%. I know that the view of the Government is that it expects a certain recoupment of its expenditure on the building of aerodromes and the provision of navigational aids for safe flying. It is a case of looking at it in one way or the other. The Government wants as big a recoupment of expenditure as possible. I think that there is another aspect of it to be taken into account which is very important, and that is that this country, as I mentioned in my speech during the Budget debate, is a large one and the building or the sustaining of a first class air service is extremely important to its people. As one who has been in local government for years I sometimes see things differently from the way that a parliamentarian sees them. One thing which concerns small communities in remote areas, is the difficulty of holding their people. From the point of view of decentralisation it is important that we hold as many people as possible in the outer regions of this country.

Everybody should not be living in the capital cities but, of course, if there are no satisfactory facilities afforded to people in the outlying areas the drift will be to the cities. But when speedy air services are available people can live in the distant regions and travel to the capital cities for a holiday or for a change of scene. The necessity for change probably does not strike the people who live in capital cities in the same way as it does the people who live elsewhere. The State of Queensland, which I have the honour to represent, is one in which the capital city is right in the south eastern corner. Most of the people in that State are in far flung regions or in the cities and towns along the coast. Queensland has a very well distributed population and it is most important that air services should be sustained at the present quality and available at a reasonable price. I emphasise the point that they should be available at a reasonable price. That is what concerns me in regard to the regular 10% increase, because the more these charges are piled on to the air services the more they will be passed on, by way of higher fares, to the people who use the services. Therefore I think this is an extremely important matter to the people of Queensland.

I am not going to say that the adding of this 10% will mean an increase in charges immediately, but it is another cost that is being put on to the air services. If I remember rightly, this is the eighth year in a row that this has been done. I know that some people say that only a percentage of the population use air services, but it is a very big percentage. Air services provide a convenience not just for business people who travel between Sydney and Melbourne. The airlines provide a greatly used and cheaper service to people in outer areas. It is most important for us to have people who are satisfied to live in those areas. Therefore the requirement for an air service is probably more necessary in such areas and in the more torrid regions than it is to enable businessmen to travel between Sydney and Melbourne, lt is essential that we have air services that are as cheap as possible. I know it is very easy for people in Parliament to say that there should be an increase of 10% now, 10% next year and 10% the following year - and that it does not really matter; but we come to the time when the last straw breaks the camel’s back. I have spoken about this before. I think we are reaching a position where we shall be asking for too big a percentage in return for expenditure.

It is said to me that it is the people of the capital cities of Sydney and Melbourne who provide most of the traffic. Of course they do, because that is where the greatest aggregation of population is. But these people also involve this country in a terrific expenditure of millions and millions of dollars for the construction of airports such as Tullamarine and Mascot in order to handle overseas air traffic as well as our own. When we place increased charges on the domestic airlines we have to take into consideration the amount that is spent in those areas for the benefit of overseas airlines. Not only must we meet the requirements of our people but we must keep air fares as low as possible so that air travel will appeal to more and more people. It is not just business people in the outer areas who are using the air services but other people who are important because they are building up the population in sparsely populated areas of this Commonwealth. Today we see children travelling by air in parties, in college groups and so on. It is a very fine thing to see them moving about in a modern manner like this and seeing their country because it is a process of education.

Anybody who has been to Japan would have seen school party after school party being taken around the country. I think this is a very good way of teaching children about their own country and making them realise what a wonderful country we live in. Whilst we might like to think that we ought to get a good return for our expenditure in building aerodromes, we have to remember the nature of the services that are required. Let me illustrate by referring to the railways. How many railways in Australia pay? The railways give a service to people in outlying regions. To a great extent it is probably a matter of preference. There are some people who still are a bit timid about plane travel and will travel by train.

Senator Gair:

– Public utilities cannot be expected to pay.

Senator WOOD:

– Senator Gair has said - and he has had wide experience in Queensland as a former Premier of that State - that one cannot always expect public utilities to pay, but they do give a very fine service to a lot of people.

Senator Gair:

– The railways opened up Queensland.

Senator WOOD:

– As Senator Gair has pointed out, Queensland is so welldeveloped because the railways went out and developed the country. Aviation, too, can develop the country. Anything that we do to make travel to and from outlying areas more difficult makes those areas less attractive. People say that the Government is subsidising aviation. What if it is? Anyone who has taken an interest in aviation for as long as I have would know that originally the Government subsidised the airlines so that they could operate economically. Because of their increased efficiency, brought about by the development of modern planes, modern techniques and so on, in most cases they do not now require a direct subisidy. This achievement has been brought about by the encouragement shown by former governments. Today we have this very happy state in which we provide, by our domestic airlines, a service probably equal to that provided in most other countries.

Senator Gair:

– The history of Qantas confirms what the honourable senator is saying.

Senator WOOD:

– Qantas started in the Queensland outback. 1 thank Senator Gair for reminding me that from its small beginning in the Queensland outback today Qantas has developed a great international air service to which we can look with pride. It carries the name of Australia wherever its aircraft travel. It is an indication of how an airline can develop if it is encouraged and subsidised in its early days. So, we should not squeeze every ounce out of the orange - the orange being the utilities that provide a service to the community. We have to make up our minds to do things to help build such services. The Government will get a full return on its expenditure, no doubt. When the population of this country grows and as more and more air traffic uses the aerodromes the return on the Government’s expenditure will be so much greater. We should not lose sight of the fact that a great deal of this Government expenditure is in the capital cities of Sydney and Melbourne. I do not object to that. 1 just mention that in passing.

When we talk about returns on investments, we have to think of several things, including the indirect returns that come to the Government. 1 heard Senator Little say that the working group will come to some decision on the proposed increases. 1 believe that this Legislation should have been deferred until such tune as that group decided on the allocations of expenditure. What is the position of those who make profits from people who travel by air - the people in the tourist industry, resorts, hotels and motels, the industries that service the aircraft and supply oil and fuel, the people running businesses at the aerodromes? What about those who build the aerodromes? All these people make profits. They are taxed by this Government. Has consideration been given to this aspect? These are very important matters. By way of indirect taxation the Government is receiving money from this industry. This 10% increase in the rates of air navigation charges does not mean a 10% increase in revenue to the Government. I am speaking impromptu, but I think that the Report of the Department of Civil Aviation shows that last year income rose not by 10% but by about 29%.

Senator Sim:

– That was brought about by the increased mileage travelled by operators.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, that was brought about by the increased mileage, but no doubt it was brought about also by the increased usage of aerodromes and of the extra services provided. The increase is not just 10%. I think it works out at 29%. I think that is the figure. As Senator Sim said, the increased mileage and usage are matters that require study. If the Government studied those matters properly it might have some different thoughts about the future. In the case of the international airlines any proposal for an increase has been deferred because of the clamour that charges for Australian airport services that international airlines have to meet are higher than those in operation in any other country.

Senator Sim:

– There was an additional charge over and above the normal 10% on international airlines.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, but there is no such additional charge this year. Nobody disputes that the Australian charge is the highest in the world. The increase could have a detrimental effect on operations by international airlines in that an aircraft taking off from Sydney might not land at, say, Darwin because of the increased charges. What is the result? The service to people in one of our outlying regions is reduced. I just mention this as an illustration of what can happen. Apparently as a result of what was said and the clamour that arose when this group was set up, the Government deferred the matter of rates of air navigation charges payable by overseas airlines. Unfortunately, the domestic airlines were not considered in a similar light. I certainly think that all aspects should be studied.

For some time I have been concerned about this regular increase of 10%. It is building up a cost structure that could have a detrimental effect on many operations. When I spoke on legislation to impose what was virtually an air passenger tax, which I opposed and which I am pleased to note that this Senate rejected, I mentioned that industries such as the tourist industry in my home State of Queensland could be injured by the introduction of that legislation. No doubt industries in other parts of the Commonwealth would be affected also. Honourable senators know their own States better than I do. In my home State, of which I can speak and about which Senator Gair, as a previous Premier, would know, tremendous development has taken place. It was during Senator Gair’s term of office as Premier that a lot of the development took place. A string of tourist resorts along the coast and on the islands sprang ip. Today resorts such as those on islands in the Great Barrier Reef face competition from resorts in Papua and New Guinea, Noumea and Fiji. Today, because air fares pro rata are so much cheaper because increased charges have not been imposed on overseas operators, Australians are being encouraged to go to Fiji. Our own international airline will, in co-operation with British Overseas Airways Corporation, invest money in a resort in Fiji. I have never heard of Qantas investing in any resort in this country. Australia is the country of which we should be thinking. The Commonwealth Government is considering making a grant for the building of an aerodrome in Fiji. The Government can make a grant for the building of an aerodrome in Fiji, whose tourist industry is in direct opposition to the tourist industry in my home State, but it will not help our own tourist industry. Queensland and Fiji are both tropical regions which have a similar appeal because of similar vegetation, rain forests and so on. We should consider the development of our country rather than that of other countries. I mention that proposed grant to show that sometimes our thinking is on other places instead of on this country.

I make a strong suggestion to the Government that earnest consideration be given to stabilising, these aerodrome charges and keeping them within reasonable limits. We should not consider the direct return but the indirect return. We should consider how the increased charges will affect the development of this country and whether they will encourage further development of air services by a greater usage of those services, or whether they will become too tough and so retard the air travel industry and associated industries such as the tourist industry.

I feel strongly about this matter. The international airlines having been given consideration this year, I think that similar consideration should be given to the domestic airlines. I make a strong recommendation to the Government that it consider these increased charges not just as a matter of dollars and cents returned but as a matter of the contribution that airlines make to the development of this country. We do lots of things and we give money for lots of things on which we do not get a return. We spend lots of money in New Guinea and we spend money on different things here, but we do not get a direct return out of that. We should consider the air travel industry as something of great importance to Australia and something which has a much greater impact on the people than has the provision of a monetary return to this Government on its expenditure on aerodromes and on civil aviation aids. In doing that we should remember that the outlying aerodromes are not like Mascot in New South Wales or Tullamarine in Victoria.

The airports in many country centres are under the control of councils. If there is any form of government which is short of funds it is local government. Many local government bodies throughout Australia are maintaining aerodromes and doing other necessary work. I ask the Government to remember when taking action that might affect such areas that the people there are doing more towards the maintenance of aerodromes than are people in the capital cities. I hope that what I have said will cause the Government to bring fresh thinking to this matter.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - I thank honourable senators of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democratic Labor Party and Senator Wood for their comments on this legislation. 1 point out particularly to Senator Wood that the Government has a big responsibility to provide airports and air navigation facilities for the travelling public. This year the operating costs of the facilities will be about $69m and the revenue from air navigation charges and other charges and the fuel tax will be about $26m, leaving a deficit of about $43m. Since 1962 an annual increase of 10% has occurred in air navigation charges. I remind honourable senators that the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the airline companies provided for in the Airlines Agreement Act states that the Commonwealth cannot increase air navigation charges by more than 10% a year.

Senator Wood put the view that the Government by the imposition of these charges is probably affecting the airline industry.

The revenues of the airline companies, the weight of goods carried, the number of passengers carried and the distances travelled increase each year. The domestic airlines last increased their fares in 1967, by 5%. In that year they paid air navigation charges of about $4.4m. Last year they paid about $5. 9m, an increase of about $1.5m, or about 35%. It is therefore apparent that the additional charges have not in themselves necessitated an increase in fares.

Senator Wood in his speech on the Budget suggested that an increase in fares of about 2i% might have to be made by the airline companies to cover the proposed increase in air navigation charges. 1 point out to honourable senators that a 10% increase in air navigation charges costs the domestic airlines about $590,000 a year, or about one-third of 1% of their costs of about $170m. It is a very small factor and it is clear that increased air navigation charges alone would not justify or require increases in fares. The number of passengers carried in 1968-69 increased to 5,231,880, an increase of 9.5%; freight increased to about 91,000 tons, an increase of 5.3%; and mail cargo increased to 9,968 tons, an increase of 2.4%. Although the actual results for last year are not available, the increased traffic and freight indicate that the airlines must have had another successful year. 1 therefore find it hard to be convinced by Senator Wood’s submission that the airline industry is being affected by increases in air navigation charges.

The fact is that we are developing a very big nation, as Senator Wood has said. Many airports are located in outback areas, involving the expenditure of large sums of money for our outback settlers. I am sure that honourable senators agree that although the Government cannot recoup all its costs the air travelling public should be responsible for providing some of the costs. I have pointed out that the total revenue from air navigation charges, other charges and fuel tax will be about S26m, which is nowhere near the sum of S69m that the Commonwealth Government has to pay for the upkeep of airport facilities. The Budget provides in the coming year for over S33m for capital improvements to our airport facilities.

Senator Wood:

– The fuel tax and airport charges do affect marginal airports.

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes. But we are providing a large proportion of the expenditure on marginal aerodromes and they do not produce much revenue. I agree that it is necessary to go on spending that money, but 1 remind honourable senators that the Commonwealth Railways, which has been referred to during the debate on the Estimates, shows a profit while providing a passenger service. At present the Australian National Line is running on a profitable basis. By these measures the Government seeks to recover some of the money provided by taxpayers for facilities for the travelling public. Senator Little referred to problems experienced when planes do not operate at the scheduled times. Of course it must be understood - I am sure that Senator Little would understand it - that schedules are subject to alteration. On occasions planes are held because of something going wrong or for other reasons.

Senator Little:

– ( do not understand it happening as often as it is happening now. It is happening far too often.

Senator SCOTT:

– That is something which can be looked at. Senator McClelland has said that he intends to propose an amendment in Committee providing for an increase of 500% in the charge imposed on pure jet aircraft arriving and taking off in the curfew period from 1 1 p.m. to 6 a.m. The Government cannot accept the amendment. No doubt we will discuss it at a later hour this day. With those few words I thank honourable senators for their remarks in the second reading debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I refer to clause 3. which reads in part:

Clause 3. (1.) The First Schedule to the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting sub-paragraph (1.) of paragraph 7 and inserting in its stead the following sub-paragraphs: - “(1.) Subject to the next succeeding subparagraph, the unit charge for an aircraft is an amount calculated in accordance with the following table: - “(U.) Where-
  2. a charge in accordance with a Schedule to this Act is payable by the holder of an international airline licence; or
  3. a charge in accordance with this Schedule is payable in respect of a flight, take-off or landing made by an aircraft in the course of operations under an international airline licence conducted by a person other than the holder of the licence in pursuance of a contract or arrangement between the person and the holder of the licence, the unit charge for the aircraft, for the purpose of calculating the amount of the charge so payable, is an amount calculated in accordance with the following table: -

Cb) by omitting from sub-paragraph (2.) of paragraph 7 the words “ preceding subparagraph “ and inserting in their stead the words “ two preceding sub-paragraphs “; and

  1. by adding at the end of paragraph 7 the following sub-paragraph: “(4.) In this paragraph, ‘international airline licence’ means an airline licence with respect to an airservice between a place in Australia and a place outside Australia.”. )**

I move:

I have proposed this amendment to give some statutory weight to the departmental embargo which now exists, and which has existed for some time, on pure jet aircraft operating between the hours of 1 1 p.m. and 6 a.m. The Opposition fears that if action is not taken by the Parliament to ensure that the ban continues the Government, because of the pressure which is being exerted on it by airline operators generally, will succumb to the pressure in the near future and lift the embargo. For some considerable time a great publicity campaign has been waged to persuade the Government to lift the curfew on the night operations of pure jet-powered aircraft. The campaign has been growing day by day. In September 1968 the leading aviation journal Aircraft’ had this to say on the subject:

In aviation development at the present time the big problem is that of noise, and the people who are directly in the line of fire are those whose homes are adjacent to the major airports. lt is understandable that for some of them it can become intolerable-

I interpolate here that for a quite a number of them it is intolerable - regardless of the stringent measures adopted by the airport authorities to reduce the noise impact.

The fact remains, however, that as aircraft gel bigger they require more and more powerful engines and. despite marked improvements in design, the volume of noise is more likely to increase than otherwise.

This is a fact of life with which parliamentarians, representing electorates adjacent to airports, will have to learn to live.

The article goes on to laud the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) and continues:

One of the questions he (Mr Swartz) must face -and face boldly, whatever the Parliamentary lobby against it - is a decision on how long the Department can maintain its ban on jet operations between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. . . .

The freight trains that thunder through the night, and the road transports too, are equally disturbing to some sections of the community, but equally a part of our industrial progress.

This kind of campaign has been waged over a period of months. It has gained considerable momentum since the Government granted permission for the importation of Boeing quick change aircraft, that is to say, aircraft which can be converted very quickly from passenger to freight carrying purposes. It is interesting to read in the annual report of the Department of Civil Aviation that the increasing emphasis on the use of quick change aircraft is reflected in the decision of Ansett Airlines of Australia to purchase the next two Boeing 727s in the quick change version. One is to be delivered in November 1969 and the other in September 1 970.

Because the Government has placed its imprimatur on the importation of these aircraft the campaign is now under way, not only by Ansett but by other airline operators as well, to have the embargo lifted. Of course the Government has power either to reject or to approve the importation of this type of aircraft, lt is significant that the Government decided to grant permission for their use in Australia. lt was responsible for letting down the slip rail. and as soon as the way is open for one 1 suggest there will be a rush by others to get into the green pastures of night operations for the carriage of freight. In the July 1969 issue of the journal Panorama’ it is stated:

In ordering the QC Boeings, Ansett Airlines of Australia holds the strong hope that the opening of the Tullamarine jetport in Melbourne, together wilh the runway extensions into Botany Bay at Sydney airport, will result in an easing of the curfew.

Trans-Australia Airlines, it has been reported, has stated that all airlines including TAA would prefer operating without curfews at Tullamarine. If aircraft are allowed to operate without curfews at Tullamarine, I suggest it is only axiomatic that they must be allowed to operate without curfews at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Since approval was granted the people most affected have become irate wilh certain members of the Government and senior members of the Liberal Party who have succumbed to or have joined in the campaign. Sir Henry Bolte has said that he would like to see restrictions on night flying relaxed at Tullamarine, and

Senator Scott who in this chamber represents the Minister for Civil Aviation told me on 11th September last in reply to a question on this matter: lt is in the interests of the airline transport industry that both passengers and goods be permitted to arrive at their destination al any time of the day.

According to his answer, he did not believe that the Victorian Premier was at all worried about what happened in Sydney. He went on:

Other airports in Australia are also interested in having aircraft landing at all limes of the day and night and 1 certainly hope that in the future we may see an end to any objection from New South Wales.

Then last week in another place the honourable member for Perth (Mr Chaney) entered the controversy. He expressed the greatest sympathy with the people who live adjacent to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and went on to say:

The people who have settled near other airports were aware at the time that jets would be operating from those airports in (lie near future. Notwithstanding, people bought land under the flight paths and now complain about noise. If you buy a house adjacent to a piggery you cannot reasonably complain about the smell.

Whilst all these statements are being uttered by senior members of the Liberal Party all that the people who are injuriously affected are told by the Government is that no application has been made for a lifting of the ban; that at the present time - I emphasise the words ‘at the present time’ - there is no intention of changing the restriction; and that it is the Government’s intention ‘under the existing circumstances’ to maintain the present restriction. Nonetheless, the Government has stated that if an application to lift the ban is made the Government will have to consider it. As late as 16th September, which is only a week ago, the Premier of New South Wales was non-committal in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly when, in reply to a question asked of him by the member for Marrickville, he said: 1 should like to have the benefit of the Committee’s findings-

That is, the Joint Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, which is chaired by the honourable member for St George (Mr Bosman) and which tendered its interim report to the Parliament last week - which I believe will be quite lengthy before 1 commit the Government to any firm action one way or the other. 1 agree that something should be done and we as a Government will follow it through.

Mr John O’Hara, a senior journalist in the political rounds of Sydney and a man who is well known to have information sources close to the New South Wales Government, reported in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ last Friday that senior State Government sources say that the ban on the use of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport at night by jets will ultimately be lifted. The cynicism with which the Federal and State Governments are treating the problems of those people who are vitally affected by aircraft noise is, frankly, quite staggering and frightening. No government in Australia seems to be on their side or to bc taking up their case against the large and powerful airline interests. The Australian Labor Party has endeavoured to obtain a statement from a responsible Minister that the embargo will never be relaxed, but no Minister seems to be prepared to give such an undertaking.

Senator Toohey:

– They are all making con Iradictory statements.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– indeed, one says one thing and another says something else. The people who live in the southern suburbs of Sydney in particular have every justification for being concerned at the Government’s failure to say positively that whilst the present airport remains in use and no other site is made available for a second airport to serve Sydney there will be no lifting of the curfew under any circumstances. It should be remembered that the present embargo is not a legislative ban. There is no act or regulation to enforce it. lt is merely a departmental ban. As I understand the situation, the ban can be enforced at present only because the airline operators have to submit their schedules to the Department of Civil Aviation for approval and, knowing the attitude of the Department at this stage, the airline operators have not submitted schedules for night operations. Property values in some Sydney suburbs, particularly the southern suburbs, are being adversely affected by the noise problem. If night flying operations are allowed in the future the value of homes in some Sydney suburbs may be greatly reduced. Day by day the noise is becoming more intolerable because of the increased number of intrastate, interstate and overseas aircraft which are taking off and landing.

The Opposition’s amendment is a simple one. It seeks to provide a legislative bar to pure jet aircraft taking off and landing at night at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, Essendon Airport, Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport, Brisbane Airport and Adelaide Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The Opposition anxiously awaits the Government’s announcement that a new airport site for Sydney will be chosen. In the meantime an assurance should be given by a responsible Minister that no jet flights between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. will be tolerated from any of the airports I have mentioned. The matter is of serious concern to those who are affected. It is a matter which affects not only the people of Sydney and Melbourne but also the people of Adelaide and Brisbane. I noticed an article in the Adelaide Advertiser* of 10th May to the effect that airport noise is a problem in Adelaide and that controversy has been raging in the last few weeks over the question. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the lives and living conditions of people who live adjacent to airports and under flight paths are not deleteriously affected. It is up to the Government to make a positive pronouncement that the ban will be rigidly enforced. In the meantime, however, on behalf of the Opposition I move the amendment knowing that if carried it will bring great comfort and succour to those who are affected.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I oppose the amendment. As Senator McClelland pointed out, the embargo has been in operation for a considerable period of time. I do not agree with Senator McClelland’s statement that there is a need to put more teeth in the embargo. As far as I know, the embargo has been carried out effectively so far and there is no indication from the Government that it is likely to be relaxed in the immediate future. The amendment would appear to be in direct contrast to the general principle of the twoairline policy which has been enunciated in this chamber on many occasions. There is an agreement that air navigation charges cannot be increased by more than 10% a year. The Opposition’s amendment appears to be quite contrary to that restriction.

The Opposition has requested that the present embargo on jet flights between 1 1 p.m. and 6 a.m. remain in force at all time. 1 think that is a far reaching request. Conditions can change from month to month and from year to year. There may be completely different circumstances in the future. For instance we may have new types of aircraft. If the Opposition’s amendment is passed we could be tied up to such an extent that an Act of Parliament would have to be passed in the future to meet a new situation. I would like to point out that, although I have not seen any noise deflecting fences and walls installed at any of the aerodromes in Australia, these are used in almost every international airport in the world that I have seen. These moonshaped fences and walls deflect the noise upwards instead of horizontally. I am surprised that they are not being used anywhere in Australia.

Another point I would like to make is that there is no provision whatsoever in the Opposition’s amendment for emergencies. If an internal flight took off from Sydney for Perth, Darwin or New Guinea at say 10 o’clock at night or a bit later and, as a result of engine trouble, it had to return at 11.30 p.m. would the operator be up for the 500% increase in landing fees simply because the aircraft returned for safety reasons? I understand that existing regulations provide that aircraft can now use these airports in a genuine emergency without a fine being imposed or without the airline operators getting into trouble. There is no such provision in this amendment. It is a very rigid amendment without providing any authority for the remission of charges. It simply states that there shall be an increase by 500%. There is no mention of emergencies. For those reasons I oppose the amendment.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– One could be tempted to congratulate Senator McClelland on a very long and informative second reading speech on a Bill related to a different matter from that which is under discussion. This is virtually what the amendment amounts to. We have received no preknowledge, in accordance with the normal courtesies of the chamber, that such an amendment would be proposed. Had we done so this would have given us some chance to consider it. We would have asked, as the opposition to a government does after a second reading speech, for an adjournment to allow us to give the mature consideration that all legislation should receive before it is passed by a parliament in our democracy. If for no other reason than that we have not had that opportunity we would be opposed to the amendment. But 1 cannot accept the argument that to insert a clause such as this in a Bill that relates to increased landing charges in respect of commercial aircraft would give the teeth that Senator McClelland requires to the regulations under which the Government is achieving what would appear to many of us to be the very admirable effect of forbidding the use of airports by these aircraft within the hours mentioned in the amendment.

What we would do if we carried an amendment such as this would be to legalise the use of our airports within these hours while imposing what appear to us at this stage to be prohibitive charges for the use of the airports. I do not know whether, if the charges were merely increased by 500%, I could accept that they would be prohibitive charges under all circumstances. When the Government is looking at all aspects of this very new problem of the tremendous noise created by modern high powered aircraft and is apparently achieving the objective which Senator McClelland seeks to achieve by the amendment, I do not think that the Government is open to a charge of cynicism.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Does not one Minister favour this change?

Senator LITTLE:

– That would be for the Minister, not for me, to answer. I understood from Senator McClelland’s remarks that he and the Party that he represents do not favour the change, but the amendment suggests that he does favour it with an increase in the charge of 500%. What other interpretation can one place upon this phraseology than that he approves of the principle of the thing but believes in making more money out of it? Virtually, that is all that the amendment suggests.

Senator Prowse:

– Or is he afraid of Tullamarine getting an advantage?

Senator LITTLE:

– I am not concerned about that. I am a representative of the State and people of Victoria. I understand th:t the Premier of that State has expressed some point of view as regards Tullamarine. 1 know that many people, particularly those who live close to Tullamarine, have a different opinion from that of the Premier. When I am suddenly faced with an amendment that merely proposes to increase the charges I do not know the ideas of the people of Victoria as a whole. After all, it is their point of view, not my own point of view, that I am here to represent on a question such as this. I feel that if I lived close to Tullamarine I would be among those who oppose the proposition that these airports should be used by high powered aircraft at night.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You represent the whole of the electors of Victoria.

Senator LITTLE:

– That is true. We have no expression of opinion from all of the people of Victoria. It is true that the democratically elected Premier of the State, who manages to get a majority of the votes of the people within the State, has expressed a point of view. I am not prepared at this stage to accept that as being the point of view of the whole of the State. Obviously the Federal Government has not accepted it either, at this stage anyway. I cannot read into that any reason why I, as a senator from Victoria, should give approval to a proposition that it is all right to use the airports between these hours so long as a higher charge is imposed. The fact that it appears to be a prohibitive charge is inconsequential when we are considering legislation in the interests of the people. This is not a boy scout institution. It is a Parliament and should be run on the lines of a Parliament.

Our objection to the amendment is not to the purpose that it sets out to achieve. We do not believe that this purpose is involved in the discussion at all. Our objection is that it is impossible under the Bill we are considering to give consideration to the matter which the amendment covers. We would be opposed to the principle expounded in the amendment that the only way to prohibit, if it is the considered opinion of the Parliament that we should prohibit, the use of airports between these hours by aircraft of this character, is to make it so profitable for the Government as to make it worthwhile for the people to put up with the inconvenience if airline operators are prepared to pay the required charge. We consider the amendment to be ill-conceived and hastily introduced on a Bill that really has nothing to do with the noise created by aircraft. For these reasons we do not propose to support it.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– This is an extremely ill-conceived amendment. It is not even thinly disguised as any more than a propaganda move with a federal election m the offing. I doubt very much whether, had there not been a federal election due in the next few weks, we would ever have had this amendment brought before us. Senator McClelland said that there was great difficulty in getting any statement from a Minister that the curfew would not be lifted. I have in my hand a record of a statement made by Mr Arthur, the honourable member for Barton in another place, who quoted a telegram dispatched on 15th September to the Rockdale City Council by the Prime Minister, wherein he expressed the Government’s policy in unequivocal terms that could not be misrepresented. In view of what has been said I believe that this telegram to the Rockdale City Council should be read in this place. It reads:

In reply to your telegram of 11th September concerning all night jet flights to Kingsford-Smith Airport I confirm previous statements by the Minister for Civil Aviation to the Rockdale Council and in the House of Representatives on 12th September that the Government has no intention of changing the existing policy restricting the operation of jet aircraft during the curfew period of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. I will confirm this telegram by letter.

  1. G. Gorton,

Prime Minister.

If I understand this amendment, it is to act as a deterrent so that it would by its very nature prohibit jet flights into Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport or the other airports named between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. If members of the Labor Party had done a little arithmetic they would have found that this amendment will be of no comfort to the people in the St George area who would be aware of the arithmetic. I have obtained figures which show quite clearly the nature of the amendment. Let us consider a Boeing 727 aircraft, which has a payload of 39,000 lb. The freight charge between Sydney and Melbourne is 9.5c per lb. With a full payload of 39,000 lb a 727 aircraft on this flight would earn S3..700.

Senator Cormack:

– Are these ad valorem or tapered charges?

Senator SIM:

– It is a flat charge, and of course there are express freight charges on top of that. The amendment calls for an increase in the air navigation charges from approximately SI 10 to S550 which would reduce the earnings of the aircraft from §3,700 to §3,150. But this is still a very profitable operation. If the airline companies imposed a surcharge of 1.5c per lb they would again be earning $3,700 for that flight. So what the Opposition puts forward here as a deterrent to airline companies operating between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. would not be a deterrent.

Senator Little:

– It becomes a snide way of breaking the ban.

Senator SIM:

– It is an encouragement to the airways to break the ban. The electors of St George and other areas which will be affected should be told of these figures so that they may understand clearly that the Opposition is attempting to influence them and so that they will know that the interest which the Opposition has at heart is indeed an extremely odd one. On these figures alone the Opposition’s amendment must be defeated in the interests of the people around Kingsford-Smith Airport. I find it difficult to understand why Tullamarine is included in this amendment because it was built in open country to avoid the great problem that has arisen around other airports in Australia.

Senator Marriott:

– The same as Perth.

Senator SIM:

– I am sure that the people of Western Australia will not be very impressed with this amendment because one means of obtaining quick freight between the eastern States and Western Australia would be with the night operations of fast jet aircraft after 11 p.m. between Melbourne and Perth and return. This would be of great benefit to those in Western Australia who are always having some problem because of the inability of the small piston engine aircraft to carry the freight required in that State. Whatever argument is applied to Kingsford-Smith, Brisbane or perhaps even to Adelaide, would not apply to Tullamarine. I do not think the people of Victoria, Western Australia or any other State should be disadvantaged by the action of a person who, knowing of the problem of noise near an airport, builds a house close to Tullamarine airport. Therefore 1 oppose the amendment because it will not achieve what the Labor Party thinks it will achieve and indeed it will be to the detriment of people living near the Kingsford-Smith Airport.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The amendment we are discussing is to impose a 500% increase in landing charges in respect of jet powered aircraft taking off from Kingsford-Smith, Tullamarine, Brisbane and Adelaide airports between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. lt is our view that this would discourage any airline operator from wanting to use the aerodromes after 1 1 p.m., even if perhaps it wanted by some chance to divert a flight other than in a grave emergency. Senator Sim has just asked why Tullamarine should not be exempted as it is farther outside the city area. Aircraft could take off from Tullamarine and could land at some other airport, but where would they land?

Senator Sim:

– Perth or Hobart.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– They could land at Perth.

Senator Marriott:

– Has the honourable senator ever heard of Hobart and Launceston?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The Perth, Launceston and Hobart airports were designed in anticipation of a situation in which more and more noise would be associated with the aircraft industry. I was a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works which examined the Perth airport project. In that case there was an area which was considered to be a noman’s land which would act as a noise buffer. The same thing applies to the airport at Hobart. Originally the airport was closer in at Cambridge, and when the present site was chosen it was considered that, being a forestry area, not only would it lend itself to development as an airport but also it would be well away from the built up area.

Senator Cormack:

– That is the one with all the sirex wasp?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is right; Senator Cormack has remembered the area. It seems as though the wasps were working in favour of the community rather than against it by ensuring that an area of forest land would be given up for later use as an airport. I come back to the situation that we are debating with regard to priorities and the conflict of interest. We have reached the situation where the Parliament has jurisdiction over the matter and has to make decisions which will take into account the situation that has arisen. There is no doubt that the effects of noise are well known to people who have lived in close proximity to an aerodrome from which jet aircraft have been operating. Grave concern is being expressed about problems of air pollution and water pollution, but noise is another form of pollution which can have a grave and even more serious effect than water or air pollution. The noise level and decibel rating of many aircraft have a nervous effect and create a strain on people who unfortunately have to live in the vicinity of an airport. 1 believe that the health of the community must be of prime consideration. Commercial interests will still go to the full limit without regard to the health of the community if they are given enough rein. Legislation such as this will make even more effective the ban which has already been imposed. We support the complete embargo that exists at present.

Senator Little:

– Your amendment says let them land.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It does not say let them land, but if they want to break the embargo - we all know that embargoes can be broken - they can take off from Tullamarine. I want to say a few words about Tullamarine because in this debate there seems to have been a little barrow pushing with regard to Tullamarine, lt is all very fine to hear flower)’ words from Senator Little about faults that can be found with this amendment, but he wants 2 bob on Tullamarine as a side bet to make certain that if he does not win he gets something for running a place.

Senator Sim:

– That is fair enough.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It is fair enough, of course, but this matter is too important for us to be parochial about it. If ever we find a parish pump with a long handle, at the end of that handle we will find Senator Little, pushing away as hard as he can, about 50 strokes to the minute.

Senator Cormack:

– What is it that they are working on in respect of Tasmania?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– In Tasmania we are working with our brains instead of with brawn and we are very happy with outairport situation, i refer there not only to the people of Tasmania but also the Department of Civil Aviation which has taken over areas which are not built up at present and in respect of which precautions have been taken to ensure that the areas will not bc built upon. One of the quirks of human nature that 1 cannot understand is that people wil buy land alongside an airport, it must be a particular breed of land salesman who can possibly sell a person a block of land or a house near an airport. People who buy land near an airport must be tigers for punishment if they think they will ever have any peace at night or at other times when jet aircraft are operating from the airport.

I should like to refer to a letter of 25th July 1969 from the Town Clerk of the Council of the Municipality of Rockdale to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). The Town Clerk referred to a letter dated 3rd June 1969, which he had addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz). In the letter of 25th July he stated, referring to the letter of 3rd June: . . my Council sought a clear indication of the Government’s policy on the question of introduction of night cargo flights by jet aircraft to and from Kingsford-Smith Airport between the hours of II p.m. and 6 a.m. No reply from the Minister has yet been received.

The Minister had earlier informed Council, on 24th September 1968, and again on 13th November 1968. that he had no intention of changing the existing policy restricting operations by jet aircraft during the curfew period of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. The Minister further stated that no proposal had been received by the Department of Civil Aviation for the operation of schedules by jet aircraft for cargo carrying purposes during the restricted hours and that, in the event of the receipt of such a proposal, it would be considered in the light of the need for additional services and the ability of the operator to contain noise levels within specified limits, which were yet to be determined.

This is a very important part of the Town Clerk’s letter:

Council’s very real concern in this matter has been brought about by recent Press and other reports, from which it is apparent that airline operators are initiating action for lifting of the curfew ban. In this connection, I refer you to the attached copies of articles appearing in the following publications: 1 The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 1st May 1969. 2 The ‘Daily Commercial News and Shipping List’, incorporating Airway News, of 19th May 1969. 3 The Journal ‘Aircraft’, of May 1969.

None of the statements contained in these articles has been denied by the Minister, and each would appear to contradict the assurances previously given by him that night jet cargo flights would not bc permitted.

In conclusion he staled:

Council and the citizens of Rockdale have continuously suffered the severe effects of excessive noise over the Municipality from aircraft taking ofl’ and landing at Kingsford-Smith Airport since the introduction of the Constellation aircraft 15 years ago. They have borne an unreasonably large share of the nuisance and annoyance caused - more so than any other local government area in Australia - and will use every means within their power to see that night cargo jet flights are not permitted, so that they can be assured at least that the little rest and sleep they are getting will not be disturbed.

This indicates the grave concern of people living in the vicinity of major airports from which jet aircraft operate not only during the night when there is an embargo, but even during the day. An editorial in a newspaper which is published in the Rockdale area stated:

The problem of noise created by low flying aircraft coming into land and taking off from Kingsford-Smith Airport is one that concerns every member of this community. This noise, even with the use of the new runway out into Botany Bay, is becoming increasingly intolerable day by day as more flights are allocated to overseas operators. There now appears upon the scene the spectre of night jet freighter flights. lt is a spectre. An indication of the effect which this noise is having on members of the community is seen in an article in the Australian’ of 6th June 1969. It refers to the concern of church people about the disturbance which aircraft noise is creating.

Senator Little:

– Do they want it lifted for five times the charges?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– They want the ban maintained, and they want every possible pressure brought to bear on airline operators to restrain them from using an airport in a built-up area between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. There is no suggestion from honourable senators on this side of the chamber that we want the ban lifted. We want it to remain. But we also want to impose the additional penalty to ensure that airline operators will not find their way around this embargo, by taking off from one airport and, under the guise of operating to another airport, landing at an airport in a built-up area. The amendment is designed to ensure that airlines do not operate in this way, because of the extra charges which would be involved if they did so operate. I am not referring to an emergency. The Department of Civil Aviation is able to differentiate between a normal set of circumstances and an emergency when it is urgent for an aircraft to land at the nearest airport. The amendment does not apply to an emergency. It is designed to add teeth, as Senator McClelland stated, to the existing provisions for an embargo on the operations of jet aircraft at airports between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. I do not oppose the operation of jet aircraft to airports which are remote from built-up areas. I believe the point at issue is that where an airport is situated in a built-up area, operations between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. should be automatically excluded. It is as simple as that.

Senator Marriott:

– That is what we are doing.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It cannot be done at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The Government has to face the fact that it will have to transfer the facilities at Kingsford-Smith Airport out into a country area.

Senator Marriott:

– But that has nothing to do with this Bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It is indirectly concerned with the Bill. It is indicating to the people concerned the gravity of the situation that has arisen where people living near airports from which jets are operating are under such constant nervous strain that the imposition should not be tolerated. Because this position has arisen, it is the Commonwealth Government’s responsibility to take the initiative and to select another airport site. When we were discussing this matter recently I asked Senator Wright whether in future he would ensure that his own Department and the client departments would place a covenant on land adjoining newly selected airport sites. I believe it is of great importance that this be done in future. This problem will recur because, I suppose, of the avarice or the keenness of land developers and land salesmen who are able to persuade unsuspecting people to buy land near an airport. I am quire certain that no person in his right mind would purchase such land if he knew of the noise factor created by modern jet aircraft using airports and of the nervous strain which this would place upon him.

Another matter which I should like to raise relates to airports generally. Perhaps

I should have raised this matter during the second reading debate. But a problem which this Parliament must face is the congestion which busy airports create in population centres. 1 think that the time has come when airports have to be transferred away from population centres and when helicopter feeder services have to be introduced. After all, the technique of helicopter transport is improving. I believe that one of the thoughts behind the amendment is that we have reached the stage where a prohibition has to be placed upon noisy aircraft using airports after 1 1 p.m. Not only should that prohibition be as complete as possible, but those who try to avoid it should be very heavily penalised. That is the purpose behind the amendment. We believe that operations by jet aircraft after

I I p.m. should be prohibited in the interests of the health of residents in areas close to airports. Therefore, we support the amendment.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– The Government, of course, cannot accept the amendment. It has been made quite clear to honourable senators opposite - in fact, to members of both Houses of the Parliament - that the Government’s policy is that it does not intend in the foreseeable future to lift the curfew on the arrival of these aircraft.

Senator McClelland:

– Or at any time?

Senator SCOTT:

– I said ‘in the foreseeable future’. One cannot go any further than that. It has been made quite clear to honourable senators that ‘the foreseeable future’ can be quite an extended period of time.

Senator McClelland:

– Until after the election.

Senator SCOTT:

– It certainly will be until the report of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise is made. Both Houses of the Parliament have been told that that report will not be available this session, it is hoped that the Select Committee will be reconstituted in the ensuing year, after the next election. We have been informed by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) that that Committee is doing a wonderful job. The Government will not take any action regarding aircraft noise at least until that report is received. It is expected that it will not.be received until later in the forthcoming year.

I wish to mention that the Minister for Civil Aviation is conscious of the problem. He has made a categorical statement, as has the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). This is what the Minister said:

My Department now has power to do this and it is determined to see that these restrictions are enforced. In case there is any misrepresentation 1 say again that the restrictions that apply to major airports at the present time will apply for the foreseeable future, and if any application is received - and no application has yet been received - the answer will be, as I have stated, no, the restrictions as they apply will continue to apply in the foreseeable future.

That is as plain as one could make it. An honourable senator on the Government side said that if this amendment were carried the aircraft operators could pay the penalty and still make a profit. That would appear to be a reasonable statement, but I make no comment on it. I inform honourable senators that we are not prepared to accept the Opposition’s amendment.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I wish to reply to one or two matters that have been raised during the debate on the amendment that I moved on behalf of the Opposition. The Government and the Australian Democratic Labor Party seem to have taken very fine points in their opposition to the amendment. I suggest that if the Government did not intend to lift the embargo at any time - not only in the foreseeable future - the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) in particular and other Government spokesmen would have been prepared to say so and would have been prepared to accept the amendment.

Senator Little has said that the principal reason why his Party is not prepared to accept the amendment is that he received no notice of it. But the fact is that this amendment was moved in the same terms by the Opposition in another place last week.

Senator Little:

– We do not have the privilege of being represented there.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– This is a House of review, and I would expect the honourable senator, as a reviewer of legislation, to note what happens in another place. This amendment having been moved in another place, 1 suggest that it is axiomatic that it would be moved here.

In reply to the statements of Senator Little and, I think, Senator Sim to the effect that the amendment seems to suggest that the Labor movement approves of the lifting of the embargo and wants money to be made out of night operations, let me repeat that the amendment is moved to this Bill, which is a charges Bill, in order to give legislative teeth to the mere administrative decision or departmental edict that exists at the present time. There is no embargo in a statute or in statutory regulations; there is only a departmental minute which can be torn up at any time and replaced by another edict. We suggest that, this being a charges Bill, in the circumstances existing at this time this is the only way we can move to put legislative teeth into the departmental minute.

Senator Scott, as Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, has let the cat out of the bag. He has said that the Government does not intend to lift the embargo in the foreseeable future and, to use his words, certainly not before the report of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise is tabled. He suggests that that report will be tabled at some time in 1970. But it is very significant, bearing in mind the Minister’s statement, to read in the annual report of the Minister for Civil Aviation that the next two Boeing 727s in the quick-change version are to be delivered in November 1969 and September 1970.

Senator Byrne:

– We have complained that reports of Senate select committees have been laid aside by the Executive Government. Let us assume that the House of Representatives Select Committee brings in a report recommending the lifting of the curfew.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I ask the honourable senator to tell me of any select committee report of which this Government has taken very much notice in the last 8 or 9 years. I suggest that it is quite likely that, if the pressure is on the Government at the present time, as it obviously is, to have the ban on night jet nights lifted, after the election, with another 3 years to go, the Government, irrespective of what any select committee recommends, will succumb to the pressure and lift the embargo. The Government is not bound to accept any Select Committee recommendation. We want to prepare the way for anything that might happen, if by some mischance this Government is re-elected, and to make sure that the people living in the areas adjacent to or near the airports concerned are protected.

As far as emergencies are concerned, frankly I believe that night flying trials have been allowed by the Department of Civil Aviation. 1 asked a question about aircraft that landed at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport on 27th August. The Minister for Civil Aviation replied to me as follows:

A complaint was made … to the Sydney Airport authorities concerning three flights which arrived in the terminal area about midnight on 27th August. These were jet aircraft, two of which arrived from Melbourne and one from Darwin.

That means that the first two probably left Melbourne at 10.4S or 10.50 p.m. The three aircraft passed over Bexley and St George. The Minister continued:

The weather conditions at the time were bad with complete cloud cover at 1,000 feet, significant cloud at 800 feet, visibility 2 miles and continuous light rain.

I suggest that, if those conditions were operating in Sydney at 12 o’clock, the probability of adverse weather would have been known in Melbourne at 10.45 or 10.50 p.m., or at about the time the aircraft took off. But the aircraft took off, and landed at Mascot runway 07. The Minister continued:

Use of the preferred runway for noise alleviation purposes . . . was out of the question in these conditions . . .

Bearing in mind what has been said here today, I believe that it is in the interests of the Australian people - especially those living around the Tullamarine, Essendon, Kingsford-Smith, Brisbane and Adelaide airports - that the amendment proffered by the Opposition be carried by the Committee.

Question resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1213

NITROGENOUS FERTILISERS SUBSIDY BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 September (vide page 104), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– The purpose of this Bill is to continue the operations of the present legislation which expires on 31st October. The intention is that subsidy at the rate of $80 per ton which is being paid at the present time on nitrogenous fertiliser should be extended. The variations for which the Bill provides have become necessary with the increasing usage and manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers in Australia. If the Act were extended in its existing terms the subsidy would not be attracted by imported nitrogenous products because under the Act, subsidy is payable only on those imports which represent the shortfall between the requirements of primary producers and domestic production. The intention of the Bill is to extend the period for payment of the subsidy for a further 3 years and, as I say, it will also vary the conditions of payment to enable the subsidy to be paid on imported nitrogen fertilisers. Another very important feature of the Bill is that depending on the amount of nitrogen in the fertiliser, whether it be urea, aqua ammonia, ammonium sulphate or anhydrous ammonia - which, of course, is the highest in nitrogen content - so the subsidy is increased. The reason, of course, is obvious, having regard to the fact that it is the nitrogen which is of most value in the application of fertiliser to a particular crop.

I propose to move an amendment, which is now being circulated, to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. It is similar to the one that was presented in another place and I therefore make no apology for not having distributed it to the leaders of other Parties prior to presenting it. The subsidy on nitrogenous fertiliser is not opposed by the Opposition. We feel that the arguments that were put for a subsidy on ordinary superphosphate apply to the subsidy for nitrogenous fertilisers which we are now considering. The argument put forward by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott), who represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), when dealing with the superphosphate subsidy was that the cost price squeeze has made it necessary to assist the farmer and this assistance can be given only in this way because the prices that the farmer is obtaining for his commodities have not increased with the increased costs in the industry. In the case of nitrogen fertilisers, until recent times we have found that their greatest use has been in the sugar industry but they are now being used in many other fields of primary industry. In the wheat areas of Western Australia we are now using anhydrous ammonia to a considerable extent because it is necessary with the type of soil we have and it gives us better returns. That is why we in Western Australia are particularly pleased with any form of subsidy on nitrogenous fertiliser.

The amendment which is now before honourable senators seeks that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted for two reasons. We want to raise the rate of subsidy for nitrogenous fertiliser in line with the recent increase in the subsidy paid on ordinary superphosphate. The reasoning is, of course, identical with that which applies to ordinary superphosphate. I think that I can refer to the arguments raised by the Minister in his second reading speech and apply them to the amendment which I intend to move. Dealing with the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers he said:

The case for a subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers rests on two main grounds. Firstly, the subsidy provides cost relief for the user of nitrogen and secondly, it encourages the application of nitrogen to crops and pastures where it has been shown to lead to increased productivity and lower unit costs.

I agree with this. Because costs have increased and returns have not, this is a further reason why we should have an increase based on the subsidy for ordinary superphosphate. Further in the Minister’s speech - and this also is in support of my argument - he said in relation to a report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics:

However, since 1965-66, the year just prior to the introduction of the subsidy, the overall Bureau of Agricultural Economics index of prices paid to prices received by the primary producers has continued its downward trend from 102 to 89.

So, according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, there has been a lowering of return to the farmer. In the second part of the amendment honourable senators will notice that we refer to a review each year of the subsidy rate on nitrogenous fertiliser. The Bill is seeking an extension of the subsidy for 3 years. We think it would be a good thing if the subsidy were to remain static, but it docs seem that there will be an increased use of nitrogenous fertiliser and also an increased production of nitrogenous fertiliser in Australia. This will come about with the movement into full operation of the Austral-Pacific fertiliser plant in Queensland. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) opened this $34m complex on Gibson Island. In a very short time we could be producing about three times as much nitrogenous fertiliser here in Australia as we have been producing. It is quite evident that, with increased productivity, costs could be reduced. Because of the possible reduction in costs we think it would be worthwhile to have a yearly review of the situation so that we could determine whether or not the rate of subsidy should continue or whether or not it should be reduced. 1 have not mentioned what the first part of our amendment would cost. The amendment does not mention a specific amount. We have in mind an increase in subsidy of 50%, which was the increase given recently in the superphosphate bounty. I commend the amendment to honourable senators. It seems to me to represent a perfectly reasonable approach to the use and to the encouragement of the use of nitrogenous fertilisers. It would help primary industries to rise above the difficulties imposed by low prices and increased costs by enabling those industries to use this very valuable stimulant more as the years go by. I hope that the Senate will accept the amendment and that we will be able to send the Bill back for a rapid redraft to incorporate the clauses and the ideas that have been presented. I move:

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– The purposes of the Bill have been explained very clearly to the Senate by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) when he delivered his second reading speech. 1 would like to make one or two supplementary points to those raised by the Minister. The purpose of this legislation is to enable Australian farmers to buy nitrogenous fertilisers at a price comparable with those paid by their competitors in other parts of the world. I would like to quote some prices made available recently to the Senate through the courtesy of the Minister. I shall refer to an average price. The price varies from place to place. The average price quoted for urea is $84.73 a ton. In the United Kingdom the price paid by farmers is $89.44. In France the farmer pays $102.93. In Italy the price paid is $102.62. In West Germany, a similar price, $102.28, is paid. The proposed Australian price is $79 which compares very favourably with the prices that I have quoted.

Senator Webster:

– Were they in Australian dollars?

Senator PROWSE:

– These are comparative prices. The price for Western Australia, because of the existence of stocks at lower prices, will be $74.80. At the same time as the Australian farmer, under this legislation, is guaranteed nitrogenous fertilisers at a somewhat more advantageous price than that paid by his overseas competitors, the Australian industry, which is a new industry, will receive the Australian price plus the bounty. The industry will also receive various subsidies payable under other legislation. In the case of urea there is a limit of $500,000 and a tonnage rate will be worked out in accordance with the number of tons produced. I believe the current rate is in the vicinity of $7. At present the Australian manufacturer receives something like $122 a ton for urea. I selected urea as an example because it is one of the most commonly used of these fertilisers and it seems to set the pattern of usage of nitrogenous fertilisers.

Currently the Tariff Board has an application before it and there seems to be a great deal of anxiety because of the excess capacity that will be brought into operation and its effect upon the cost to the Australian industry of producing at an economic price. I understand that the application before the Tariff Board seeks a bounty for some$29 a ton in respect of ammonia produced for agricultural use. There are problems in this field. In the early 1960s Australia manufactured very little nitrogenous fertiliser. With the completion of various oil refineries it was necessary, for their economic operation, that the ammonia, which is a by-product, be used. The Government encouraged industry to enter the field. To encourage the use of nitrogenous fertilisers a subsidy, which amounted to $80 a ton, was introduced. The subsidy in relation to urea amounted to $36.80 a ton.

It is interesting to note that only when the subsidy was introduced was it found possible to import cheap urea. Hitherto Australian farmers were not able to buy cheap overseas nitrogenous fertilisers. Importers had no incentive to land urea at lower prices when there was no Australian industry with which to compete. Urea in South Australia in 1962 cost $157.35 a ton. In Western Australia in that year it was $97 a ton. There was a great variation between the States. From 1964 to 1966 New South Wales farmers paid $125.50 a ton. When the subsidy was introduced and with it the right to control prices, it is interesting to note that prices fell. Great interest was taken in the dumping of urea in Australia. The Bill before the Senate amends the Act to provide that where nitrogenous fertilisers are obviously being dumped the subsidy will not apply. I think this is a very sound practice, in conformity with our general tariff policies.

I am very interested in the amendment proposed by the Opposition. Obviously this is the right time to offer attractive baits of this type. I appreciate as a farmer that primary producers would be delighted to be able to secure nitrogenous fertilisers with a bounty of $120 a ton, instead of $80 a ton. However, I recall the criticism of

Senator Cant with regard to the superphosphate bounty when the Bill to give it effect was introduced in the Senate only a few weeks ago. Senator Cant complained that the bounty would aggravate the present wheat situation. I am wondering whether that sort of attitude has now gone by the board and would not apply to the Opposition’s suggestion to increase greatly the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. Presumably the argument is good when you like to use it.

It is quite interesting to note that the effect of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty has been most marked in Western Australia. For instance, from 1st July 1967 to 30th June 1968 Western Australia imported 60,734 tons of urea out of a total Australian importation of about 116,000 tons. It was in Western Australia that the effect of urea was most marked in promoting the expansion of our wheat growing areas into the light lands. The Opposition’s proposal would undoubtedly continue that tendency. I think we must treat the proposal as a legitimate electioneering exercise, not carefully thought out with regard to the whole situation of the economy.

The production of nitrogenous fertilisers has increased and it is a nice exercise in cause and effect to decide whether the increased production resulted in a fall in price which has offset the greater productivity; but it is undoubtedly true that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty, used with discretion, can and will reduce costs to farmers who perforce need to maintain their places in the industry. I think the bounty is a safeguard to the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers and is beneficial to the economy. It provides a mark to ensure that importers must keep their prices within limits. With the assistance of the bounty a stable position can be maintained in the industry. 1 commend the Government for its efforts to make available to Australian farmers fertilisers comparable in price to that being paid by our competitors in other parts of the world.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– This is a simple Bill which proposes to continue the existing bounty. This step seems to be necessary for the people in the rural industries who use nitrogenous fertilisers. The Government is to be complimented for introducing legislation before the general election to ensure that the bounty is continued. Otherwise payment of the bounty would cease on 31st October. It is hardly likely that the new Parliament would meet before that date. There seems to be plenty of evidence to justify the continuation of the bounty. No representations have been made by people in the industry, one way or the other, which seems to indicate that they have every confidence that the bounty will be continued. There does not seem to have been any great objection on the ground that the bounty is insufficient, and we would not expect representations from people in the industry that the bounty is too high. That would be too much to expect.

An attempt has been made in the proposed amendment to relate the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy to the bounty being paid on superphosphate. This attempt does not seem to us to carry very much weight because we are aware that nitrogenous fertilisers are produced in an altogether different manner from that in which superphosphate is produced and must be subject to completely different costs of production. Superphosphate, up to the present, has mostly been imported into Australia. The circumstances of the production of superphosphate for the Australian market could change dramatically in the reasonably near future as I understand there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there are huge deposits of phosphate in this country. The extent to which those deposits have been developed is unknown to me, but their existence has been established. I( is quite likely that the circumstances relating to superphosphate use in Australia will undergo a distinct change. It may not be wise to suggest in a permanent sense that nitrogenous fertilisers that are manufactured should be in any way tied to superphosphate in the application of a bounty calculated to realise the ultimate in production in the rural industries at prices competitive on the world’s markets. This proposal could produce injustices if the philosophy it embraces is accepted as realistic.

The proposed amendment also suggests that a review be conducted each year of the rate of the subsidy. This suggestion does not seem justified by the evidence that is available. It has not been established that there has been a marked shift in the prices of nitrogenous fertilisers in recent years nor is it likely to occur during the period of 3 years covered by this legislation. Any changes in price have been directed rather towards reductions than towards increases. It is impossible to read into the proposed amendment the purpose for which the review is suggested. It is not clear whether the Australian Labor Party is concerned in proposing the amendment that the subsidy may be too high in the future if the price of nitrogenous fertilisers continues to fall, or whether it believes that the subsidy may be insufficient. A case has not been made out either way. I would be inclined to give the ALP the benefit of the doubt and to believe that it proposed the amendment to ensure that injustice was not done to farmers through increased prices for nitrogenous fertilisers. There is no evidence to substantiate such a case, as the price seems to have been falling. As this is a manufactured product there seems to be every reason why the price should continue to fall while the present trend continues. We believe that the Bill is necessary and are prepared to support it as it stands.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1217

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1969

Recommittal

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

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Murphy) - by leave - agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the resolution for the adoption of the report from the Committee of the Whole and the third reading of the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill being deemed to be rescinded, and the Bill being recommitted forthwith to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration.

In Committee

Bill reconsidered.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

-I ask that the amendment proposed by Senator McClelland be now dealt with.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:
VICTORIA

– Order! The question now is: ‘That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted’.

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood)

AYES: 22

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I thank the Committee for its reconsideration of the matter. As honourable senators may be aware, members of my Party were considering, as an emergency, a matter of privilege when the vote on Senator McCIelland’s proposed amendment came on unexpectedly. I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson)and) the Committee as a whole for theircourtesy in dealing with one of those exigencies which happen to us all from time to time.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1218

NITROGENOUS FERTILISERS SUBSIDY BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1217).

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP

– I thank honourable senators on both sides of the chamber for their contribution to the debate. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition. I hope that there will be a speedy passage of the Bill.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

page 1218

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 September (vide page 1136), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) indicated on 19th September 1969 that she would make only one second reading speech to cover this measure and the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill (No. 2), and we are debating the two Bills together. The Opposition, whilst not opposing the Bill, is taking the opportunity to be rather critical of the general administration of Aboriginal affairs. On 21st August I placed on the notice paper the following question, which was directed to the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs:

During thelast financial year, what proportion of the Commonwealth grant for Aboriginals was actually spent in establishing such people in their own business or in rural industries, and how many Aboriginals were so assisted.

On 16th September the Minister provided me with the following answer:

In the 1968-69 Budget,$10m was allocated for an Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account, and of this amount, $5m was set aside in a Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises. In thelast financial year, ending 30th June 1969, eighteen loan applications from Aboriginals were approved involving a total of $328,096.

One of the reasons why we are extremely critical of this legislation is that although the referendum giving greater freedom to Aboriginals was carried in 1967 it is now September 1969 and very little indeed has been done. As I advance my argument in this regard I shall provide details of why we feel that the Government has been either sadly misguided or very neglectful of the powers granted to it by the people of this country. As was stated by the Minister, this Budget allocation of $ 10m was divided into two sections. One was to establish people in business or in farming enterprises and the other was to assist generally. Might 1 say that I have had very little success indeed in my endeavours to obtain loans or advances or grants for these people. Of all the cases that I have handled in only one instance were a few sticks of furniture made available to one family.

I have one outstanding case in which the application of a Torres Strait Islander with considerable qualifications, with war service in the Second World War, and with a grown family for whom he would be able to provide if he received some sort of capital assistance, has been on the stocks for a long period. 1 know of another case in which a full blood Aboriginal applied for a job in the new Department. I would say that he probably had better qualifications than most of those who had previously applied. His application was rejected, probably because he was a member of the Australian Labor Party. Probably the same consideration applied to the first case that I cited. That particular individual also happened to be a member of the Labor Party. The amount involved was only about $7,000 but it would have enabled him to obtain a small property and to become no longer a charge on the community. He is unable to get continuous employment and for part of the time has to rely on social services. The business was large enough not only to establish himself but also to keep in employment a grown daughter and son. He is still waiting for the assistance. The family is still picking up casual work and so far as I can see he has probably no possibility of getting this property.

Seantor Cormack - What was the business?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The business was a small farm with subsidiary interests.

Senator Greenwood:

– What do you mean by ‘subsidiary interests’?

Senator KEEFFE:

– There was a small charcoal burning establishment on the farm where charcoal was burned for one of the local foundries. This was bringing in a quite regular income. I should like to refer to a paper entitled Community Organisation Project for the

Development of Aborigines’ which was directed to the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) in which a quotation was made of a statement previously published by the fairly well known anthropologist, Margaret Mead. Before referring further to this I want to point out that I believe that the Minister personally may have a quite sincere interest in the problems of Aboriginals and when this part-time portfolio was first established it was probably quite appropriate that it be given to him. I give that much credit in this regard. But we find that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), who wants all power unto himself, taking it over into his Department so that all sorts of shackles have been placed upon the portfolio. Might I say that after 25th October, when the general election is held, in accordance with Labor Party policy, under the Labor Government the Office of Aboriginal Affairs will be upgraded to ministerial level and the Commonwealth will assume the ultimate responsibility for Aboriginals and Islanders accorded it by the referendum of 1967.

Senator Cormack:

– What are the ultimate responsibilities?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The honourable senator is quite garrulous again tonight, is he not? I suggest that he might enlighten himself on some of the problems associated with Aboriginals and then make a well thought out submission. At a Monash University seminar, ‘Education of Aborigines 1967’, a paper entitled ‘Some Problems Facing an Educator in a Programme of Social Change’, was delivered by Mr J. B. Gallagher, Assistant Director of Education, Department of Welfare, Northern Territory. Referring to Margaret Mead he stated:

Her comments are typical of the judgments that have been made that are very pertinent to the Northern Territory. She says:

For many years schooling was not only ineffective, but also disruptive, because it applied only to the young. Roles were reversed in the homes, so that children became the teachers of the parents, creating confusion in relationships, and resentment on the part of the displaced leaders. A ‘younger’ generation in conflict with an ‘older* generation was created where there had been no such categories. In some societies, where the structuring of authority was felt strongly, the responsibility placed on the young to teach the old created unsupportable conflict for them. Children, taught at school not to spit on the floor, to take baths regularly, to be inoculated against epidemics, lived in homes which taught the opposite. Wilh the new conception of education as covering all areas of living came the recognition of society as the unit to be educated.

Whilst we are not specifically referring to the lack of education made available to Aboriginals generally, 1 think even Government supporters would realise that over the last 20 years that it has been in office the Government has made no real contribution to the integration or the assimilation or even the development of the people who originally peopled this country. It is even worse than that, because when these additional powers were granted by the people the Government set out on a planning exercise that very obviously has fallen short in many respects. 1 think it was the Minister who said in a second reading speech that we must take these things carefully. I shall refer to the speech later in generally rather critical terms. Government supporters are aware, as I am, that awards apply to these people in territories controlled by the Commonwealth and also in Western Australia and Queensland. It is significant that the Government has sided with the employers, particularly the absentee landlords, the owners of the vast pastoral properties of the Territory in particular.

Senator Willesee:

– Western Australia, too.

Senator KEEFFE:

– As my colleague from Western Australia has said, in Western Australia too. This applies also in Queensland where sub-standard wages and working conditions are the rule rather than the exception. There has been a resistance to payment of the increased wages as provided for in the new awards and all sorts of loopholes have been found for avoiding payment of proper wages. Honourable senators will recall also that it is in the pastoral industry that so many of these people seek a subsistence - not a living; they merely exist from day to day. As Captain Major, one of the Gurindjis, said on one occasion: “There has been a big improvement in our living conditions. The bosses are now giving us salt with our corned beef.

Senator Cormack:

– Rubbish.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I cannot help it if what 1 say upsets the honourable senator. 1 suggest that he should go out and take a couple of antacid tablets to calm himself. If Senator Cormack, who is so vocal at this point of time, cares to go through this country he will find living conditions of the type that I refer to in every area - Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and in north Queensland. He will find them in the fringe settlements in all other Slates of Australia, with the exception of Tasmania, where the forebears of Senator Cormack made sure that there were no Aboriginals to be worried about.

Senator Cormack:

– 1 did not come from Tasmania.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Then I ant sorry. If Senator Cormack has no relationship with Tasmania I. shall exclude him from those remarks. In an endeavour to have set out in black and white some of the problems facing these people I addressed a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service on this subject. In his reply on behalf of the Minister, Senator Wright said:

On thirteen of sixteen station properties in the Kimberley area of Western Australia recently visited by Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectors, Aboriginal employees were being paid in accordance with the provisions of the Pastoral Industry Award 1965. On one of two station properties not visited but whose wage records were inspected. Aboriginal employees were recorded as being paid in accordance with the said provisions, lt is believed that none of the employees is a member of the appropriate trade union.

This was the substance of my question on that occasion. The Minister continued:

On seventeen of twenty-three station properties in die Northern Territory recently visited by Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectors. Aboriginal employees were being paid in accordance wilh the provisions of the Cattle Station Industry (N.T.) Award 1951.

The Minister concluded his reply by saying:

Station-hand employees in Queensland are not covered by any Federal award.

This is quite true. But the point that I am trying to make in this regard is that in these examples that have been taken out one would assume from what has been said that the only cattle stations concerned are sixteen in the Kimberley area of Western Australia and, apparently, twenty-three station properties in the Northern Territory. If the inspectors are required by the Department to visit only those properties, why are they not going around to every station property to ensure that the award is carried out in its entirety? Is it because they have inspected the other places and are not prepared to state the truth about them? Any person with normal intelligence - that would include Senator Cormack - who wants to go about this area can carry out a personal inspection if he wants to do so, provided that he is not caught up by the shotguns of some of the station managers. If an inspection or a proper interrogation of people is carried out the reply to that question will bc completely disproved because it is not true.

Senator Prowse:

– What is not true?

Senator KEEFFE:

-If the honourable senator had listened a little earlier he would know.I shall not repeat it for his benefit only. Mrs Kathleen Walker, who has come under fire in the last few days because she has advocated black power and because she has been misrepresented by Government supporters and by a small section of the Press, is probably one of the most articulate spokesmen for the people of her race. Before I quote a couple of paragraphs from the statement that she made to the annual conference of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Advancement League I propose to quote a poem that she wrote entitled ‘I am Proud’. ft reads:

I am black of skin among whiles,

And t am proud,

Proud of race and proud of skin.

T am broken and poor,

Dressed in rags from white man’s back,

Bur do not think I. am ashamed.

Spears could not contend against guns and we were mastered,

But there are things they could not plunder and destroy.

We were conquered but never subservient,

We were compelled but never servile.

Do not think. T cringe as white mcn cringe to white, I am proud,

Though humble and poor without a home . . .

So was Christ.

In her oration to the federal conference of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Advancement League, among other things she said:

How the indigenous people on settlements are expected to learn is beyond my understanding, when one looks at the neglect to these people, especially in Queensland and Northern Territory.

In Queensland, enrolment is presented to the indigenous people as being a step towards citizenship. However, Aborigines and Islanders are hesitant to enrol because they believe it means they will have to leave the settlements. Few people in the main stream of society realise what this entails. It means that if the indigenous people arc considered able to exercise the vote, they are expected to stand alone in the main stream of society, by virtue of exemption from the settlements, which brings about an abrupt change from the governmental paternalistic, misguided ‘Great White Father’ attitudes to what Governments really believe is complete freedom of thought and action. The indigenous people are ill-equipped to stand up to the fast running stream of the Australian society, because they are given only a bare knowledge of the Australian society; within the settlements a lack of knowledge of education, housing, health and wages, takes its toll of the people.

The end result of this policy is a further swelling of the ranks of the fringe dwellers, where indigenous people exist under the gloom of rejection, starvation and further frustration.

Might 1 interpose at this stage to say that although it has been suggested that the criticism that has been levelled at the recent Four Corners’ interpretation of conditions in the south west Queensland area around Cunnamulla was completely unjustified, the conditions of the fringe dwellers in this area are parallel with the conditions of the fringe dwellers in almost every town and city in this country. The conditions at Cunnamulla are exactly as they were painted, despite the findings of the local people and the Queensland Government. Mrs Walker continued:

Unless sensible, logical policies are implemented in all fields on the settlements, the majority of indigenous people are doomed to die on the fringe of Australian society without ever having entered the main stream, because of the misguided laws that at present prevent them from learning about the true situation of the Australian way of life.

In the last paragraph or two of her statement she said, and 1 agree with her:

Work for the removal of Government welfare departments and administrators behind the boomerang curtain. Work also to retain for your own use the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island settlements in Australia. This land is yours, hold on to it.

To the Aboriginal delegates of this FCAATSI conference may 1 suggest that you go back from this conference wilh the purpose of uniting your own people and to encourage them to seek out the laws they consider are detrimental to their welfare and advancement and to raise your voices outside the offices of the various departments where such laws are made and implemented. Don’t wait or leave it to the white man to do your protesting for you. Gather your own people around you and if we can bend the ears of the Aborigines selected to represent us in the Federal office of Aboriginal Affairs, then let us charge them with the responsibility of protesting for us, on our behalf.

When you leave this Conference and go back to your rat holes- rat holes you call homes, that you have inherited from the Australian society -unite your people and bring them out fighting.

If that is the so-called black power and if they are the words of an agitator, as some people might call her, those words were uttered with very great justification because of what we have done to these people since June 1770 in Queensland and earlier elsewhere.

For years we have kept a record of our sheep and cattle population. Farmers are prosecuted if they do not supply the correct figures. Yet, in spite of the fact that we are now entitled to count these people with non-white skins in the census, we still have not an accurate record of how many full blood Aboriginals or part Aboriginals this country has. I repeat that we do keep an accurate record of our pig, cattle and sheep populations. All sorts of estimates of the Aboriginal population have been made. Suggestions have been made that it is somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000. That is approximately 100,000 fewer than were here when Captain Cook first landed here.

Senator Prowse:

– How does the honourable senator know that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Senator Prowse could not count them. He belongs to a party which has been treating them as nonhuman beings, paying them less than award wages, exploiting them, making sure that the affluent cattle station owners collect the child endowment-

Senator Prowse:

– Did the honourable senator count them when Captain Cook landed?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I want to answer that interjection because Senator Prowse belongs to that group of people in this community who have completely exploited the Aboriginal people, taken child endowment payments from the children because they are non-white, taken age pension payments from the aged people because they cannot fight and taken maternity allowances from the mothers. If Senator Prowse approves of that sort of thing, there are many Australians who are not proud of it or of him.

We keep these Aboriginal people on reserves which are virtually wild life sanctuaries. If a person is a tourist with dollars to spend he will be taken in a tourist bus to see them; he will be allowed to buy a few trinkets; he will be allowed to look at them in their so-called primitive state; and he might even see a corroboree. If he is a developer in the mineral field he will be allowed to exploit the land and to dispose of things that these people have held religiously sacred for hundreds and hundreds of years. But if a person wants to go on to a reserve in order to find out what their living conditions are, to find out what the disease rate is or to help these people, he will be refused permission, as Stan Davey was recently by the Western Australian Government. This man, who is a pastor of a Christian church, was refused permission to enter a reserve because the Government and those who guide it were ashamed of what he would find.

In fact, figures have been quoted by people in authority in recent years to prove that yaws, leprosy and other highly contagious diseases are worse in the Kimberleys region than anywhere in the Asian area. Aboriginals represent approximately 1% of the Australian population. No doubt Senator Prowse will check that figure later. Although they represent a very small section of the population, 10% of the deaths of all children under the age of 1 year are of non-white children, and 28% of the deaths of children of 1 year and over are of non-white children. This is an indictment of the Government and of the Australian society. Almost all of these deaths result from causes that could have been prevented or diseases that could have been eliminated. The infant mortality rate in some sections of the Northern Territory and other parts of northern Australia is as high as 145. The comparable figure for children of European descent is 19 or 20.

Senator Cormack:

– Per thousand.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes, per thousand live births. I do not know what we will have to do with Senator Cormack. This is a shocking infant mortality rate. Who is causing it? We are causing it because we neglect to supply the medicine, the injections against contagious diseases, the living standards and the hygiene to which these people are entitled.

I refer now to the speech made by the Minister for Housing. This is one of the greatest whitewash speeches ever presented in this chamber or in any parliament in the Western world. It is so sanctimonious that one would have thought it was written by a minister of religion - and that is no reflection on ministers of religion. The Minister said very sanctimoniously: . . the Commonwealth conceives that it has a particularly important role towards Aboriginal citizens within its responsibility for Australians generally.

I might say for the Minister’s benefit that I do not believe that she wrote this speech; but had I been in her position I would have thrown it out; I certainly would not have presented it to the Parliament. She went on to say:

This is rapidly taking shape in the form of specific Commonwealth activities, which are already many and varied. I would like to give honourable senators a brief account of the more important ones before dealing with the Bill which is now before the Senate.

Our aim is to restore Aboriginal initiatives and independence in both the social and the economic sense.

The Government has done that by spending $328,000 out of $ 10m in about 2 years. The Minister continued:

Indeed, I do not believe that it is possible to achieve either of these two objectives in isolation. Social independence cannot be effectively exercised unless it is built upon a secure economic foundation. Conversely, economic independence can end in frustration and contradiction unless the social infrastructure exists to sustain it in the eyes both of the Aboriginals themselves and of other Australians. We seek, therefore, to advance on each of these two fronts simultaneously.

It sounds like a military exercise, does it not? The Minister said:

We aim to get rid of the ‘mentality of the handout’. . . .

I would not mind if there was an attempt to get rid of the ‘mentality of the handout’; but if one reads the whole speech one finds that it is one of the most stupid and paternalistic documents ever compiled for presentation to this Parliament. The Minister said:

We aim to get rid of the ‘mentality of the handout’ and to make our Aboriginals self-supporting in the economic sense. At the same time we hope that they will retain a pride in themselves and that other Australians will share this feeling with them

One of the most significant of the Commonwealth projects has been the establishment of the Capital Fund under the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act 1968.

This is what 1 protested about previously. No matter how much an Aboriginal tries, apparently only those who have some sort of political patronage have any chance of receiving assistance. Nobody else has a chance, no matter what his qualifications are. The Minister continued:

The Fund has a nominal capital of $5m, of which $350,000 was earmarked in 1968-69 for a special irrigation project at Bamaga in Queensland, to which I will again refer later.

I will not have time tonight to refer to all the things that are happening at Bamaga. I shall make them the subject of another speech in this chamber.

Senator Greenwood:

– If you get the chance.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will. The honourable senator will not be here in the next Parliament, but I will be. The Minister went on to say:

The guiding concept of the Fund is to provide capital and technical help for individual Aboriginals or groups of Aboriginals who wish to undertake productive enterprises which are or have prospects of becoming successful.

My colleague Senator Georges, if he speaks in this debate, will be able to tell honourable senators of an enterprise for which he is endeavouring to obtain some money but for which money has not been forthcoming. I propose to refer specifically to Queensland and to show how the Government has doled out this fantastic sum of money. At Lock.hardt River there is a hospital complex that will cost $91,248. In the northern peninsula area of the Torres Strait Islands 42 houses are proposed to be built and 53 houses in the country centres, a total of 95 houses. This is a tremendous contribution towards rehousing of Aboriginals with the money the Government has available. I remember that when I raised this matter here last year, I think it was on the debate on the Estimates, I complained about the lack of housing on Horn Island and at Bamaga and Thursday Island. Do honourable senators know what the Minister said on that occasion? She said: ‘But have you seen the hibiscus and frangipani trees? They are nicely laid out’. As one of my colleagues on this side interjected: ‘Yes, but you cannot sleep under frangipani trees’.

At the Mitchell River a similar hospital complex is to be built. I do not know why there is a difference between these two costings, because while the Lockhardt River complex is to cost $91,000 the Mitchell River complex is only to cost $41,000. Then the first stage of the Bamaga complex is to cost $83,000. A dental clinic and equipment at Bamaga is to cost $12,500 and the same thing at Woorabinda is to cost the same amount. But we are going to be really good to the 6,000 people in the Torres Strait islands who have never had proper dental treatment. We are going to make sure that they have two dentists and two technicians for 4 months to work in the Torres Strait and peninsula area. They will probably be dealing with 15,000 to 20,000 people and in this limited time they will attend to their dental wants. Then we are to have supplementary food assistance for 1,445 children at Weipa, Arukun, Edward River, Mitchell River, Mornington Island, Doomadgee, Lockhart River, Hope ValeBloomfield, Yarrabah, Palm Island, Woorabinda, Cherbourg and other centres. We are going to be so generous as to spend $74,000. Is this all that we can afford to spend in this area on all these government settlements?

Of course, this expenditure will be supplemented by the Queensland Government, but it is too busy drilling for oil on the Barrier Reef to be able to spend much money on these sort of things. Then, in regard to education we are going to construct and equip schools at Bamaga and Palm Island at a cost of $240,000. The construction of the school at Palm Island is in the process of being carried out. There is one decent sport’s ground on the island and this is a recreation area which the 1,200 people on this island have used for many years but because of the short-sightedness of this Department and the State Aboriginal and Island Affairs Department, the school is being built in the middle of the recreation area with the result that the 1,200 people now incarcerated on this island have no chance at all of having any sort of a recreation area. But it is pounds to peanuts, or these days perhaps dollars to donuts that it will never be built.

With due respect I would submit that this is the view of the Government as expressed in this publication I have here. I am not quite sure whether it is an official publication of the Liberal Party or not. It is a magazine called ‘Shipping, Coal, Metals, The Harbour” and I intend to quote from an article headed ‘Current Comment*. This is an editorial in 1969 and these are socalled responsible white people saying these things in a respectable business publication.

Senator Cormack:

– What is the paper?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will give the honourable senator a loan of it afterwards. This is what the editorial states:

The most absurd development-

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to order. The honourable senator is quoting from a paper which he does not designate and I require to know what it is.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I think the honourable senator did designate it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I stated the name of it. Senator Cormack can read it in Hansard tomorrow. It states:

The most absurd development in racial relationships in Australia was ushered in by Mr Perkins, B.A. of Sydney University who proclaims himself an aboriginal on the ground seemingly that his grandmother was a full-blooded Central Australian, though he himself looks (and speaks) like the descendant of some Spaniard with Moorish blood who was dropped ashore from a wreck in County Cork and married one of the ‘fighting Kelly’ clan.

This is supposed to be a respectable journal. For all I know this might be the official propaganda of the Liberal Party.

Senator Greenwood:

– You are speaking too fast, that is the problem.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am sorry if your brain is too-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am sorry the honourable senator is too brainless to understand.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

– The article continues:

He has issued warnings that if the aboriginals don’t get what they want, in Australia, we will have exhibitions of ‘Black power’ taking over the country. This threat was also envisaged, in savage tones by a young gentleman who ushered in a session for the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’s’ Channel 7 report and commentary on the Federal Congress held in Canberra a few days ago in April to consider the wrongs of Aboriginals.

It was attended by those visionaries, Dr Coombs and Mr Wentworth, Minister for Social Services, whose questing and bewildered eyes seemed to roam the room trying to find a real Aboriginal among the draggled lot of university students and quarter-caste or octoroon Malays, Irish, Welsh and Scotch.

Senator Branson:

– Ask leave to incorporate it. We will give it to you.

Senator KEEFFE:

– With the honourable senator’s lack of knowledge of the Standing Orders I would be worried about getting leave. The article continues:

The real natives all were especially incongruous among a lean and hungry, but more vocal lot of mixtures and long-haired white agitators and cranks, because though very black they were also very sleek and well-dressed and didn’t look as if they had a worry in the world. lt now appears from the pabulum shouted in various keys that the Aboriginals in Australia now number 250,000-

This is where the confusion creeps in because when I quoted these figures a while ago, they came from a reliable source, but because we do not count the people whose skins are not white as we count our cattle and sheep there tends to be a confusion in numbers. But this magazine states that the number of full-bloods is probably nearer 25,000. The article goes on:

  1. . bent on getting what they want which seems to be land that they already have but won’t repair to from the slums of Redfern and the hovels of La Perouse.

Mr Wentworth, in particular, seemed to become more and more bewildered as the proceedings went on. One gentleman demanded very good tribal lands of Gove which Mr Wentworth told him was already tribal land.

I can understand the Minister being bewildered because he has no authority. The article continues:

A lady with a slightly American accent limned the wrongs of the poor Torres Strait natives who want to work for award wages and did not seem particularly enthusiastic when the generous Minister proposed that they should have their own boats and work them.

The Queensland Government long ago tried making it compulsory for fair pay, for T.I. natives to have banking accounts, and bought for them out of their savings fishing boats out of which while pearlers and beche de mer men would have made a comfortable competence. But all the Torres Islanders did was to make for the nearest quiet beach with good fishing and retire to rest. The States in fact, in their time have tried almost everything Aboriginals are now demanding, including the opportunity to nin their own affairs. Governor Macquarie in the second decade of the nineteenth century, established a school for Abo children, gave them boats, land, agricultural implements, clothes, even decorations. But the end was always the same.

And so this diatribe goes on. But obviously Government supporters subscribe to it, otherwise they would not be protesting so loudly. Undoubtedly this journal is speaking on their behalf. Before I finish my contribution I want to pass a few remarks about the sort of things that happen on Palm

Island. If any honourable senator on the Government side wants to go and look at this at first hand I have no doubt that he will probably be given permission. I mentioned Weipa a moment ago and I have here a statement prepared by the research section of my party. It has been properly investigated under the supervision of witnesses and this is in fact what has happened. Honourable senators will recall that a moment ago I mentioned what the mining companies can do. This is what they have done to the Aboriginals on Cape York Peninsula, according to the statement:

In the 1957 agreement on Weipa bauxite, the company agreed to establish the township and harbour facilities at their own cost.

The Agreement Act was amended in 1965 and these amenities were then provided by the Government at a total cost to Queensland of about $12 million.

Both are supposedly recoverable but no payments have been made. It appears that the company is paying a meagre 2.5 per cent of the total capital outlay for the annual use of the wharf facilities.

In 1957 the company talked of a 5,000 township in five years and a 10-15,000 city in 10 years. After 10 years the township for only 370 people was built at our expense.

Senior company and Government authorities forecast an alumina plant in operation near Weipa by 1966. This has not occurred. . . .

Trade training and full employment was promised for Aborigines on the mission at Weipa. There has been no trade training and employment opportunities are decreasing. All Aborigines are employed on unskilled work.

A similar promise of single barracks for Aborigine workers has not eventuated. Weipa is a segregated community - Weipa North and Weipa South. Hie Aborigines live in one township and the Europeans in the other.

Last year when we on the Opposition side of the chamber were critical about the segregation in the schools, the Minister said that black children went to one school and white children went to another because it costs too much to transport them and that is why they are attending segregated schools - although the Minister did not admit even that they were segregated. The statement continues:

The company paid $300,000 to the mission to construct the Aborigine township of 62 homes.

Remember that figure. The statement continues:

The Government spent $4m on 52 homes for the European section. Despite the small population there arc two schools - one for Aborigines and the other for Europeans.

I mentioned the schools a moment ago. The company spent 5300,000 for 62 homes for Aboriginals as compared with $4m spent by the Government on 10 fewer homes - and $4m is almost the total allocation for the welfare of Aboriginals throughout the country. If the Government has any excuse I want to hear it and I want to see it in writing and signed in triplicate, otherwise f will not believe it.

Palm Island, with its 1,200 people, in the Great Palm group off the east coast of this country probably would be comparable with St Helena and other islands on which gaols were established in the past. About 300 young people on the Island under 21 have no jobs, nowhere to go and are not in receipt of social services. One Aboriginal among the 1,200 receives an award wage. When I say that the wage rates paid at Bamaga are far better, you will realise what kind of wages are paid at Palm Island. I would like the Government to say how a man can keep a wife and 3, 4 or 5 children on $8 or $10 a week. That is about half the age pension. The Island has a store, but no reduced prices apply. I do not blame the management on the Island. They are the victims of a system. They are doing their best in most difficult circumstances. I spoke to one of the officials in charge of the settlement and he said that they try to keep their prices in line with mainland prices but that now and again they go a bit above those prices - and that the money comes out of the Aboriginal Welfare Trust Fund anyway. It is true that now the very small children there have a vitamin enriched meal. It is equally true that people, whichever way we look at it, must suffer from malnutrition.

I shall give some examples of what happens on the Island. A person can be punished by being sent to Palm Island; a person can be punished by being sent off it. No-one is allowed to take liquor to the Island. Yet only a few months ago an Aboriginal was fined for stealing liquor on the Island. Who owned the liquor? One of the white officials owned it. If it is good enough for the Aboriginals on the Island to be prevented from having liquor, it is good enough for the white people on the Island to be prevented from having it also. There ought to be one rule for all. There is segregated schooling here. It is not as bad as it was in the past, but five or six children of European descent have the benefit of one teacher. Why should there be segregation? The parents of the other white children are prepared to let their children be taught by teachers at the school attended by Aboriginals. I wish to mention another case. I intended to mention the man’s name, but 1 will not because of the victimisation of anybody from the Island who dares to make a statement to anybody. I asked this man what he wanted to do with his children. He said: ‘1 hope they get off Palm Island and I hope they never come back’.

Another case is that of a girl who failed her Junior examination. She had attended a school on the mainland. She begged for an opportunity to go back and repeat that year. She was refused. This would not have cost the Government much money. I doubt that it would have cost the Government $200 to let that child repeat her Junior year. She should have been allowed to repeat it. This is the kind of action which ought to have been taken but which was not taken. There is no trade training. There is no apprenticeship school. This Government settlement is the same as every other Government settlement in my home State. Tradesmen on the Island are always flat out keeping up with maintenance work. One tradesman to whom I spoke recently has since left the Island. Most of the school teachers are glad when their tour of duty on the Island ceases. They do not want to stay there because of the restrictions imposed.

Another case is that of an expert bulldozer driver who went to the mainland because he had some disagreement with those in control on the Island. On the mainland he was unable to secure employment. I will not make direct accusations about why he was not allowed back on the Island, but he was not, even though his wife was pregnant and expecting her fourth or fifth child. At the time I did not know this, but apparently the man committed some misdemeanour and was in trouble with the law on the mainland. As far as I knew he was a man of comparatively good character, but he found himself in trouble with the police. He was told that the reason why he was not allowed back on the Island was because his wife did not want him. When she came to the mainland to be confined for the birth of her child I went to see her. She said she wantedto see her husband. I was not able to get him back on the Island, but 1 was able to get her and the 1 month old child, whom the father had not seen, to visit him on the mainland. What kind of inhuman monsters are we in 1969 when we prevent a father from seeing his son, when we prevent a father from seeing his wife and family?

Recently four people, all of whom have relatives on the Island, have come to my office. None of them is allowed on the Island. None of them has a police record. Even if they had a police record, they should be allowed visit the Island. Would any people in this community deny a white man an opportunity to see his family? Would they prevent him from travelling over 30 or 40 miles of water to see his family? They would not, because there would be a revolution if they tried. But because these people are black we are not afraid. The mental atmosphere in which we live is the same as that of the last century when we got rid of such problems by using guns, poisoned wells and poisoned food, when station owners and others shot little coloured children and said: ‘They will not worry us in the next generation’. Someone has to speak on behalf of these people. The Government must have a conscience. Admittedly it has only 3 or 4 weeks left as a government, but at least it could initiate some of the reforms that are necessary. I do not want to appeal to hearts in white people that are tinged with black because the Government is not prepared to do something. In this so called Christian community such matters should be of concern to every one of us. We are not worried about the mortality rate of infant black children. We are not worried about mothers dying in confinement because they do not receive proper medical attention. We are not worried about families having to live on $7 or $8 a week - and there are hundreds in this category, not just a few. We are not worried about station owners who, to use a typical Australian term, knock off endowment money and knock off age pensions. They are doing it still. If the Minister says that they are not he is misinformed sadly or he is playing drastically with the truth because it is happening still in the Northern

Territory. Western Australia and north Queensland. So-called respectable members of the community still pay a couple of dollars a week and tucker to people working on their farms, not for a 35 or 40-hour week but in many instances for a 60-hour week.

Although these Bills give a little to the Aboriginals, a lot more ought to be given. If by some unfortunate circumstance this Government is returned, it ought to examine its conscience and its policies.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The purpose of this Bill is to grant $5. 4m, divided among the States, in the current year for Aboriginal welfare. The problems of Aboriginals have raised great difficulties over the years. Until 1967 the Commonwealth’s power to deal with them was very limited. The Constitution provided:

  1. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxvi.) The people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;

The Commonwealth complacently hid behind the principle that the onus lay upon the States to make laws for the Aboriginals. The Aboriginals came within the laws of the Commonwealth as they applied to any citizen in Australia but the Commonwealth had no power to make special laws for them in the same sense that it had power to make special laws for another group of a particular race in Australia. in 1967 this matter was submitted by referendum to the people of Australia. While they are traditionally opposed to alterations of the Constitution, they overwhelmingly voted to delete from the Constitution the words ‘other than the Aboriginal race in any State’. That vote opened the door for the Commonwealth to deal with the problems of the Aboriginal race. The Commonwealth now has power to make special laws for Aboriginals. When that power was given by the referendum it was thought that the Commonwealth would take over the sole control of the welfare of the Aboriginal population and that if it were necessary to make a special law, as distinct from a general law applying to all Australian citizens, the Commonwealth could do so because it was now invested with the power to make such a law relating to Aboriginals.

We have been somewhat dismayed that since 1967 the Commonwealth has not used its power to make special laws for Aboriginals and still leaves it to the States to provide the administration of this section of the community. This is quite contrary to the intention of the Australian people who voted in the referendum. This Bill seeks to grant $5.4m to be spent on Aboriginal advancement and welfare on the condition that the States make matching grants for the same purpose. Of course, the States are battling for finance. If they are unable to make matching grants for the same purpose the Commonwealth then will not be interested in the welfare and advancement of the Aboriginals in the States. The Commonwealth is not accepting its responsibility but is showing the States that it is prepared only equally to finance their activities in this field. If a State finds it is unable to make a matching grant, then the Aboriginals in that State will not benefit.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– They are not matching grants.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Although the Minister states that it is not a case of matching grants, clause 3 (2.) of the Bill provides:

Payment of an amount to a State under this section is subject to the following conditions:

that an amount equal to that amount will be applied by the State, in a manner and within a time approved by the Minister, for the purposes of expenditure in connection with the welfare or advancement of Aboriginal people of Australia living in that State; and

that, if the Minister informs the State that he is satisfied that amount equal to that amount has not been applied in accordance with the condition specified in the last preceding paragraph, the State will repay that amount to the Commonwealth.

I am not sure what is meant by the expression ‘that amount’ and I intend to raise that matter at the Committee stage. However, unless the State can match it, it shall repay to the Commonwealth the amount that the Commonwealth has advanced to the Aboriginals. The Commonwealth is not accepting its responsibility to this section of the community and to the people of Australia who voted for an alteration of the

Constitution in order to give the Commonwealth power to make special laws for Aboriginals.

I was somewhat appalled by the condition referred to by Senator Keeffe and the treatment of Aboriginals that he has discovered. I was reminded of the words of Henry Lawson, who wrote:

The poor in the city have friends in woe

No matter how much they lack,

But only God and the swagman know

How a poor man fares outback.

We have heard indictments of the treatment of outback Aboriginals. I do not know whether we really appreciate the conditions under which these people live on stations and in settlements far from civilisation. I entered this debate mainly to raise a matter concerning bad treatment on a native settlement, which I think deserves investigation. I have addressed a series of questions to the Minister. I believe that not all the problems associated with Aboriginal welfare can be solved by monetary grants. Further consideration and treatment are necessary.

About 7 years ago Mr R. D. Nichols was appointed to the Native Welfare Department at Yuendumu, about 130 miles from Alice Springs, as a motor mechanic. He was previously employed for 3 years in the Public Service with the Department of Civil Aviation. He took the job of motor mechanic at Yuendumu in Central Australia on an Aboriginal settlement where there are about 800 Aboriginals and about 30 white employees. He was acting manager at Yuendumu from 9th December 1963 to 11th February 1964 during the absence of the manager. Although his wife is not a trained or qualified teacher she was employed in the settlement school in an attempt to make up the deficiencies in the teaching staff until 1966, when a new welfare officer was appointed. From that time the treatment of Aboriginals by the new superintendent of the school met with the disapproval of Mr Nichols, who strongly complained about it. In 1968 Mr Nichols was dismissed from the Department.

The dismissal took the form of offering Mr Nichols a transfer to Darwin or to Hookey Creek, some distance away. Acting on medical advice, he was not prepared to accept a transfer, firstly because he wanted to stay at Yuendumu, and secondly because his wife was in ill health, suffering from a nervous complaint. She had got on very well with the Aboriginals and medical advice was that a transfer would be detrimental to her health. Because Mr Nichols refused to transfer he was finally dismissed on 24th January 1969. He claimed that he was victimised. Of course, this is one of the most frequent claims in respect of dismissal and one of the most difficult to prove. Nevertheless, when Mr Nichols was dismissed the native people, because they thought so much of him, went on strike for a number of days. The strike was finally settled. A certificate was presented from a government medical officer to the effect that Mrs Nichols would be better in health if she were transferred. However, the natives believed that Nichols was being sent away from the camp because of the humane treatment he had given them at Yuendumu. He was a barrier for the natives against the harsh tyrannical treatment of the superintendent.

As a result of Mr Nichols’ representations to me I asked of the Minister a series of questions which became Nos 1174 and 1177 on the notice paper. In question No. 1177 1 asked:

  1. In January 1966 were ten Aboriginal girls in their early teens at Yuendumu native settlement accused by the superintendent of having broken into an old disused store and, without a trial, compelled as a punishment to pick up stones from the roadway and place them in drums at the side of the road?

The Minister’s reply to that question was:

Ten teenage Aboriginal girls, several of them married admitted breaking and entering into a cottage occupied by an Aboriginal family, entering an unoccupied staff residence and breaking louvres in the pre-school and infant welfare centre. These offences occurred during the weekend of 8th and 9th January 1966. Several of the girls had been involved in conduct of an undisciplined nature on an earlier occasion. Because of their age and problems of transport to and accommodation al Alice Springs, the superintendent decided that the best course of action was to discuss the behaviour of the girls with their husbands and parents rather than referring the matter to the police in the first instance. The guardians of the girls had previously suggested that the girls be sent to Ernabella Mission or to Areyonga settlement. The superintendent considered this action too drastic and the husbands and parents concerned agreed that the problem should be dealt with by disciplinary action within the settlement Each girl was given the task of picking up pebbles from the roadway outside the settlement office and placing them in drums provided. This task was allotted because it was not arduous and the girls were working where the superintendent could exercise some supervision.

Senator Cormack:

– This was the time when a Labor government was in office in South Australia.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would have thought that the honourable senator had had a sufficient thrashing from Senator Keeffe. It was the time of a Labor government in South Australia but we are referring to a mission camp in Central Australia which is under the control of the Federal Government. What I am complaining of would never have happened under a Labor government. Of course the honourable senator now pinpoints the need to change the Government so that the conditions about which I am complaining will not occur again. If the honourable senator falls into these traps, Lord help his Party on 25th October. The Minister’s reply goes on:

The superintendent reported that the girls were in good spirits as they worked.

It can be seen how the position changes when the Department replies to questions. My next question was:

  1. Did this punishment last for 2 days and was the temperature in the area in excess of 105 degrees?

The reply was as follows:

The girls worked at this task for 2 days. The temperatures at the time, as provided by the Bureau of Meteorology were: Monday 10th - maximum 88, minimum 77; Tuesday 11th - maximum 84, minimum 74; and Wednesday 12th - maximum 97, minimum 69.

That is shade temperature, and possibly the 105 degrees in the sun that I have mentioned was pretty accurate. The next question I asked was in these terms:

  1. On the third day, were these girls compelled to pluck with their fingers the lawn in front of the office?

The answer was:

No. During Wednesday, 12th January, the girls were given the task of hand weeding the lawn outside the settlement office.

Senator Cormack:

– In South Australia.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, at Yuendumu.

Senator Cormack:

– In South Australia.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, it is not in South Australia. Then I asked:

  1. Was a protest against this treatment made to the superintendent of the settlement who refused to discontinue this inhuman punishment? 1 was informed:

Mr R. W. Nichols, senior mechanic at Yuendumu at that time, made a protest to the superintendent about the work assigned to the girls. The superintendent took no action over this protest as Mr Nichols was not aware of the circumstances of the matter.

My final question to the Minister was as follows:

  1. Did the superintendent refuse a request that the Assistant Director be called to the settlement to receive a protest against such punishment’.’

To this the Minister replied:

Mr Nichols requested that the Acting Assistant Director for the southern area be asked to visit the settlement. He was informed that the Acting Assistant Director was to visit the settlement the following weekend when Mr Nichols was free to take up the matter with him. Mr Nichols did lodge a formal complaint wilh the Assistant Director on 13th January 1966. This complaint was discussed by the Assistant Director with Mr Nichols who was subsequently given a written reply to the effect that the Assistant Director was not prepared to pursue the complaint any further with Mr Nichols.

Senator Webster:

– You told us all of this during an adjournment debate one night. Why are you occupying the time of the Senate on it tonight? We are very busy, are we not?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would not have thought that we were busy having regard to your actions over the past week or so. 1 did not tell you this during an adjournment debate. 1 had not received the replies to these questions. If you find it embarrassing for yourself or for the Government you support, I suggest that you have the right to reply because I am just leading up to describing the treatment that we are meting out to Aboriginals, lt warrants some consideration. Even monetary consideration of $5.4m will not compensate for the treatment meted out to them. Until now I have put the favourable impression. Mr Nichols, who obviously feels somewhat aggrieved about the dismissal, has posed a number of questions which I have asked in the Senate. The information which has been received from the welfare officers throws a different light on the matter because they claim that Mr Nichols does not know the facts. There was an agreement between the husbands and relatives of the girls who had committed the offence. Despite the possibility of wearying Senator Webster I turn now to question No. 1174 which I addressed to the Minister for the interior as follows:

  1. During the Christmas period in 1968, were twenty-two pigs slaughtered at Yuendumu native settlement and distributed to prominent citizens of Alice Springs’?
  2. Was this free distribution made at some sacrifice to the families al the settlement?

The Minister replied:

  1. No. About twenty pigs were slaughtered between Christmas 1967 and 12th March 1968. This and other piggeries on settlements are conducted as part of the training programme for Aboriginals and the animals in question were surplus to requirements following a culling of the piggery. The meal was distributed to settlement staff as the Aboriginal people in the area do not have a liking for pork and eat it only on rare occasions.
  2. See answer to 1. above.

It can be seen that the Minister’s replies throw a different light on the matter, but 1 think I have established sufficiently thai Mr Nichols knew what he was talking about. There was an acceptance of his complaint that the girls were employed picking up stones and were assigned to plucking the lawn for a misdemeanour in breaking into some store, and that twenty pigs were slaughtered and were not given to the native population at Yuendumu. Therefore we have established that Mr Nichols is a person whose information cannot be disregarded. I thought the Minister satisfactorily settled the matter in his reply.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– I think the honourable senator is quoting a reply given by the Minister for the Interior. The legislation the Senate is debating is the responsibility of the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is so. I believe the Minister for the Interior would have obtained the information for his reply from the welfare officer in the area. The Minister’s reply appeared to be satisfactory until one examined its accuracy. Upon receipt of the Minister’s reply I referred the matter back to Mr Nichols. Honourable senators will recall that in his reply to my question the Minister for the Interior said:

Ten teenage Aboriginal girls, several of them married, admitted breaking and entering into a cottage occupied by an Aboriginal family, entering an unoccupied staff residence, and breaking louvres-

These offences occurred during a weekend in January. Later in his reply the Minister said:

Because of their age and problems of transport to and accommodation at Alice Springs, the Superintendent decided that the best course of action was to discuss the behaviour of the girls with their husbands and parents rather than referring the matter to the police in the first instance. The guardians of the girls had previously suggested that the girls be sent to Ernabella Mission or to Areyonga settlement. The Superintendent considered this action too drastic and the husbands and parents concerned agreed that the problem should be dealt with by disciplinary action within the settlement.

Senator Young:

– Did the honourable senator say that the husbands and parents agreed that the matter should be dealt with by disciplinary action within the settlement?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes.

Senator Young:

– What is the honourable senator criticising? Is that not disciplinary action?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the honourable senator to be patient. An Irishman is allowed to speak until he is understood. The Minister’s answer was referred to Mr Nichols, who replied in the following terms:

During the morning, some of the girls who hadn’t arrived for this task were rounded up with the Landrover, one I saw being driven up from camp like an animal. I gathered that a certain amount of resentment was being built up among the natives over the treatment of these girls, so I decided to speak to the Superintendent about the matter. On seeing him in the office a little after 1 p.m. I asked him how long it was going to continue, his answer being: ‘As long as it pleases me, so what are you going to do about it?’ With these words plus the sarcasm used, I lost my temper, I told him that if it didn’t cease I would report it to the welfare. officials and if it continued after this, I would not hesitate to report it to a newspaper, as I understand this to be a welfare settlement not a penal settlement. I also asked him to get the Assistant Director out, which he refused to do. I also asked what authority he had to set himself up as prosecutor, judge and jury when he did not keep within the law himself … 1 also pointed out that the offence committed by these girls was more in the line of mischief, which stems from lack of employment and interest, than any criminal intent and it would bc better to endeavour to have them suitably employed, as punishment of this kind is really mental cruelty and only builds up a resentment against staff, without any real benefit being obtained, also ii he considered the offence serious it should have been reported to the police so the girls would have got a hearing according to law. On leaving the office I told the girls if they left, as they had every right to do, as they weren’t being paid and slave labour was abolished many years ago, I would do all in my power to see that they weren’t penalised. Two of them were immediately taken away by Kenny Jungari and another by David Jabarula, these having some family connection. The others started to leave-

The reference to the girls being rounded up by a Landrover and driven up from the camp like animals has never been denied. Apparently it ceased on Mr Nichols intervention. In his letter to Mr Nichols the Assistant Director did mention that there was a recourse that Mr Nichols could have taken, but Mr Nichols does not know what it was because they were 180 miles from the nearest police station. I shall repeat Mr Nichols description of the incident. He said:

During the morning, some of the girls who hadn’t arrived for this task were rounded up with the Landrover, one I saw being driven up from camp like an animal. I gathered that a certain amount of resentment was being built up among the natives over the treatment of these girls.

Mr Nichols went on to recite how he decided to speak to the Superintendent. The Minister stated in reply that some of the girls were married women. They may have been tribal marriages, but I believe that their ages ranged from 12 to 15 years. This could be checked by a close scrutiny of the birth certificates of these girls, which are usually kept at the settlements. In reply to the information conveyed to him, Mr Nichols said:

Where did the Minister obtain his answers - from welfare officials or from Aboriginals and other staff. Was the girl who was driven up from camp in good spirits? If this form of punishment was the decision of the husbands and parents of these girls, why did at least a dozen Aboriginals approach me and ask me to intervene and why were there three of the men waiting at the office to take their girls away when I did finally intervene? If the Superintendent was within his rights and had .the support of the Aboriginals, why did this punishment cease immediately upon my intervention?

One gets the impression from those questions that the Minister’s answer is strongly denied by the person making the accusations. The person who made the accusations has established his bona fides and further inquiry into the matter is justified.

Let us look at the question of the slaughter of twenty pigs. An accusation was made that during the Christmas period in 1968 pigs were slaughtered at the Yuendumu settlement and distributed to prominent citizens of Alice Springs. In reply to these accusations the Minister for the Interior said:

The meat was distributed to settlement staff as the Aboriginal people in the area do not have a liking for pork and eat it only on rare occasions.

I have asked Aboriginal welfare organisations and others associated with Aboriginals whether it is a fact that Aboriginals do not like pork and they have simply laughed at me. But the Minister replied in answer to a question I asked him that Aboriginals in the area do not like pork. Apparently they are an exception lo Aboriginals everywhere else. When I asked the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), who has spent a considerable period of lime among the Aboriginals, he said that he did not know whether it was inK but that they influenced him to take goanna, He said: ‘It is very good, lt tastes just like pork’. According to the Minister the twenty pigs that were killed at Yuendumu were distributed to other Aboriginals because the Aboriginals in the area do not normally eat pork. When advised of this reply, Mr Nichols said-

Senator Sim:

– Are we still on the pigs?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If there is some family resemblance or there are some family traditions, I inform the honourable senator that we are still in his class.

Senator Sim:

– You are not; the pigs are.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I hope 1 am not, but I am still discussing pigs. I am still discussing the truth of the Minister’s statement that they were given to the staff.

On the Superintendent’s orders they were slaughtered by the Assistant Manager, three being given directly to outside residents of the area, the other seventeen carcases being taken to Alice Springs, and delivered to private people.

This is the reward of those in high positions in Alice Springs. The letter continues: 1 have no quarrel about the small amount of meat that was ever received by settlement staff, as I know by our own experiences that, many a time, staff would have their meat and other perishables arrive from Alice Springs rotten. Apart from the financial loss, they would be left without food. As to the Aborigines not eating pork, this is utter rot. lt could be said that they don’t eat beef because they prefer kangaroo, also there are sausage machines on settlement, whereby the pork could have been mixed with beef, and used up that way. Also has it ever been suggested that if there was any surplus on settlements that they be used up by hospitals, gaols, or any other government or charitable institutions.

If we are to have a culling of the piggery from time to time and if the Aboriginals will not use this meat, is this a waste?

Senator Webster:

– Do they eat margarine on the settlement?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am trying with all sincerity to develop a criticism of the Government treatment of Aboriginal people.

Senator Little:

– It is not the Government’s treatment. It may be a mistake or maladministration by the Department. It could happen under any government, as you would be well aware.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– But it has been brought to the notice of the Government and we have received from the Government a reply which stales that investigations have been made and the incident is dismissed as of no importance. The complaints made are belittled because of the source of the information. I am stressing these matters today for the sole purpose of trying to establish that the Government has not the full facts of the matter and that there is justification for a full inquiry. If we are concerned about the welfare of the Aboriginals there is justification for a full inquiry. After my other series of questions to the Minister and the replies received I am putting new material that I have received from Mr Nichols. One incident that 1 raised was dismissed as being only a weeding of the lawn. Mr Nichols writes:

If the Minister doubts this I am sending (o you an 8mm film which will show the girls at work on the lawn and show the piles of grass that they had to pick.

I have here the film which, by arrangement with the Deputy President, was shown in their party room last Thursday to a group of Labor members and senators. By arrangement, the National Library supplied a projector. While we laugh about the whole question which is dismissed by the Welfare Department, here is proof in film form which is available to the Minister. She may utilise the film to see what happened in relation to this particular matter. 1 would ask the Senate to bear with me while I refer to the most serious allegation by Mr Nichols in the whole affair. Consider whether this is favourable treatment of the girls. He states that six Aboriginal males were directed with the approval of the superintendent to round up three girls and as punishment for an offence take them out to the bush to be continually raped. I approached the Minister on the question and he said; ‘I simply do not believe it’. I can understand that the Minister simply will not believe it but Mr Nichols has established some bona fides and I think that such an accusation should be investigated by anyone who has the interests of the Aboriginals at heart. When I received this information I wrote to Mr Nichols and asked: ‘How do you prove these allegations? They are serious’. He replied:

The incident of the girls being sent bush with six men to be repeatedly raped - most of the staff were like ourselves, appalled by this, but knew if they made any complaint they would jeopardise their positions, and like all accusations I have made, and many more I could make, could be easily proved if an inquiry was held whereby staff were put on oath, and both they and the Aboriginals were given a guarantee of protection against victimisation.

I appeal to the Minister. Here is the most serious of allegations by someone who has had 7 years residence there. He is prepared to vouch for them. These are the most serious allegations we could ever make against any department, any group or any administration. The allegations are made. The question is: How do we prove them? If there is an inquiry which will permit the 30 employees - these are not Aboriginal staff - to be put on oath and be secure against any victimisation, the whole story of Yuendumu will be revealed to the public. What is the Minister’s answer to this challenge? In further correspondence Mr Nichols states:

Of the six men detailed to round up the girls and take them to the bush and rape them, one was carrying a shoulder rifle at the time he was rounding up the girls.

These are the allegations. I take them no further than that. This man says that they can be substantiated. I think he has established some bona fides in relation to the questions that I have asked. He knew what was going on in relation to the culling and selling of pigs and the treatment of girls. For proof of the last mentioned matter we rely not upon the Minister’s answer but upon a film showing the incident which contradicts part of the Minister’s answer. Here is the proof that there is something wrong at Yuendumu which operates to the detriment of the

Aboriginal inhabitants of the settlement and possibly indicates, as Senator Little says, maladministration by officials of the Department. The Minister can never find out the true position by inquiry from officers of his Department. If we have as the Minister stated in the second reading speech, any interest in native welfare, it is not so much a question of money as a question of proper treatment. The challenge has been laid down. Will there be a full, frank public inquiry into the allegations that have been made? Will there be an assurance of no victimisation of those who may give evidence before the inquiry? Can we find out what is happening at Yuendumu before we talk about what the Commonwealth is doing for the Aboriginal people?

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I understand that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) wishes to make a statement. Therefore, I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I propose to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) relating to the Fill aircraft. I do so in the name of the Prime Minister.

This House will know that the Government recently sent a high level mission to the United States to discuss matters concerning FI 1 1 aircraft. That mission has now submitted its report to the Government and the Government has considered it. However, before detailing the matters discussed and the conclusions reached, there is one matter which I believe should be made clear.

Because of the great publicity which has been given to any accident in which any Fill aircraft has been involved there has grown up a feeling that the aircraft is itself unsafe. The record shows that this belief is simply not true. The United States Air Force fleet of Fill aircraft have now been flying for a total of more than 40,000 hours, including more than 25,000 hours in the operational command, and now has an accident record better, for example, than the Super Sabre or the Phantom and better than any other F Century series of aircraft. On the record, the aircraft is not unsafe and this should be known.

The matters discussed by the mission related to the aircraft’s range, its weapons load, the assurance of a continuing supply of spare parts during its service life, and the fatigue performance of the wing carry through box. Our military advisers are completely satisfied that the range and weapons load of the aircraft will meet the requirements of the Royal Australian Air Force, as set down when the decision to order the aircraft was made. It will do the job which the Air Force wanted an aircraft to do. They are also completely satisfied that there will continue lo be a full availability of spares, readily available, during the full period of service of the aircraft with the RAAF.

Furthermore, our advice is that the FI 11, both in practice and during operations, has demonstrated a capacity to deliver a bomb load in any weather condition with unprecedented accuracy, whether the target can be seen or not. For this purpose it is the best aircraft in the world, and our military advisers after evaluating other possible aircraft types tell us that there is not in being or in prospect any aircraft that would approach the already demonstrated performance of the FIJI us a strike aircraft of the kind the RAAF requires.

The Government believes that the RAAF must have an ultra-modern bomber strike aircraft to replace the Canberras which are now the RAAF’s only strike force. The Government knows that the Canberras are approaching the limit of their service life. And the considerations which 1 have set out above all point to the FI 1 1 as the best aircraft to be this replacement, without exception.

But there remains the problem of the fatigue performance of the wing carrythrough box. This has been a matter of concern to us because it indicates that we would not get the length of service from the aircraft which we require, or anything approaching it; and our concern has been snared by the United States Air Force, although the United States already has over 120 Fill aircraft operating with the present wing box.

As a result of this concern two matters are in progress. Firstly, the wing box which gave an insufficiently long life under test has been modified as a result of information gained and is to begin a new series of fatigue tests next month. Secondly, more far-reaching activity has been undertaken to overcome the fatigue problems identified as limiting the service life of the aircraft. Action taken has been comprehensive and has included the participation of groups of technical experts from universities, industry and Government all participating in detailed reviews of the test results and proposed actions to resolve those technical problems. These groups have been assisted by Australian structural experts.

As a result of these investigations, a new design of the wing carry-through box is under way and it is intended that this new design will be fitted to Fill aircraft by 1972. But, of course, the new design box, which our mission has advised us it confidently expects to be successful, has not yet been in practice. The question posed now is whether we should accept our F1 1 ls with the modified wing box which is due to begin testing next month. If we do it is expected that this box will give our Fills a longer service life than the present wing box but not the length of service life we require. Modifications seen to be required would be made lo the wing boxes already fitted to our aircraft without additional charge to the RAAF.

The Government has decided that, provided the modified wing box to be tested next month lives up to expectations, we should accept the aircraft. This, however, is conditional on an agreement which has been reached that whatever is needed to finally overcome the wing box problem will be incorporated in our aircraft at the appropriate time and at no increase to the ceiling price under the formula applicable to the purchase of our aircraft. That is to say that unless the modified wing box we now propose to accept meets the endurance requirements for which it is designed, the USAF will replace it with the new design box to be available in 1972 - again with no increase to the ceiling price under the formula applicable to the purchase of our aircraft.

A further safeguard is the agreement that should one or more of the wing boxes we now propose to accept become unserviceable due to a design deficiency before the new design wing box is ready for fitting, then the United States will replace those boxes at no cost to us - and as often as may be necessary until the new wing box is available for fitting.

As a result of these agreements we have therefore decided to accept delivery of our Fills as soon as the fatigue tests to begin next month have proved successful. We believe that in so doing we will be greatly strengthening the defence capacity of Australia and that the remaining problems of the aircraft which is not one of safety but of service life will have been overcome by the arrangements to fit new boxes or replacement boxes until the new boxes are ready.

I believe I should, in this statement, remind honourable members that the arrangement made with the USAF for those aircraft was that the ceiling cost was to be $5.95m plus escalation of labour costs and materials after 1965, modification requested by the RAAF, and improvement modification proposed by the USAF and accepted by the RAAF. The combined effect of this item will approximate $1.5m per aircraft. I would also add that the United States Air Force has decided to go to a RF111A version for the reconnaissance aircraft and that this decision now makes it possible for the RAAF to proceed to a reconnaissance version of the F111C, as originally contemplated, which will be common with the reconnaissance aircraft in the USAF inventory. Before the Government makes a decision on this matter the Government would require far more information as to cost.

Sir, I hope the House and the country will agree that our Air Force needs a strike bomber most effective in operations. I hope they will accept the advice of our military experts that the Fill is far and away the best such bomber available. And I believe they will agree our acceptance of the bomber, subject to the conditions I have set out, will be a powerful addition to our capacity to defend ourselves in need.

Motion (by Senator O’Byrne) proposed:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I should like to speak to this statement but, in view of the very great importance of this matter, which has affected the defence of this nation for a considerable number of years, I should like to consider in depth the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). Therefore, I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1235

PRIVILEGE

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

– Earlier in the day Senator Murphy rose on a matter of privilege and indicated to the Senate that he wanted leave to continue his remarks. The matter was made an order of the day for a later hour of the day. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This matter arose out of an incident on Thursday night. As honourable senators will recall, some statements which were made by Senator Buttfield were regarded as objectionable and honourable senators took objection to the remarks. A withdrawal of a certain statement was made by Senator Buttfield, and then another statement was made. Then, after the taking of various courses that are detailed in the record of the Senate, the matter was resumed and Senator Buttfield ultimately made a complete withdrawal and an unreserved apology.

Senator Branson:

– Will the Leader of the Opposition please help me? Under what standing order is he speaking, or is he moving a motion?

Senator MURPHY:

– I am speaking pursuant to the leave that was granted to me by the Senate. I can think of no higher authority in this chamber than the decision of the Senate itself. The Senate has given me leave to speak on a matter of privilege. The matter having reached the stage to which I have referred, I asked Senator Buttfield whether she apologised unreservedly. She said ‘Yes’ and made certain other remarks to which it is perhaps better not to refer. I then said: ‘This will be regarded as an end to it’ - meaning an end to the incident.

Now we find that Senator Buttfield has been reported in newspapers circulating throughout the States of Victoria and Queensland as saying something which is offensive to the dignity of the Senate and which undermines the basis of the practice that we have in this chamber of withdrawal and apology. What she said was: The Senate can compel you to apologise, but they cannot compel you to mean it’. Apart from other remarks which were repetitious of what had been said in this chamber and which may be objectionable on the basis of wise rulings that have been given to the effect that when a matter has been ended by withdrawal that is an end of it, the statement ‘The Senate can compel you to apologise, but they cannot compel you to mean it’ is subversive of the whole conduct of the Senate.

If the honourable senator was correctly reported - 1 trust, that she will be given an opportunity to say whether she has been or not - she seems to be saying of herself that she was insincere. Apart from whatever reflection she may make upon herself, it is an undermining of this institution if, having withdrawn her remarks and apologised for them to the Senate, she goes out and says, in effect: ‘What does it matter? I have apologised and given an undertaking but they can’t make me mean it:.

Senator Greenwood:

– Did the Senate require her to give an undertaking?

Senator MURPHY:

– As I recall the course of the proceedings, the Senate did not require Senator Buttfield to do so at all. What happened was that she made a statement and I said that it was insufficient and that if it were not an unreserved apology I would move a motion. Senator Buttfield said that she had already withdrawn and apologised. What happened was that she said that she herself would withdraw and apologise and avoid the Senate having to compel her to withdraw and apologise.

I do not think that kind of approach to the matter would commend itself to anyone. Here is a simple position. I hope that it will be accepted that Senator Buttfield, after what might be regarded as some prevarication, said that she would unreservedly withdraw and unreservedly apologise. Now she has gone outside the Senate, if the reports are correct, and said: ‘The Senate can compel you to apologise, but they cannot compel you to mean it’.

Senator Buttfield:

– Will the Leader of the Opposition repeat why I said that?

Senator MURPHY:

– This is a very serious matter. It seems to mc that if the reports are correct, on the face of it. a grave offence against the Senate has been committed by Senator Buttfield. 1 think she should have every opportunity to answer to the Senate and to explain to the Senate. No-one can do that better than she can. I do not think there will be any lack of opportunity for Senator Buttfield to explain her remarks. That is one of the reasons why I am speaking now. I think she should tell us why, after saying that she unreservedly withdrew and unreservedly apologised, she went outside the Senate and made these statements. By her interjection now, as I understand it, she seems to accept the truth of the reports.

  1. suggest that, in view of the fact that Senator Buttfield has said that she wants to explain why she did this, this is a sensible manner of proceeding. We here are in complete control of our own procedures. If we wanted to and if this were thought to be a proper matter to refer to the Committee on Privileges - I think it would be - we could do that. I do not think we ought to do that if we can avoid it. Here is something that has happened in the presence of us all. We know what happened on Thursday night. If the Press statements are correct, we know what was said outside the Parliament. We do not want unnecessarily to go through the procedure of sending this matter to the Committee on Privileges, unless that is desired by Senator Buttfield. For myself - and, I would think, for most of us here - I want to see that the proper procedures are observed.

If Senator Buttfield wants to have any kind of delay, to have a further hearing or to go before some other body, she only has to say so. But it might be in the interests of Senator Buttfield, as well as of all of us here and of the Senate as an institution, to dispose of the matter here and now. I do not think there is any necessity for inquiry into facts or investigation of law or anything of that nature. We ought to dispose of the matter if we can. But if Senator Buttfield thinks that any delay or any further inquiry is necessary, let it be said.

I believe that the honourable senator should be asked to give any explanation or apology that she thinks fit. It seems to me that if she has been correctly reported, and subject to whatever explanation she may give, what she has done amounts to a breach of privilege of the Senate, a contempt of the Senate and an undermining of the proper practices and procedures by which any body such as this ought to be conducted. I would like to see this Senate insist upon a proper regard for its procedures. We cannot have a senator making an apology and then going outside the Senate and in effect saying that it was insincere and stating: ‘Well, they can tell you to do it but I do nol have to mean it’. ] would like to see her frankly, properly and decently make a meaningful apology to the Senate. One would like to think that it would be accepted, and 1 suggest that since Senator Buttfield has indicated that she would like the Senate to know why it was done, she should be given the opportunity of saying why it was done. I would think that the Senate might then consider its course. The Senate having heard her, 1 would ask that I should have the opportunity of speaking and, if necessary, of moving a substantive motion.

Senator Greenwood:

– 1 rise lo order. The point of order I raise, and I raise it with some sense of what Senator Murphy has said, is that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made, a person ought not to be called upon to make any statement with regard to a serious charge unless the gravamen of that charge has been established. Inasmuch as Senator Murphy has by leave raised a matter of privilege, 1 would respectfully submit that he should move a substantive motion on the issue of privilege. 1 understand that there was a ruling which is referred to in an authoritative work which has been published by the Clerk of the Senate, that in times past it has been accepted that when an issue of privilege is raised the person who raises the matter of privilege should conclude with a substantive motion. My respectful submission is that it is not only in accordance with the practice of the Senate, but also proper in the light of the inquiry which Senator

Murphy has made of Senator Buttfield about the charge, that the substantive motion ought to be before the Senate before anybody is called upon to make a statement.

Senator Murphy:

– Mr Deputy President, speaking to the point of order, I would concede what has been raised by Senator Greenwood. I should have thought that I was taking the easier course in the circumstances. I have avoided moving a motion, but since the point of order is taken and I am required to move the motion I am prepared to do so. I have endeavoured to avoid that and to give Senator Buttfield the opportunity to speak, but it seems that I could not contest the point of order that has been taken. 1 am prepared, before concluding my remarks, to move the motion. I will accept the point of order and instead of concluding my remarks later 1 will move a substantive motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I think it would be very desirable al this stage for Senator Buttfield to say whether she has been reported correctly.

Senator Greenwood:

– I again rise lo order. I ask wilh ail respect - and I say this because an issue of privilege has been raised, one of the most vital matters with which this .Senate can concern itself - whether it is proper that a point of privilege be raised and a person be called upon to answer the point of privilege unless the substantive charge has been disclosed. With all respect, I would ask for a ruling as to whether any senator can be called upon to put himself or herself in that position. As I understand Senator Murphy, what has been raised was raised outside this Senate. If persons feel aggrieved they can take action and they may rely upon anything which is said inside or outside this Senate. I think it is highly dangerous for the Senate to permit a procedure to develop until it knows what it is that is charged against a particular person.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I am not apologising for keeping the Senate waiting because we are dealing with a grave matter and T intend to take my time in deciding what should be done. I have decided that Senator Buttfield should have the opportunity to make any remarks she may wish to make in regard to the question whether the statement is true. If she does not want lo take the opportunity at this stage, then Senator Murphy is quite entitled to proceed with his motion.

Senator BUTTFIELD (South Australia) (9.57] - Mr Deputy President, I would like to say that I was correctly reported and that I did make a statement to the Press. Senator Murphy has drawn attention to the fact that it has given offence to the Senate. I wish to state that I withdraw that statement and apologise to the Senate for having made it.

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Opposition) (9.58] - I move:

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

– I am not prepared to support the motion that has been moved by Senator Murphy. The facts are basically as he has stated them, and indeed as Senator Buttfield has indicated, that she did in fact make a statement to the Press. Last Thursday Senator Buttfield withdrew two statements that she made and conformed to the requirements of the Presiding Officer. The record of the Senate reveals this, and it is not in dispute. She indicates that she did make a statement to the Press after being requested to do so, responding to something that had already been said to the Press by Senator Georges. She has now stood in her place and stated that she withdraws the statement she made to the Press and apologises to the Senate for having made it. I believe that in all those circumstances it would be quite unreal and quite out of character to proceed with the motion that Senator Murphy has moved. I do not want to deliberate upon the matter. I do not think we could get a more unqualified apology than the one Senator Buttfield has made here tonight, and in those circumstances 1 will not support the motion and the honourable senators sitting behind me will not support it cither.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I support the motion moved by Senator Murphy, the Leader of the Opposition. Like the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), I propose to be brief. I think a clear issue is involved here.

Last week Senator Buttfield offended and apologised in the Senate. She went outside and in effect said: ‘Well, I did not mean what 1 said. They can force you to apologise, but they cannot make you mean it.’ 1 believe that Senator Murphy is correct in saying that that is a contempt of the Senate. I believe that it is proper for the Senate to remind Senator Buttfield that she cannot adopt one attitude inside the chamber and another attitude outside it. She is bound to conform to the Standing Orders of the Senate. Having apologised inside the Senate, she cannot go out and wink at the great Australian electorate and say: ‘Well, I said it with my tongue in my cheek, and I did not mean it’. Tonight, after points of order were taken on her behalf, she rose to express regret-

Senator Greenwood:

– She rose at the request of the Deputy President.

Senator COHEN:

– Senator Greenwood tried to stop her from rising by taking points of order on procedures. Ultimately Senator Buttfield responded to your request, Mr Deputy President, that she should avail herself of the opportunity to state her position. She did so. I still think that what is missing in these proceedings is some clear statement by Senator Buttfield that this time she means her apology. In the absence of such an apology and explanation, the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly correct. It protects the dignity of the Senate, which otherwise would be outraged. If it is possible for an honourable senator to make an apology in this chamber and then to move outside and say, in effect: ‘I did not mean it’, then the dignity of this Senate is not upheld. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition attempts to put the matter into proper perspective. It is reasonable and moderate and, in my view, it should be supported.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I oppose this motion. I do so on two grounds. Firstly, I believe that it is a travesty of what ought to be the Senate’s approach to issues of privilege. Secondly, I think it is a grave injustice to Senator Buttfield. In relation to the first ground I think that, if this Senate is to take cognisance of a statement such as that alleged to have been made by Senator Buttfield and to regard it, as Senator Cohen suggested, as an outrageous breach of the privileges of the Senate, then members of the Opposition who support such a motion either have no idea of what the dignity of the Senate is or have no understanding of what the word ‘outrageous’ means. I regard the statement made by Senator Buttfield as indiscreet, but I do not see in it anything which this Senate should regard as a breach of its privileges. For a breach of privilege the Senate has the power to admonish, to reprimand, to commit to gaol or, if a precedent is established, to expel from the Senate. Once it is accepted that conduct amounts to a breach of privilege, and that is implicit in Senator Murphy’s motion, then the penalty which this Senate can exact is a penalty of expulsion or a penalty or committal to gaol. When such penalties exist, I do not think we should treat lightly what is involved in a breach of privilege.

I think it borders on humbug or on partisan politics to regard the statement attributed to Senator Buttfield as amounting to a breach of privilege. No inquiry has been made about the circumstances in which Senator Buttfield made this statement. No inquiry has been made about whether or not she was provoked into saying it. Senator Murphy raised no suggestion of the possibility of extenuating circumstances existing, in that a person may have insulted her before she made the statement. Yet, as I understand the position, inquiries and suggestions of this character would bring forward evidence which is not before the Senate. In those circumstances, for the Senate to take one sentence out of its context and to regard the newspaper report as setting out the sequence of what happened, in my submission to this Senate, demonstrates the need for action to be taken before any regard is had to what is or what is not a breach of privilege. If one looks at the history of parliaments and at what have been regarded in the history of parliaments as breaches of privilege, one finds that such things as the coercion of members and the preventing of members from doing their duty have been regarded as breaches of privilege. The impeding of a member and the preventing of a member from attending to his duties have been regarded as breaches of privilege. The bringing of parliament, as an institution, into contempt has been regarded as a breach of privilege.

Can it be said that an act is an act tending to obstruct the Senate in its functions or diminish the respect that is due to it if all that is said is what Senator Buttfield conceded she said? Parliamentary procedure must be concerned with acts and with things which are done. It cannot attempt to try the thoughts of individuals and hold people in judgment because of their thoughts, lt is not and it should not be a body which endeavours to rule the thoughts of persons. I will say in this Senate that the statement which Senator Buttfield made is true. This Senate can compel a person to apologise, but it cannot make that person mean it. Who can deny the truth of that? If at this point of time I were to say in criticism of our Standing Orders that one of their deficiencies is that although an honourable senator can be called upon to withdraw and to apologise he cannot be compelled to mean it, would I therefore be in breach of privilege? I would be saying nothing more than what Senator Buttfield has said.

I sense that there are deficiences in our Standing Orders. In the short time that I have been in this Senate I have noticed what I regard as an undue sensitivity on the part of a lot of people about remarks made. As parliamentarians, we are expected to be a robust lot. Yet I think we are one of the weakest groups if we take offence at a lot of the things said, in respect of which honourable senators are compelled to withdraw and in respect of which, in my opinion, the withdrawals are hollow ones and any apologies tendered are not really or sincerely meant. I say that because I think it is in the course of human nature that these things happen.

What will be the result if what Senator Buttfield said is regarded as a breach of privilege? ls it to be regarded henceforth that if in some indiscreet moment in some private quarter a senator is overhead saying: ‘I withdrew, but I did not mean it’, we could assemble the Senate, establish the facts, call upon the honourable senator to say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’, and if that honourable senator admits that it was said, to rely upon this precedent and to allege a breach of privilege? We would reduce Parliament and the Senate to a laughing stock. I think the importance of this Senate is that it does not take undue notice of small things as an indication of whether or not its dignity is affronted. We ought to be concerned with major matters and not with trivia such as that raised by the Opposition. I believe it has been raised for purely partisan political purposes.

Senator McClelland:

– Why did the honourable senator vote to put Senator Keeffe out if he believes what he is saying now?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not want to embark upon discussions of past events. I have indicated already certain views which I hold about past conduct. If, as a result of interjections, I sense that the Opposition thinks that it is justified in this action against Senator Buttfield because of some feeling of being aggrieved in relation to what happened to Senator Keeffe, I think the whole point has been established because it indicates what is motivating the Opposition at present. I cannot see how that squares with the fine words used by Senator Murphy. I believe Senator Murphy has sufficient respect for this Senate not to bring anything forward hollowly and without believing in it. I say this because I believe that Senator Murphy knows that if we take offence at small matters then the dignity of the Senate really is not aided. But I sense that behind Senator Murphy are seated some people whose enjoyment in this matter is to be found in some justification or self-satisfaction that they are seeking to right a wrong.

Let us look at what Senator Buttfield said in the light of what happened in the Senate. As I have said before, it is a truthful statement. She said: ‘The Senate can compel you to apologise but it cannot make you mean it.’ I think Senator Murphy has conceded that the Senate did not compel Senator Buttfield to do anything. The Hansard report shows and one’s recollection of events whilst in the chamber is that Senator Buttfield voluntarily withdrew the remarks she made. If Senator Murphy wishes to raise the matter I will concede that it was done at his suggestion, but she was not compelled by the Senate.

Senator Murphy:

– She was not directed by the Senate.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Accepting what Senator Murphy says, the point is that she was not directed by the Senate and it cannot be fairly said that she was com pelled by the Senate. Accordingly the remarks she made have to be regarded in the context of what occurred last Thursday night only if persons desire to put them into that context, because the record of what was said last Thursday night set alongside what is reported in the Press on Friday does not bear out that they are precisely the same things. 1 have already asked whether this is to be taken as a precedent, because there could be many other incidents which might inadvertently come before the Senate. Once this is done on one occasion I think there is being raised for the future conduct which I would not like to see as a precedent in the records of the Senate.

I have referred to the standard works on what constitutes a breach of privilege. I have turned particularly to Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice. At page 109 of the seventeenth edition, it states:

It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of every act which might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for contempt being in its nature discretionary. Certain principles may, however, be collected from the Journals which will serve as general declarations of the law of Parliament. It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

I suggest that if honourable senators use that as a standard there is nothing in what Senator Buttfield has said which would fall - even straining to bring it within the words - within the general concept of what is meant by ‘contempt*. At page 115 of the same volume there is a reference to the well known situation in which the Minister of State for War in the United Kingdom Parliament was found guilty of a grave contempt in 1963. But in that case the Minister had made in the House of Commons a deliberately false statement and subsequently admitted that he had made a deliberately false statement. That is not this situation. One can search in an endeavour to find a situation analogous to that which has been raised by Senator Murphy. I suggest that strive as one may it is not possible to find such a record.

I believe that the motion is not in the best interests of the Senate, lt seeks to establish a precedent and standards which are impossible of attainment and which reduce the dignity of the Senate rather than uplift it. I also feel that the terms of Senator Murphy’s motion are unjust to Senator Buttfield. She responded to what the Deputy President said in words which completely withdrew what was reported in the newspapers, and she apologised. There can be no question but that it was unqualified and unreserved.

Senator Cant:

– But does she mean it?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I sense from Senator Cant’s interjection that he wants some proof that Senator Buttfield means it. With the honourable senator’s experience of advocacy in the courts. 1 would like him to tell us how to establish that fact. To attempt to do so is to impose an impossible standard and the Senate will not do itself justice or credit if it tries to impose an impossible standard or to seek to exact some imaginary vengeance because such an impossible standard has not been reached. I feel that Senator Buttfield has been subjected to far more than she should have been required to face. She has voluntarily made a statement which withdraws and apologises to the Senate and I think it would be unfair to her to take this matter any further. I hope that the Senate will reject the motion.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– It is felt by the Australian Democratic Labor Party that we should be heard on a matter of such consequence, even though our Party as such was not involved in the interchange between representatives of the other two Parties. I think it should first be slated that the whole incident was extremely unhappy. I was personally concerned by SenatorButtfield’s reference and the reproduced reference in the Senate. It would have been much better if it had not been said. However, finally an apology was tendered and the matter passed off in the Senate. We are not now rediscussing that matter. We are discussing now the statement made by Senator Buttfield to the Press which referred to what had happened in the Senate and indicated her point of view.

Let us study the context in which Senator Buttfield’s Press statement was made. The matter had been left with the Senate. As far as we were concerned, that was the end of it, for better or for worse. But it seems from Press reports that the matter was resurrected by Senator Georges. Apparently when asked by the Press to comment he made a comment in relation to Senator Buttfield. It was a result of that and in consequence of that that Senator Buttfield tendered the remark which is now before the Senate. Whether that would exculpate her 1 am not discussing. I am merely saying in fairness to the honourable senator that it should be put in the context of this discussion that she herself did not take the initiative in resurrecting the matter which had left the Senate and as far as we were concerned was concluded. It was raised by another honourable senator whose comment then through the instrumentality of the Press precipitated the other comment by Senator Buttfield.

The difficulty in this matter is one that is common to many matters of this character. Very often the emotions of the moment and the attention which is directed to a particular matter lead this chamber as they can lead individuals into a situation which goes far beyond the immediate matter tinder discussion and can induce chambers such as this to debate as a principle something which on recollection and quiet thought they would not have wished to adopt. That is the clanger which I feel is implicit in carrying the motion which Senator Murphy is now presenting to the Senate.

I refer honourable senators to the text book on the Senate, ‘Australian Senate Practice’, by Mr Odgers. At page 461 it deals with freedom of speech. We are dealing essentially with a matter of freedom of speech and the absolute privilege of this chamber. Mr Odgers wrote:

Statutory recognition of the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament had its genesis int he famous Bill of Rights (the document selling forth the conditions upon which the British throne was offered to William and Mary in 1688), the ninth article of which declares:

That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

But while a member has a right to state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however it may affect individuals, it must not be in violation of the rules of the Senate, and a senator is always subject to the discipline of the Senate for things said, even to censure or expulsion.

In other words, the privilege of the Senate goes to what is said - I agree with Senator

Greenwood - and not to what is thought. The Senate is in no position to control what is thought by honourable senators. As a matter of fact, the very idea of Parliament is that honourable senators shall have an opportunity to ventilate their thoughts on a public matter; but because the absolute privilege applies to this place we must accept the responsibility of putting circumscription around the unfettered privilege that otherwise would be ours. We have to put such disciplines upon ourselves as we think are appropriate and relevant to the situation in which we find ourselves. We do that, not by an attempt to control the thoughts of individual senators, but by an attempt to control the expression of those thoughts insofar as they conflict with the Standing Orders of the Senate. I know of no judicial tribunal which attempts to control the thoughts or attentions of men. The only instrumentality 1 have ever heard about which decreed that a man’s thoughts should be subject to penal action was the Kempe Tai of Japan, the thought police. Generally the thoughts of man are not controlled. Within the ordinary courts of law, criminal and civil, a person is not triable for his intentions. He is triable only when his intention is carried into execution. When we think of the definition of an attempt, it is something in these terms: When a person who forms an intention to do something carries, or begins to carry, it into execution by means adopted to its fulfilment. In other words, once an intention finds expression by articulation or by action, then it is legal and triable.

In the same way in this court of Parliament that precisely is the attitude we adopt. Whatever thoughts may be held by people in this chamber, when they are articulated contrary to the Standing Orders the people concerned are subject to the discipline of the Standing Orders. That of course is different from the ordinary laws that surround places of privilege or partial privilege outside. The situation is different in the case of the ordinary process outside where the laws of defamation may apply. Strangely enough, in this place there are rulings of the Chair that to impute wrong motives or wrong intentions to persons is disorderly, again I presume because the intention of the person is not to be challenged. It is only the articulation of it that is challenge able. The Standing Orders themselves prescribe that to challenge the intention of a person is in itself disorderly. There are many rulings of the President to that effect.

So we come to the position that we are dealing with a chamber of absolute privilege which has surrounded itself with certain circumscriptions which are embodied in the Standing Orders. As far as we can see, in this case those Standing Orders were complied with. However I will direct attention to what could be the serious consequences of the decision which this Senate is asked to make in the event that it is made in the terms of Senator Murphy’s motion. Allowing that the intention - the thought - of a person is triable and he cannot be punished for it in this place unless he articulates it in some way contrary to the Standing Orders, let me take the example of Senator X who accuses Senator Y in this place of being the personal tool of the hire purchase companies, or the case of Senator A who accuses Senator B of being the personal tool of the Fascist Party. Both senators concerned were immediately called upon by the Chair to withdraw those expressions and to apologise. The expressions were withdrawn and apologies were tendered in each case.

Let us look at the consequences of this situation if the decision implicit in Senator Murphy’s motion were accepted. If the senator who made the original allegation that Senator Y was a tool of the hire purchase companies could be challenged in this place at that moment, Senator Y could say: If you make those allegations outside I will proceed against you in the ordinary courts of law for slander or for libel. I challenge you to do that’. If this proposal were carried Senator X could say: ‘Nothing would give me greater satisfaction but if I make the allegation outside not only am I subject to the laws of libel and defamation but in addition, having withdrawn the statement in this place and repeated it outside, even under challenge from the honourable senator, I am now subject to a breach of privilege of this place’. That would be an incredible situation.

Senator Murphy:

– You think the Senate should start a case in the courts for libel?

Senator BYRNE:

– I am not saying that at all but I am saying that when we select a particular incident in which to lay down a general principle we could finish with a very grave circumscription of the rights and privileges and, more particularly, of the responsibilities of this place.

In those circumstances, however unfortunate the original situation was, and in the circumstances in which the second statement was made in the Press following the statement by Senator Georges, and in view of the serious circumscriptions that this necessarily would impose on honourable senators who either would have to acknowledge total hypocrisy in this place or go outside and keep their mouths closed because they would be guilty of breach of privilege and, as has been stated, subject lo dismissal by this House if the occasion were grave enough, I feel that a person would not have the courage, in this place or outside, to make an allegation. If this is a House of absolute privilege let us observe the privilege absolute on all sides. Let us move within the circumscriptions and disciplines that we ourselves impose but let us not, so far as we can, interfere with the opportunities that are given us for debate by carrying the proposal before us.

However strongly Senator Murphy may feel about this matter - it is obvious that he does feel strongly about it - I feel equally as strongly that the implication to which I have directed attention may well have escaped him and the honourable senators who support him. If that is so, there would be a very grave deterioration in the power, authority and sense of responsibility of this Senate if his suggestion were adopted. In those circumstances, an apology having been tendered and a withdrawal made, and as that is not subject to challenge in this Senate as being made either in bad faith or as a matter of falsehood or of hypocrisy, because so to do would be disorderly in this House, I suppose the very fact that this motion has been moved means a nonacceptance of the honourable senator’s assurance and is impugning her motives and her veracity. The very motion of censure which has been moved is in itself a breach of the Standing Orders of this House. Therefore it is quite possible that the motion itself, by reason of its implications, may be out of order.

For all those reasons I feel that the Senate might well admit and accept the situation as it stands at present. There has been an apology and withdrawal by the honourable senator for the benefit of the Senate, for the protection of the power and authority of the Senate and as an acknowledgement of its responsibility. To carry this motion would be in itself in violation of the Standing Orders of the Senate. The Australian Democratic Labor Party, therefore, does not support the motion.

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

– I bring no legal aspects to this discussion nor do 1 want to bring any reasoned argument. In a matter such as this I do not see why everything should have to be put down in black and white. Last week I voted against Senator Buttfield because I thought she was completely in error. Tonight, however, having heard her apology - it takes a lot of humility to get up and apologise and I thought it was very gracious of her lo do so because I do not think many of us would have done it - [ was surprised to hear Senator Murphy go on with this motion. In the circumstances I think that the sooner this matter is settled, the better. I do not think we should keep on arguing. I do not propose to try to bring Senate practice into the discussion. Surely we should show a bit of common sense. Senator Buttfield has apologised very graciously and 1 hope that Senator Murphy withdraws his motion.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I should like to clear up a point which was brought into the debate by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) when he indicated provocation on my part. That suggestion was supported by Senator Byrne.

Senator Byrne:

– I did not use the word provocation’.

Senator Anderson:

– Nor did I.

Senator GEORGES:

– There was an indication in the approaches of both honourable senators that there may have been provocation on my part. Let me make this clear. I made a general statement that the Government’s approach - that includes Senator Buttfield - to migrants was paternal, that in effect the Government believed that there were first class and second class citizens and that migrants were regarded as second class citizens. I do not know the sequence of the approach by the Press. I do not know whether it approached myself first and then Senator Buttfield. But let us say that the approach was first made to myself. I would concede that, as a result of my general statement, Senator Buttfield could have retaliated. It would then have become a matter between Senator Buttfield and myself. Senator Buttfield denied that she thought it was a great pity that 1 was allowed to be in Australia. She continued with all sorts of other statements. She said that anyone who wants Communists to be allowed citizenship should not be permitted to remain in Australia. This may have been in retaliation for my provocation in saying that she believed, as the Government did, that there were first and second class citizens. But I do not think that there was any provocation for the statement concerning the Senate. I am not over-sensitive. If the whole article had been presented with the exclusion of the statement that the Senate can compel an honourable senator to apologise but it cannot compel an honourable senator to mean it, the matter would have been one between Senator Buttfield and myself. I assure the Senate that it would have rested at that because, as far as T am concerned, the statement Senator Buttfield made cannot be withdrawn. It was made and she may believe it. It is for her to justify that belief and it is for me to answer from time to time. But I fail to see how I could have provoked the statement which was made against the Senate itself. I think this is what the Senate is dealing with tonight. I am not quite certain how Senator Byrne could have arrived at the conclusion that I was the first to be approached by the Press. I do not know how he could know this, unless he spoke to the members of the Press involved.

Senator Byrne:

– It is implied in the Press statement.

Senator GEORGES:

– It does not indicate that I was approached first. It may be implied; I do not know. But 1 still insist that what I said may have led to the honourable senator’s retaliation on the other matters, but surely it could not have provoked the remark that anyone who apologises in the Senate need not mean it. Senator Buttfield is virtually placing herself in the same category as those people whom she accuses of Left-wing activities and membership of the Communist Party and says should not be allowed to obtain citizenship because it involves taking the oath of allegiance and they do not mean it when they take the oath.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The motion before the Senate is that the Senate is of the opinion that Senator Buttfield has, in her statements set out in newspaper reports Which were tabled in the Senate, committed a breach of the privileges of the Senate and therefore should be reprimanded and her apology accepted. The question is: Did Senator Buttfield commit a breach of the privileges of the Senate in newspaper statements attributed to her? Honourable senators will recall that last Thursday night Senator Buttfield was guilty of making an objectionable and disgraceful statement about Senator Georges. Senator Buttfield’s statement was to the effect that Senator Georges should not have been allowed to come to Australia. Senator Buttfield withdrew that statement and replaced it by the statement that Senator Georges should not be allowed to remain in Australia. After much prevarication Senator Buttfield withdrew that statement in a way which was not satisfactory to the Senate.

When I indicated to her that her withdrawal was not satisfactory, Senator Buttfield said she would do what I was going to ask the Senate to direct her to do, which was to make a complete withdrawal and to apologise unreservedly. Honourable senators know that Senator Buttfield stood up and withdrew but she did not withdraw unreservedly. Finally, when she was pushed to the point by me, she said: ‘Yes, I do. Do not rub my nose in the dirt.’ Ultimately, Senator Buttfield unreservedly apologised in the Senate on Thursday night. Because of this it was not necessary to have a resolution of the Senate. Knowing that there would be a move in that direction, Senator Buttfield withdrew and unreservedly apologised. T said that that should be the end of the matter and I hoped it would.

I think honourable senators will agree that I gave the honourable senator every opportunity to get out of the matter graciously. I did everything I could to give her a chance to get out of it with no loss of face, to herself and with graciousness, decency, honour and dignity to Senator Georges, herself, and the Senate. Now it appears that the honourable senator made certain statements outside of the Senate. She has admitted doing so. Senator Georges has pointed out that a part of the honourable senator’s remarks were directed to himself. But Senator Buttfield also said that although the Senate could compel an honourable senator to apologise, it could not compel an honourable senator to mean it. What does that statement mean? Surely it undermines the honourable senator’s apology in the Senate. If such a statement does not tend to impair the dignity of the Senate, I do not know what does. There is no need to go into books and precedents. Senator Greenwood said that to be a breach of privilege, an act had to be something which tends to diminish the respect which is due to the Senate. Is it not diminishing the respect due to the Senate for an honourable senator to withdraw a statement and unreservedly apologise and then to go outside of the chamber and speak as Senator Buttfield admits she did?

The attitude which has been adopted in the Senate over recent years is that the dignity of the Senate must be preserved. The party approach has not always been the decisive factor. I appreciate that sometimes it is the decisive factor, but at other times there is such an overstepping of the mark that the Senate acts in unison. Honourable senators will recall that this happened not very long ago when a member of my Party overstepped the mark. All honourable senators on this side of the chamber voted for his suspension and would have gone even further. On other occasions when there has been an act which tended to detract from the dignity of the Senate and which was a clear breach in defiance of the Senate the party approach has not been observed. In this instance we have an honourable senator who has admitted having said to the Press that it is a great pity an honourable senator was allowed to be in Australia and that anyone who wants Communists to be allowed citizenship should not be allowed here. That was a repetition of her offence in the Senate. Is this to be regarded as not tending to diminish the dignity of the Senate. What is all this talk about suing in the courts? When an offensive remark is made in the Senate should an honourable senator be allowed to withdraw that remark and make an apology and then walk outside and say: ‘They told me to do so under the Standing Orders, but do not worry about that because it means nothing. I did not mean what I said’? Reference has been made to controlling the thoughts of honourable senators. No-one can control the thoughts of other persons. But this was not a matter of thought. It was an expression of insincerity and a statement that what had been said in this chamber meant nothing. In other words she is saying: T made a withdrawal. I made an apology to the Senate. I did not mean it.’ Now we heard Senator Byrne with his casuistry. It was one of the most remarkable speeches to which I have ever listened. We heard this talk about thought control when a senator has gone outside the chamber and been reported over the State of Victoria and over the State of Queensland in terms such as that. Senator Byrne says something about thought control instead of an expression of contempt for the Senate. A senator says: They can direct you to do it but that does not mean that you have to mean it.’ What is that but showing utter contempt for the processes in here? Do honourable senators want to maintain the dignity of this Senate? If they want this to be the standard it means that every senator here can stand and say: ‘I withdraw and apologise,’ and then walk outside and say: ‘That is all rubbish. I did not mean that at all.’ There is a certain fairness; there is a certain dignity about these matters. With great respect, Mr Deputy President, notwithstanding what might have been said and what votes might be taken here, I would suggest to you that the sense of the Senate is that Senator Buttfield has broken the proper practices and the proper standards to be observed in relation to this chamber. What she has done is a breach of the privileges of this Senate. Indeed, there would be no necessity for an apology at all unless she had done so. After being forced to an apology she has gone outside and repudiated what she said here. Is it any less than a repudiation? Because she has repudiated she should be reprimanded. She having apologised then, her apology even at this stage - ungracious as it was - ought to be accepted. The motion sets out that the Senate is of opinion that she has committed a breach of privilege and I do not think anyone really doubts that. For that she ought to be reprimanded. She having made an apology, I think that it ought to be accepted.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Ask them whether they are as sincere about the dignity of the Senate as we were in the case of Senator Benn some time ago.

Senator MURPHY:

– I have reminded honourable senators opposite of that. It may be that notwithstanding what the Democratic Labor Party has done that there are honourable senators who take a different view. I know that there have been party meetings on this matter. It may be that there are honourable senators who nevertheless think as the Australian Labor Party did in the case of Senator Benn that certain standards ought to be observed. If those standards are not observed it is clear that the Senate as a whole will suffer from non-observance of those standards. I ask that the Senate support the motion.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Murphy’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1246

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1233).

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I feel that this Bill should be discussed not so much on the questions which have been raised to such a large extent during the debate so far but rather on the general intentions of the Bill. I suggest that we should get away from isolated or even numerous incidents of mismanagement or improper treatment of the Aboriginal people, although I believe that those incidents need to be corrected. I would prefer to see the Senate discuss this proposition with an understanding that every member of this Parliament and every member of the State parliaments today has a feeling that something drastic needs to be done in the interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia. I feel that that is the attitude of the Australian people towards this question, irrespective of their political ideologies. I believe that it is a long time now since anybody in the Australian community worthy of the name Australian has sought to demean any further the unfortunate Aboriginal people of this country who have not received the opportunities that most of us would have liked to have seen them receive.

If we go back through history we must recognise that when Australia was being settled by people of European descent they found here a tribal race of people which at that stage was one of the most primitive civilisations in the world, a race which has been recognised as such ever since by people interested in this subject. I suppose it would be true to say that if Europeans had settled in Australia 100 years earlier than they did they would have failed to survive in a country which was so inhospitable as Australia was at that time. Because they arrived at that point of history they were able to take advantage of advancements that had been made up to that time by Western type civilisations, were able to establish themselves on this continent and gradually take over, to the detriment of the Aboriginal people who were here when they arrived. This, of course, is not an isolated incident of this type in the history of mankind. If we go through the world today we find that there are still many old tribal communities of various races which have found it difficult to make the adjustments necessary to enable them to take part in a way of life that we now refer to as modern civilisation. We would find at least 30 different races of tribal people in respect of whom many experts predict that there is no future, that gradually they will be absorbed into the rest of the community and, as a race, will vanish. We would not like to see the Australian Aboriginal vanish in that way. I think it can now be said that that is the view of the Australian people as a whole.

In supporting this Bill it is not the intention of the Democratic Labor Party to impute lesser motives to any political party than another. I think the members of all political parties in Australia today want to do their utmost to assist the Aboriginals to adjust themselves to a modern type community so that they may take their rightful place in our way of life. The big question that none of us is able to answer is how we may achieve that. We have not just recently thought of trying to help the Aboriginals; we have been thinking of this for a considerable time. We have tried by various means to achieve this aim, but many of the things we have attempted as a people have rebounded because we have used the wrong methods. When the referendum was carried to give the Commonwealth greater responsibility in this area I was one of those who were a little disappointed that there seemed to be no immediate result or action from the Commonwealth.

Senator Mulvihill:

– We all thought so.

Senator LITTLE:

– I agree that we all thought so, and perhaps even the Government was disappointed. But I think that Senator Mulvihill, with his particular interest in this subject, would be one of the first to agree with me now that much wisdom can be seen in a slow start. Many people with excellent intent had tried previously to achieve their purpose by spreading millions of dollars through various channels among the Aboriginals, but they found on many occasions that the result was the opposite of what they had set out to achieve. Often they helped to destroy rather than assist to re-establish the Aboriginal people.

My former attitude of disappointment has now changed. I believe now, from what 1 have read, that the rather slow start on a programme for Aboriginals may pay off. I believe that the Bill now before the Senate will establish a sound basis and a sound stepping off place for a proper programme for Aboriginals. I know that both Senator Mulvihill and I would be disappointed, as would also many Government supporters, that the amount of money that it is proposed to spend for this purpose is not large enough. But we cannot buy off our conscience on this issue merely by spending money; we have to go much deeper than that into the subject. I found in the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) in this place, the very thing to which I have referred - that depth of thought, that attempt, whether it is ultimately successful or not, to reach a sound stepping off place so that we may achieve the objective that all Australians have today of trying to rehabilitate and to bring into our community with their proper status and in their proper place the Aboriginal people who previously hari known mainly a tribal way of life. An attempt to belittle the difficulties will not solve the problem.

I have no doubt that if we cull through the history of the Aboriginal people of Australia, or through the history of tribal people in any other country, we could find issues which we could debate for months in this chamber. I compliment Senator Cavanagh for drawing to our attention and documenting cases which he has raised with the Minister. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept to the same degree the arguments put forward by Senator Keeffe. The honourable senator said that he knows of numerous cases where squatters have robbed the Aboriginals of child endowment and age pension benefits. Perhaps Senator Keeffe was trying to save our time tonight by referring to cases in this way, but surely if he has specific information or knows of specific squatters who have been doing these things to the detriment of the Aboriginal people he should support his allegations with the fullest possible information and documentation on a question which is so serious, so that all those who break the code of the great mass of Australian people on this question and hamper what we are trying to do to help the

Aboriginals will be dealt with properly in accordance with the laws of this country. If there is no specific evidence it does noi assist the proposition or help to establish the Aboriginal people in their proper way of life to make wild accusations to the effect that he knows that something like this is going on. He should mention specific circumstances and support his allegations with evidence. I compliment Senator Cavanagh for the manner in which he presented the cases to which he referred, although I may not agree with him on the evidence that he has submitted that the charges in themselves were tremendously serious.

Debate interrupted.

page 1248

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Cormack) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1248

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator LITTLE:

– The questions Senator Cavanagh raised related to matters in which mistakes in administration could have been made. I do not know that any of us sitting here fully appreciate the tremendous difficulty experienced by people of our way of life in administering people who have known only a much more simple code and are bound by many tribal rites, rules and regulations which to us may seem childish but which to the people concerned are very serious. 1 would rather attribute to the Government sincerity on this question. I believe that matters such as those raised by Senator Cavanagh should be brought directly and personally to the attention of the Minister. I would have full confidence that what could be done to correct a mistake that had been made would be done. That may not be possible at this stage. In fact, the action may have been taken with the best of intentions by the persons charged with the responsibility of administering justice to a group of young women who had broken into a residence of their own people. He did not want even to think of a criminal charge under a legal code such as we have in our civilisation. He took other steps to correct the situation. Perhaps they were wrong steps or ones which in our terms might be construed to be harsh. If a mistake was made in that instance, I attribute to the Government the sincerity to try to prevent a repetition of such a mistake. 1 do not know who the people in Alice Springs who got the pork were. 1 do not know whether they were wealthy or poor. lt is alleged that they were white. 1 agree that it would have been better if the pork could have been distributed among the Aboriginal people themselves. I have no doubt that if this matter were brought to the attention of any administration it would see that, if nobody had the right to distribute the pork other than among the Aboriginal people, such an incident would not happen again.

However, 1 have read in the newspapers of people being searched when leaving the slaughteryards of our big cities. On some occasions they are found lo have a lol. of meat that they are not supposed to have. Steps are taken to reprimand these people. But I do not think we judge all the Australian people on the standard of the odd person who commits an offence. So 1 do not think we should judge the ability of this measure to advance our Aboriginal people on the fact that somewhere somebody or other did not properly administer some pork carcasses that were available or perhaps allowed them to be stolen and distributed mainly among people who had no entitlement or right to them. I believe that this is a far bigger question than that.

I hope that the theme of the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing is carried out in its fullest intent. This is explained to be a beginning on the question. I believe that it is a beginning. Provision is made in this legislation for the expenditure of $5m. I can find no fault with the wisdom of such expenditure, with my very limited knowledge of this matter. Of course, I have taken some interest in it. I believe that this money is being spent in a better direction than we have ever spent money before. I could still be proved wrong. There have been previous occasions when I have thought that handouts were helping. I think we all have been through that phase when we have taken any interest at all in a problem such as this.

We are largely in a situation of experimentation on this problem. But I believe that the experimentation is on a sounder basis than that on which we have ever attempted to tackle the problem before. 1 pay a personal compliment to the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs. He seems to have surrounded himself with a group of people who are in a position to know. He has two of our most distinguished old Australian citizens working in conjunction with him and helping him with the problems. They should have at least a very personalised knowledge of those things that will lift their people out of the situation into which they have drifted in the development of our Western type of civilisation in the land that once was theirs.

As I said at the outset, this is not a problem unique to our Australian Aboriginal people, although it is probably more difficult than corresponding problems in many other parts of the world. I am encouraged by the attitude of Australians to this question. We need to understand the attitude of real Australians to this question. It is good to mingle with members of our own community in the outback or in a place such as Darwin. The attitude of the people of Darwin to the racial question is one of the finest I have ever observed in a mass community anywhere in the world. The people there have a fundamental, simple approach to this question, without those undercurrents of fear, hatred and prejudice that can prevent the accomplishment of the ideal that we have on this question.

I must say that in observing the way of life of the people in Darwin I was somewhat concerned by what I saw in some of the hotels there. I do not wish to demean that small proportion, as I hope it would be, of our Aboriginal people who perhaps are not adjusting themselves to a higher rate of income. As yet they are unable to appreciate that their income could be spent in much better ways than those in which they are spending it. I do not intend to recount any individual or personal things that I happened (o see in Darwin. I believe that only a minority of the people would be involved.

I suppose that this is not surprising because it is true that in any community - even where the people have had all the advantages of university education under our modern system - there are people to whom we can refer loosely as dropouts. We should not suggest that we are failing because members of the Aboriginal community also have some difficulty in adjusting to some things in life to which they have not always been accustomed. It is true that the receipt of an excessive income before they have developed the ability to know what is the best way to use it can be selfdestructive in some cases. But that is no reason why there should be discrimination against those people in the labour laws of this country.

If we are to overcome this problem we must start among the very young. We must reach as many children as we can reach by systems of education so that when they step into their role of responsibility as mature people in our community they will be able to take what is rightfully theirs in the form of an appropriate rate of income for whatever they put into the community. This is inherent in what the Minister said in her second reading speech on this legislation. It is also inherent in what I have been able to study of the manner in which the money that is to be appropriated at this stage is to be spent. I repeat that we sincerely trust that this is a beginning on this question.

I did note one passage in the Minister’s speech which, at first reference, seemed to imply that the things that should be done for these people were not to be done and that privileges were to be granted to them for a very limited time. The Minister said:

It is evident that in order to achieve this we shall have to extend certain privileges to Aboriginal Australians - on a temporary basis.

But on re-reading that I find that it is most likely to mean that these will be privileges that we must of necessity extend and that they will not comply completely with our Western type law. That is, of course, the reason why these privileges are to be granted on a temporary basis. It would be indeed foolish if we did not have the objective that sooner or later the Aboriginals shall be absorbed and be a complete part of the Australian community with their rightful status and their rightful dignity in our community and be able to live amongst us as the true Australians that they are. Because this is a step in the right direction, we are prepared to support the legislation brought down by the Government.

Senator LAWRIE (Queensland) (11.11] - 1 wish to speak briefly on this Bill and to commend the Government for what it has done to help the Aboriginal people of Australia. 1 would like to reply to some of the statements made by Senator Keeffe. We listened to a 50-minute tirade from him against this Government and against the Queensland Government. We have been told that since the referendum was carried there has been not much reaction from the Commonwealth. I would like to point out to the Senate that we have already had one full year of grants to the States to help them with their Aboriginal populations and we are now well into the second year. In the first year the Commonwealth gave $3,650,000 and in the current year it has budgeted for $5,410,000. We must remember that prior to these grants the States did not have any substantial Commonwealth help in the matters that are enumerated here and that these grants are in addition to what the States have been doing. I want to refer more particularly to Queensland. These grants supplemented the State welfare work for the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders as well as State housing, State education and State hospitals. Despite what was said earlier this evening, I point out that all these people receive Federal social service benefits, the same benefits as are received by anybody else.

To go through the vote item by item as it refers to Queensland for the year ended 30th June we notice that 42 houses were constructed on the northern peninsula area and Torres Strait Islands and that 53 houses were constructed in other country centres, a total of 95 houses for which an amount of $800,000 was allocated. I want to make it quite clear that that is in addition to any work that was done by the State Government beforehand. Senator Keeffe mentioned the hospital at Lockhart River and the one at Mitchell River. He said that for some strange reason the allocation for the hospital at Lockhart River was $91,000 whereas that for the hospital at Mitchell River was only $41,000. But he did not tell the Senate that the allocation for the hospital at Mitchell River was only for the first stage of that hospital, so I want to correct the statement that he made. There is also the first stage of a hospital complex at Bamaga which was to be built at a cost of $83,000. A dental clinic and equipment at Bamaga was to cost $12,500. I mention that Bamaga is a fast growing settlement on the mainland across from Thursday Island, and it will grow larger. It is being developed rapidly because of an irrigation project for which the Commonwealth has found the money. I propose to refer to this later. The next item is an expenditure of $12,500 on a dental clinic and equipment at Woorabinda.

Senator Little:

– They could have much better dental health than the average white person.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I happen to know Woorabinda. It is not very far from where 1 live and a lot of work has been done there. In addition to the actual settlement there is associated with it a very well run cattle property which provides considerable revenue for the Queensland Aboriginal and Island Affairs Department. This property is self supporting and helps the funds of the Department very much. There has been no mention of that. The next item is the provision for two dentists and two technicians to work for 4 months in the Tories Strait peninsula area at a cost of $10,000. Again this is a big step forward because apart from Thursday Island that type of service was not provided in the past. It was simply beyond the resources of the State.

The next matter mentioned by Senator Keeffe in a fairly scathing manner was supplementary food assistance for 1,445 children at Weipa, Arukun, Edward River, Mitchell River, Mornington Island, Doomadgee, Lockhart River, Hope Vale/ Bloomfield. Yarrabah, Palm Island, Woorabinda, Cherbourg and other centres. An amount of $74,000 was allocated for that purpose. I have worked that out. It is supplementary food assistance; it is not meant to provide the main items of food or anything like that. It works out at $52 a year for each child. I consider that $1 a week to buy something special to supplement the child’s diet is quite a considerable amount of money when all is considered.

Senator Georges:

– Not when you are combating scurvy and malnutrition, which is the purpose of it.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I think it is quite a considerable amount of money. It would be used in some areas more than in others and I think it is a start for what we hope to do for these people in the future. The next item of the vote covers education, the construction and equipping of schools at Bamaga and Palm Island. I have already mentioned the location of Bamaga. Palm Island is about 30 miles off the coast at Townsville. The Commonwealth has provided $240,000 by way of a direct grant for the construction and equipping of those schools. The next item is residential accommodation at Bamaga for secondary level students. This is a very big step forward. An amount of $30,000 was allocated for this purpose because the only secondary education available to students in the far north has been at Thursday Island. Now it is being provided at Bamaga. It will enable a very large number of children to receive secondary education who could not possibly have received it under existing conditions. Then there is an allocation of $29,600 for the construction of a school at Lockhart River and an amount of $25,000 for the construction or purchase of pre-schools at Bamaga, Mitchell River, Weipa and Woorabinda. That brings the total Commonwealth grant to Queensland in the year just ended to $1,450,000.

While the vote is not detailed in the current year it rises to $2,055,000 for Queensland alone. There is an amount of $350,000 excluded from these figures for an irrigation scheme for Bamaga. I might mention that at Bamaga there is a very nice area of rain forest the extent of which, I understand, is about 60,000 acres. The river never ceases to run. It is a summer rainfall area with the rain falling during 4 or 5 months of the year and very little for the rest of the year. These people want the water to provide continuity for the growing of crops and for other purposes. The two Bills are being taken together. During the course of her second reading speech, the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) said:

The States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill (No. 2) relates to the Bamaga irrigation project on Cape York Peninsula. Honourable senators will recall that an amount of $350,000 was provided in the States Giants (Aboriginal Advancement) Act 1968, but in the event, due to the shortage of time remaining after the passage of the Act, it did not prove possible for the details of the terms of the loan to be concluded with the Queensland Government.

Senator Georges:

– It has taken 12 months.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– This is achievement since the referendum was carried. We have been told that we are getting nowhere and that we are doing nothing, but I claim that we have achieved a lot. The Minister continued:

The present Bill amends the earlier one by providing that the amount may be made available in 1969-70 instead of 1968-69. 1 ant confident that the details will have been concluded very soon enabling us lo pay this money over to Queensland. However, I am glad to say that these formalities have not been allowed to hold up the actual work. The Bamaga project, for which these funds are provided, is now nearly complete. The main pipeline is operating, water is already in the big reservoir at Bamaga itself. Only minor reticulation is still incomplete, and work on this is proceeding. I have very great hopes that the present Bamaga irrigation project will succeed and justify future extension. If so, it should open up new horizons for the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the community in the north of Cape York Peninsula and perhaps eventually in other parts of thai urea.

I commend the Government for providing those funds, for doing the work it has done and for providing the amount it has contributed not only to Queensland but also to the other States in the comparatively short period since the referendum was carried. As I said before, these Bills are to supplement the work of the States. They represent a very big step foward. I now refer to the first annual report of the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises. The Fund started off in a comparatively small way with a fair amount of capital. At the end of the first year eighteen applications had been approved for a total of $328,000 in loans.

Senator Georges:

– That is a disgrace.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– That is not a disgrace. The applications have to be processed. They cannot be rushed through in one day, one night or one week. A breakdown of the approvals shows that thirteen loans were rural and five were non-rural. The declined applications were six rural and five non-rural. The average loan approved is $18,600. The average term of the loan approved is 8.4 years. I say that the allocation of these loans is a big step forward. 1 believe that this Government should receive great credit for the way it has helped to supplement State expenditure, lt has been said that the Government has done nothing for these people. From my personal knowledge, quite a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island teachers have been sent to Brisbane to train at teacher training colleges. I know one such person who is doing a course al: the Queensland University, under a Commonwealth scholarship. These are great achievemenls on the part of the Government and for the people concerned. Tonight we heard a lot of criticism about what the Government is or is not doing. I would like to draw attention to what the Australian Labor Party has suggested for people on Torres Strait Islands. This is in direct contrast to the welfare programme and everything that the Commonwealth and the State are doing. I refer to a statement by the Leader, Mr Whitlam, in another place, in which he wanted lo give away three Torres Strait islands and dispossess the people on those islands. He said:

In a very few years the colony of Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea similarly will gain independence. I would hope that without any further delay we would make that process easier and more harmonious by speeding the consultations with Queensland to rectify the boundary which was set in 1878 between Queensland and Papua and which runs for some 60 miles within 3 miles of the coast of Papua.

That is the altitude of the Opposition.

Senator Mulvihill:

– ls not that selfdetermination for them? The Government wants to bond them as second class citizens.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– These people are all loyal Queenslanders and Australians.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Do they not have the right to decide what they want to do?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– They have said quite clearly that they want to stay as part of Queensland.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Has a poll ever been conducted amongst them to determine that?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– No, but they have stated quite clearly, through their councils, their intention. They have councils just as people on the mainland have councils.

They have spoken for the islanders and have stated quite clearly that they want to stay as part of Queensland.

Senator Mulvihill:

– On what basis are you stating this?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I am stating the position. In fact, when the Legislative Council of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea dealt with this matter one of their members moved a resolution that the area become part of the Territory. That resolution was defeated on the voices. That is what the legislature thought of taking over three Torres Strait islands and of dispossessing those people. I ask the Senate to contrast the attitude of this Government and of the Queensland Government and the work they are doing for Aboriginals in that State and for Torres Strait Islanders with the criticism we have heard tonight about this vote, about the work being done by this Government and by the Queensland Government for these people and with the great steps forward which are being taken at present. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I find myself in exactly the same position as I was when speaking to the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 12 months ago - that is, at a very late hour and towards the end of a session. At the time 1 staled:

We are faced with the stricture of time. Hilts have been brought in during the dying stages of the Parliament so that we cannot give them due scrutiny and we cannot give to the Government the advice that we would wish to give. 1 went on to say: 1 refer first to the $350,000 which is lo be given lo the Queensland Government to carry out an irrigation project. This is a worthy attempt to assist with this problem, provided, of course, that the full co-operation of the Aboriginals is sought and that it does not become another native affairs development scheme in which the Aboriginal merely follows the instructions of his master, a situation which he deeply resents. What interest is to bc paid on this money? What are terms of the loan? Why is it that there are some procedural difficulties?

That was 12 months ago. With this loan we have reached the stage now that we have to reassess it and include it in this years expenditure because 12 months later we are in exactly the same position as we were then.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Except that the work is finished.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, the work is finished. I know that. But even this was not made clear in an answer to a question I asked. But now the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) in her second reading speech, said that the work has been completed but that the terms of the loan have not been decided upon. 1 find this very strange indeed. What is the Queensland Government objecting to? Is the Queensland Government objecting to a charge of interest on this loan? If that is the case, I think the State Government is justified in its objection because somewhere along the line there has been a change of policy about the Aboriginal advancement fund set up to encourage and to develop enterprises by Aboriginals. At the end of last year’s debate I asked a question. It concerned the interest to be charged on loans. The Minister will recall that I referred to the copper project at Yuendumu. The States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1968 was before the Senate. The Hansard report shows that the Minister said:

I have just been informed that this money for the Yuendumu copper project is interest free.

The purpose of my questioning was to find out whether the particular fund to be set up was for the direct assistance of Aboriginals in establishing enterprises. I asked for details of the terms and interest rates of loans to make certain that only a nominal interest was to be charged. But upon investigation we have discovered that the rate of 5% is to be charged. This is noi a nominal rate of interest. The practice has got away from the original intention, as indicated, that no interest would be charged. I ask the Minister quite clearly whether the Commonwealth is having difficulty in negotiating the $350,000 loan with the Queensland Government because of the interest rate.

I believe that the good intentions of the Government are failing in application. I am not saying that the Government’s intentions are not good, lt has meant well in bringing down such legislation and in setting aside such large sums of money. It is not a problem of administration. I have had dealings with the staff of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. They have been most co-operative and dedicated to their work, ft is not a question of administration or staffing. It seems to me to be a lack of direction in policy. For this reason it is necessary for the Government to take another look at the Office of Aboriginal Affairs.

When Senator Anderson was answering queries relating to the estimates of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs his advisers were members of the Prime Ministers Department. I asked a whole series of questions which could not be answered, obviously because the Office of Aboriginal Affairs comes within the administration of the Prime Minister’s Department but is tagged on to the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). Although the intentions of the Government may be good, in practice the policy is not as effective as it should be. Perhaps the Government should study the matter and accept full responsibility in this area of activity and consider whether it is worthy of a separate ministry.

This is not idle talk. The money being set aside for Aboriginal affairs will increase rapidly. The Aboriginal population because of new methods of direct or intravenous feeding of Aboriginal children will increase rapidly as the Aboriginal death rate in children which is twenty-eight times the national average will fall substantially. This will greatly increase the responsibilities of the Government in this field. At Kuranda in Queensland there is an Aboriginal population explosion, possibly because of congested living conditions and cohabitation. Youngsters are bearing at an early age and families of up to twelve children are living there. This situation will be matched in other areas where the Government’s policy is applied. I therefore think it is reasonable to expect the Government to take another look at the activities of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and to make them a direct ministerial responsibility.

Another reason why such action is necessary is that the expenditure of these large sums of money should be under the direct supervision of the Commonwealth. I pointed out last year that h is not good enough to give large sums of money to the States without supervising the way in which they are spent. I refer again to the sum of $350,000 which was given to build a pipeline from the Jardine River to the Bamaga Aboriginal settlement. The pipeline is completed. I asked certain questions. I asked why in the construction of the pipeline, for which money supplied by the Commonwealth was used, Aboriginals were noi paid the full award wage. In answer to my question the Minister stated, in part:

Allowances paid by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs to reserve residents who are engaged in developing the reserves are determined by that Department taking into account a number of factors, including the nature of the work, the skills and work performance of the individuals and the value of certain services provided to residents of reserves.

This policy resulted in the authorities at Bamaga paying one-third of the award wage. One-third of the award wage was paid to a bulldozer driver. He has a skill. You are either a bulldozer driver or you are not. You cannot be half a bulldozer driver. You have to qualify to drive a bulldozer. Anybody who drives a bulldozer should receive the full rate. In this instance the bulldozer driver was obviously engaged in this work, but he received only $28 a fortnight. That is a ridiculous rate to pay. All other payments to those Aboriginals were at the same level.

A consequence of the low payments was to reduce the application of justice to the Aboriginals under the Social Services Act. 1 asked whether Aboriginals on reserves are entitled to benefits under the Social Services Act. The Minister replied that they are entitled to all social service benefits if they are unemployed. But what happened at Bamaga? A bus driver was dismissed there by the manager for a misdemeanor. The manager refused to re-employ that man on the settlement, but did not advise him that he was entitled to social service payments. The reason why he was not informed of his rights is obvious. If the Aboriginals at Bamaga were to become aware of the amount of money they are entitled to under the Social Services Act they would promptly realise that it would be better to stay at home and draw that money than work for the manager of the settlement. I think it is absolutely necessary that where money is provided by the Commonwealth Government in increasing amounts it should also provide supervision so that the money is properly spent and the Aboriginals are properly treated.

A sum of money was provided for school buildings at Bamaga. I will tell honourable senators what happened to the last school building there. It was supposed to accom modate the increasing number of children at the settlement, but the manager acquired the building for an administration building. The Commonwealth must be careful that money provided for school buildings is not used for another purpose, as has happened at Bamaga. This is why it is so necessary for the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to increase the number of research and supervisory officers and for the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs to have more time to devote to this particular portfolio.

The Torres Strait Islanders concern me very much because they are a thriving and an energetic people. On a recent visit to the islands I heard mention of some 43 houses being built there. I did not see them. There may have been 1 or 2 going up, the forerunners of the 43. What concerns me is that here is a rapidly increasing population. There are 1,000 youngsters at the high school on Thursday Island, 1,000 children who are being educated to junior standard but who have very few prospects. This is another avenue in which care and interest should be displayed by the Department.

Recently I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry lo learn why the Torres Strait Islanders had been refused a permit to export crayfish. They are skilled at crayfishing and they have the necessary equipment and the processing plant but the Government refused their application for a permit for no other reason than that if they were permitted to export painted crayfish from Thursday Island the crayfish trade of Western Australia and Tasmania would be affected. There is no other reason for the refusal. The Office of Aboriginal Affairs should be taking a particular interest to see that any decisions made by the Government on behalf of the Torres Strait Islanders or Aboriginals is rightly made.

I raised the case of Mrs Young who was sent to gaol for a lengthy term with a minimum of 9 months imprisonment for the manslaughter of her child who died of scurvy and malnutrition. The Office of Aboriginal Affairs should have taken a personal and financial interest in this woman’s problem but it did not. The problem at Cunnamulla is as was stated by Senator Keeffe. The problems of the fringe dwellers at Cunnamulla are as have been portrayed by ‘Four Corners’ and as described by

Senator Keeffe and other honourable senators. I am pleased to note that an allocation of funds has been made for housing in this area. The Department has a very grave responsibility, and on the next occasion when Bills affecting Aboriginals and the two funds which have been mentioned are brought before us they should be produced at a time when they can be discussed fully by all honourable senators who are particularly concerned about the welfare of Aboriginals. J should have liked to deal with other matters affecting these people but the time approaches 11.45 p.m. and 1 do not doubt that the Minister would like to reply to the many points that have been raised.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[11.43] - in reply - I have only a minute or two but I should like to deal with a couple of points because I think it is important that we do so. I want to commend Senator Lawrie very much for his comments. It was obvious that he spoke with a great deal of knowledge as well as a great deal of feeling having regard to his experience of the area. I thank him for his comments and I thank honourable senators generally for the interest they have taken in this legislation. 1 deplore the comments of speakers who give the impression that nothing is being done under this legislation. I believe that the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) and the officers of his Department are completely dedicated in carrying out their duties in this field. I remind the Senate that over $8m was spent in 1968-69, not the $328,000 that Senator Keeffe said was spent in 2 years. 1 think his statement should be corrected. In addition I would direct attention to the figures Senator Lawrie mentioned which show that in the fields of housing, health and education some $3,650,000 have been spent. We add to this sum the amount which has been allocated for the capital fund and the amounts which have been appropriated for the Northern Territory for health purposes and for the study groups which are so important and which are operating in the Northern Territory.

It is quite true, as honourable senators have said, that education is one of the most important matters to be considered because it is in that field that we will see a benefit not only in this period but also in the future as the children grow and as the families understand so much better the requirement to live happy and successful lives within the community. Commonwealth grants to the States for Aboriginal advancement in the field of education total $843,000, for housing $2,297,000 and for health $510,000. 1 know that honourable senators have a document which shows those amounts. The grants are contributing tremendously to the welfare and improved living conditions of these people whom we all wish to help.

I referred to study grants for Aboriginals. I direct attention to the Minister’s announcement of a scheme of study grants for Aboriginals at the post-secondary and tertiary levels. He went on:

Already more than 100 Aboriginals arc being assisted under this scheme. We are also financing some action-research studies through the States. In the course of the present year it is our joint intention to undertake some special work in community schools in the Northern Territory.

I believe that the future will show the benefits of this planning and the work that is being done.

Senator Keeffe referred to two schools at Weipa and the children who attend them. I should like to inform him thai a secondary school is to be opened shortly at Weipa North which, I understand, will be for Aboriginal and white children alike. In other words, it will be an integrated school. As the honourable senator knows, one school already has Aboriginal and white children attending.

Senator Keeffe:

– One school at Weipa is black and the other is white.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– One has white children and Aboriginal children. Senator Keeffe mentioned a number of other matters but I must say to him now, as I endeavoured to do by interjection with the best of goodwill and, I hope, good manners, that I could not hear all of his comments so if I miss any of the points he raised it is not because I do not want to answer them but because I did not hear them..

Senator Keeffe:

– I understand. There were too many interjections on the Government side.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-I thought you were speaking too quickly. Senator Keeffe referred also to the outstanding Aboriginal poetess Kath Walker. I think he would be interested to know that she saw MrWentworth today and put to him her opinions, including those on black power. She subsequently visited the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and met with the Council for Aboriginal Affairs this afternoon. Among many matters which were discussed was the contribution Mrs Kath Walker could make, as an outstanding Aboriginal poetess, in matters related to Aboriginal affairs.

The honourable senator also referred to the capital fund. I think points in relation to the fund were raised by other honourable senators as well. I direct attention to the report of the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises which was brought in earlier. I think it shows very clearly, as Senator Lawrie mentioned, the splendid work that is being done. It will be seen that the number of applications for assistance where the amount required is known is ninety-seven, and the total amount applied for is $4,755,932. Already eighteen applications have been approved to a total amount of $328,096. I find it interesting to note the number of loan approvals which cover both rural and non-rural areas. The average loan approved is $18,672. It should be realised that all these matters have to be considered. The first annual report of the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises states in clear terms how a loan is made. It states:

In determining whether or not a loan should be made for a business enterprise, emphasis is being placed on:

the applicant and his ability in the field in which the enterprise will operate;

the prospect of such an enterprise becoming, or continuing to be, successful, without necessarily having regard to the value of the security or equity available in respect of any application for approval.

Broadly, prospects of success are regarded as having been reasonably established if the investigation of the loan application reveals that the enterprise will generate sufficient net income to provide a satisfactory living for the borrower and to meet repayments of principal and interest, over an extended term if necessary.

I think that is a clear statement of the actual position. I would like to reply to a matter that Senator Georges raised tonight and also during the Estimates debate. It is correct, as the honourable senator said, that 1 informed him in the Senate on 28th November 1968, that the loan for the Yuendumu copper project is interest free. This was an exception to the normal procedure. On the basis of the known body of ore, the project could be successful only if interest was not charged. Normally interest is charged on loans from the Capital Fund. But this interest can be reserved in part or in whole at the discretion of the Minister in order to give a particular project every chance of being successful and thereby of qualifying for assistance under the Aboriginal Enterprise Assistance Act 1968. I again stress the point that the interest can be reserved in part or in whole at the discretion of the Minister so that every possible assistance can be given.

I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate. I realise that the hour is late. I think I have covered the main points which were raised. 1 am sure all honourable senators will agree that this legislation is of paramount importance to helping Aboriginals to live a better, happier and healthier life. I believe that the Aboriginals generally and particularly the children will benefit from the foresight, vision and dedication of the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) and the Office of Aboriginal Affairs.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to ask one or two questions in order to clear up points which I regret the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs in this chamber, did not find time to reply to. The Minister did not reply to any of the accusations I made, although I thought they were serious enough to warrant a reply. I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 3.(1.), which states:

There is payable, during the year that commenced on 1st July 1969, to each State, for the purpose of financial assistance in connection with the welfare and advancement of the Aboriginal people of Australia living in that State, such amounts as the Minister determines not exceeding in the whole the amount specified in the Schedule to this Act opposite to the name of the State.

I interpret that clause as meaning that the Minister will decide the amount of financial assistance to be given to a State but that this cannot exceed the amount set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Apparently the Minister and not the Parliament decides what financial assistance shall be given to the States. Clause 3.(2.) states:

Payment of an amount to a State under this section is subject lo me following conditions:

that an amount equal to that amount- 1 take it the second amount referred to is the amount granted by the Commonwealth - will bc applied by the State, in a manner and within a time approved by the Minister, for the purposes of expenditure in connection wilh the welfare or advancement of Aboriginal people of Australia living in that Stale; and

that, if the Minister informs the Stale that he is satisfied that an amount equal lo that amount has not been applied in accordance with the condition specified in the Inst proceeding paragraph, the Stale will repay that amount to the Commonwealth. 1 therefore take it that the Minister decides what amount he will grant to 1 he States and the States have to spend at least an equal amount. But if a State does not have the amount lo spend it may nol be able to accept the Minister’s offer. If that were lo happen the welfare of the Aboriginals in that State could be affected, f will use South Australia as an illustration. The Minister may agree to lend any amount up lo $535,000.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– This is not a loan; it is a grant.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– But it becomes a loan if the State does not match the Commonwealth’s offer. Clause 3 (2.) (b) states, in effect,that if the Minister grants $500,000 to, say, South Australia and that State can find only $400,000 of its own finances to spend it will have to repay the whole amount to the Commonwealth. Docs a Slate have to pay back to the Commonwealth the amount in excess of the amount the Slate has spent on a $1 for $1 basis or does it have to pay back the whole of the amount the Commonwealth has given to it. despite the fact that the State has matched part of the grant? I am concerned with the words ‘that amount’ at the end of the clause. Il appears to me that the whole Commonwealth grant would be refundable if a Suite did not match it $1 for $1.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

1 1 1.58] - As 1 understand the situation, when a project costing a certain amount of money is put up the Minister decides what amount will be made available to meet the overall cost of the project. What Senator Cavanagh thinks is a matching grant is in fact not a matching grant. Clause 3 (2.) (a) is only a machinery provision to ensure that the State spends the money provided on Aboriginals. This condition is normally provided for in section 96 grants to the States. However, it is not a matching grant.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 12 midnight.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 September 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690923_senate_26_s42/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant