Senate
26 September 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1969

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1499

QUESTION

SCHOOL LIBRARIES

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science a question. When the distribution of the $9m of Federal money for libraries in secondary schools is being made in 1970, will the Government, if it is still the government of the day, endeavour to lay down principles as guidelines for the apparent arbitrary discrimination in favour of certain schools?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– 1 shall refer that question to the Minister for Education and Science for his consideration.

page 1499

QUESTION

VIETNAM

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

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question, ls it a fact that in June 1965 the Australian forces in Vietnam totalled 1,100 men, in September 1965, 1,700 men, in June 1966, 4,500 men and in December 1966, 5,760 men? Why does the Prime Minister insist that it would be impossible to reduce the number of men in Vietnam because 8,000 men make a viable force? Were the Australian forces not viable on the dates I have mentioned?

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

– lt is true that at certain times there have been variations in the strength of the Australian forces in Vietnam. Tt has to be understood that, once the force is made into a new viable force, quite obviously it has all the accompanying things. This is a logistic problem and a problem of Army establishments. In any event, the situation is that the Government has made a statement that at this point of time there are no proposals to vary the force. I think I made that statement in this place last week.

page 1499

QUESTION

SCIENTIFIC EXHIBITIONS

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Supply. In view of the considerable interest throughout the whole Australian community in all forms of scientific and technological development in this age, can the Minister indicate steps taken or to be taken to afford to as wide a cross-section of the public as possible a chance to view exhibitions provided by his Department in Tasmania?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Senator Devitt made certain representations to me some time ago, and it was decided to provide an exhibition in Tasmania. But, since he has now widened his question, perhaps 1 should give the information as I understand it to be. Three exhibitions containing an Apollo display, a WRESAT panel and spacecraft models will be shown at Devonport at the Reece High School from 27th September to 1st October as part of a scientific and industrial exhibition. The same display is to be included in the Home and Trade Fair which is to be held at Launceston from 27th October to 1st November and which is to be sponsored by the local radio station, 7LA. The same display will be presented in Hobart from 10th November to 21st November at the Commonwealth Bank Building.

page 1499

QUESTION

ESTIMATES DEBATES

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– Over the past week a number of departmental representatives required for the Estimates debate have been called to Canberra from Melbourne and other capital cities and have had to be kept in attendance for long and exhausting periods. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Are these officers properly compensated for these long hours under the conditions of their employment? In the case of the officers from Victoria, will compensation be received for the loss of the public holiday yesterday - Show Day - in that State?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The terms of employment of these Commonwealth officers, as is the case with other Commonwealth officers, are prescribed in the Commonwealth Public Service Act. I cannot give a particular answer in relation to the circumstances of officers who have been in attendance in connection with the Estimates debate. All I wish to say is that as a result of discussions that we have had over the last 24 hours, J anticipate that we will be able to dispose of the Estimates today. Therefore, the officers concerned will be able to return to their various departments on the completion of the debate. The terms and conditions under which these officers make themselves available to the Parliament are covered by the Commonwealth Public Service Act.

Senator McManus:

– Will the Minister refer this matter to the Public Service Board?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I will be perfectly happy to refer the matter to the Public Service Board.

page 1500

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY STAFF

(Question No. 1565)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. When will improvements be made to Parliament House staff areas.
  2. Will areas for proposed improvements include the Parliamentary Library to enable library staff to work in greater comfort.
  3. Has a date been set down for a review of Parliamentary staff salaries; if not, when will a date be set.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I sought information from the Deputy President on this matter and have been advised as follows:

  1. The areas and the facilities provided for staff in Parliament House are kept under review and, when necessary and if practicable, improvements are made. It will be appreciated, however, that a limiting circumstance in this is that many areas were not designed for their present usage but have been made over to meet a need. Also the acute shortage of accommodation for staff facilities, as well as for other purposes, is a continuing problem and one that limits what might otherwise be possible.
  2. Continuing steps have been taken to make the best use of the limited available library space from the point of view of staff comfort. The problem of too little available space is recognised, as indicated by the fact that the Presiding Officers have obtained from the Library Committee a review of Library space problems. This review will be taken into account when it is possible to provide additional space in Parliament House. (31 The salaries of the staff of the Parliament are kept under review by the Departments to which the officers belong. Such reviews are a continuing process and they are not conducted on a periodical basis. When general salary increases occur as a consequence of Public Service Arbitrator’s determinations, these are applied to Parliamentary staff to the same degree and from the same date as they apply to the Public Service. In so far as individual cases are concerned, a review of the salary classification is made when a change in the functions, responsibilities, or circumstances occur that appears to make this necessary.

page 1500

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1323)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Did the Minister receive a deputation in May to consider plans to upgrade Lismore Aerodrome.
  2. Did the Minister give a pledge that in any Civil Aviation Department surveys Lismore Aero Club officials would participate.
  3. Were tests made by the Department without the pledge being honoured; if so did such tests which were conducted in a cloak and dagger atmosphere constitute a danger to other aircraft using the Aerodrome at the time.
Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. The Minister for Civil Aviation has advised me that on 1st May 1969, he received a deputation from the Lismore City Council and other interested parties in connection with improved facilities at the Lismore Aerodrome.
  2. The Minister indicated to the deputation that he would call for a further investigation at Lismore of the suitability of that Aerodrome for use by aircraft at night. Although the deputation suggested that Lismore Aero Club officials might participate in the further investigation, the Minister did not agree to this.
  3. The further investigation was conducted at Lismore Aerodrome on 6th June, 1969, by a party of operations specialists from the Department. A Senior Airways Surveyor from the Head Office of the Department was in charge of this further evaluation. At no time did the flight tests constitute a danger to other aircraft using the Aerodrome. Subsequently on 2nd September the Director-General of Civil Aviation visited Lismore for discussions with the Lismore City Council. As a result of these discussions further technical investigations will be made by the Department into safety considerations relating to the question of night operations at Lismore Aerodrome.

page 1500

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1335)

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. How much money is being spent by the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Japan on educational television.
  2. How much money is being spent by the Australian Government on educational television.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following replies to the honourable senator’s question -

  1. In these countries television is not organised as a Department of Government and thus the amount actually expended on educational television is not available in official public documents.
  2. I have been informed by the PostmasterGeneral that while the Australian Government does not directly allocate any funds for educational television public funds are used by the ABC in producing educational programmes to the extent that they draw upon the annual grant allocated to the ABC for expenditure. Their cost is carried under the appropriate headings of Capital Expenditure, the Provision of Technical and Programme Facilities and Programme Expenses.

page 1501

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1355)

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

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

  1. What were the rates and the toal amounts of social service benefits paid, in 1950 and in 1960, to Australian citizens by the Commonwealth Government in the fields of -

    1. age pensions,
    2. invalid pensions,
    3. child endowment allowances,
    4. hospital benefit contributions, and
    5. maternity allowances.
  2. What rates and total amounts of such social service benefits are expected to be paid in the year 1969-70.
  3. What comparison can be made between the levels of rates and amounts of payment in each of these years, when depreciation of money value is taken into account.
Senator Dante ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. (a) and (b) The weekly rate of age and invalid pension at 30th June 1950 was $4.25 and at 30th June 1960 was $9.50.

Under the accounting procedures of the Department of Social Services records of expenditure on age and invalid pension are not maintained separately. Combined expenditure on age and invalid pensions in the year ended 30th June 1950 was $89.1 million and in the year ended 30th June 1960 was $294m. These figures include allowances for wives and children of pensioners. It should be noted, however, that there were 27 pension pay days in 1959-60.

  1. The weekly rates of child endowment for children under 16 years at 30 June 1950 and 30 June 1960 were 50 cents for the eldest, elder or only child, $1.00 for the second eldest child and for each subsequent child under 16 years.

Child endowment expenditure in 1949-50 was $60.7 million and in 1959-60 was$125.1 million. Although endowment for the first child was introduced on 20 June 1950 no payment was made during the financial year 1949-50.

  1. The Minister for Health has advised that at 30 June 1950 the rate of ordinary benefit paid by the Commonwealth on behalf of patients in public hospitals and approved private hospitals was 80 cents a day. In 1952 the Commonwealth introduced an additional hospital benefit of 40 cents a day payable to patients who contributed to registered hospital benefits organisations. The ordinary benefit of 80 cents a day continued to be paid for all patients. At 30 June 1960 the ordinary rate of benefit remained at 80 cents a day for patients in public and approved private hospitals in all States. In South Australia under the then existing hospital benefits agreement with that State, a special rate of benefit of $1.20 was also paid for all qualified patients in Government subsidised hospitals in that State.

At 30 June 1960 the rates of additional benefit were $1.20 a day for patients insured with a registered hospital benefits organisation for a fund benefit of at least $1.60 a day or 40 cents a day for a patient insured for a fund benefit of at least 60 cents a day but less than $1.60 a day.

At 30 June 1960 the Commonwealth rate in respect of pensioners enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service and their dependants accommodated in public wards of public hospitals was $1.20 a day.

Commonwealth expenditure on hospital benefit amounted to $12.6 million for the year ended 30 June 1950 and $37.2 million for the year ended 30 June 1960.

  1. The rates of maternity allowance at 30 June 1950 and 30 June 1960 were $30 where the mother had no other children under 16 years, $32 where there were one or two other children under 16 years and $35 where there were three or more other children under the age of 16 years. An extra $10 was paid for each additional child in multiple births.

Expenditure on maternity allowance for the year ended 30 June 1950 was $6.0 million and for the year ended 30 June 1960, $7.3 million.

  1. Proposed rates and estimated expenditure on social service benefits and allowances for 1969-70 are contained in statements 2 (item 4) and 10 attachedto the Treasurer’s last Budget Speech.
  2. The table hereunder sets out the levels of pensions, benefits and allowances which would have been paid at 30 June 1969 if the rates at 30 June 1950 and 30 June 1960 had been adjusted in accordance with movements in the Consumer Price Index. Expenditure on these pensions, benefits and allowances in 1949/50 and 1959/60 cannot validly be adjusted by a price index and compared with current expenditure levels because of the increase which has taken place in the number of recipients and because of additional allowances which have been introduced during this period in respect of certain of the benefits.

page 1502

QUESTION

CENTRAL QUEENSLAND POWER STATION

(Question No. 1363)

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

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

On what date was the report by the Department of National Development on the central Queensland project to develop power for secondary industry at the Port of Gladstone, made available to the Premier of Queensland.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The honourable senator’s question refers to the report by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority relating to the proposed central Queensland power station. The Prime Minister sent * copy of this report to the Premier of Queensland on 8th August, 1969.

page 1503

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1372)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What was the total value of dairy industry exports for the financial year ended 30th June, 1969. and to which countries were the exports consigned.
  2. What were the types of products exported to each of the countries, and the value of them.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2). The total value of exports of dairy products in 1968/69 was $87,407,552. The following table shows the types of dairy products, the countries to which they were exported, and their values:

page 1505

QUESTION

PACIFIC SPORTING POOLS

(Question No. 1388)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is it a fact that Mr H. G. Pearce, one of the three Directors in Pacific Sporting Pools, has now left Australia.
  2. What action will be taken by the Commonwealth to ensure that Mr Pearce and other Directors of Pacific Sporting Pools pay all salaries and wages due to former employees who are residents of Australia.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer:

  1. I am informed that records in the Department of Immigration up to the end of July 1969 do not record Mr H. G. Pearce as having left Australia.
  2. The Commonwealth has no general function to ensure that employers pay all salaries and wages due to their employees and, unless it could be shown that the Commonwealth had some obligation to assist the former employees referred to in the question, the Commonwealth would not take any action in the matter.

page 1505

QUESTION

PACIFIC SPORTING POOLS

(Question No. 1390)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Has the company known as Pacific Sporting Pools been wound up.
  2. What was the total loss to Australian shareholders.
  3. Were any dividends paid by the Company.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer: (1), (2) and (3) No company of this name has been incorporated or registered in the Australian Capital Territory or in the Northern Territory. The detailed information sought is not within my knowledge.

page 1505

QUESTION

PACIFIC SPORTING POOLS

(Question No. 1391)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Has the Company known as Pacific Sporting Pools paid all salaries and wages due to Australian employees.
  2. What is the total sum of wages and salaries owing to the seventy-seven employees (most of whom were Australians) who were based on Nauru.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer:

  1. and (2) See answer to question No. 1390. The detailed information sought is not within my knowledge.

page 1505

QUESTION

PACIFIC SPORTING POOLS

(Question No. 1392)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

What prize money, if any, was paid to Australian investors by the football pools company known as Pacific Sporting Pools.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer:

I do not know. The information sought does not come within my administration.

page 1505

QUESTION

CITIZEN MILITARY FORCES

(Question No. 1398)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

How many Citizen Military Forces units are operating at correct strength, and how many are operating below strength.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Of a total of 418 Citizen Military Forces units 26 were at, or above, establishment on 30 July 1969. The remaining 392 were below establishment.

The honourable senator will appreciate that with most of our Citizen Military Forces units, although they may not necessarily be at full establishment, their personnel provide the necessary nucleus on which to build should the need arise.

The present strength of the Citizen Military Forces provides the necessary basis for its units to carry out their function as a back-up force in the event of a defence emergency or war.

page 1505

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS: INFANT MORTALITY

(Question No. 1399)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

What is the current infant mortality rate of Aboriginals on Government Settlements, in (a) Queensland, (b) the Northern Territory, and (c) Western Australia.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The statistics sought by the honourable senator do not exist in any readily quotable form. Separate statistics are not maintained for Aboriginal Australians by the authorities cited. Moreover, there are now no Government Settlements in Western Australia.

Notwithstanding this absence of statistics, it can be said that the rate of infant mortality among Aboriginals is in many areas clearly higher than that for the community as a whole. This is a matter of very great concern to the Government. By means of its own efforts in the Northern Territory and through its grants to the States for Health the Government is already engaged in genera] programmes which will, it is hoped, have some effect by way of reducing the rale of Aboriginal infant mortality. In addition, and possibly of more importance in the long term, the Government is, through the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Health, and in association with State Aboriginal affairs and Health authorities, seeking to determine the magnitude of the problem, the precise causes of Aboriginal infant mortality and the remedies therefor.

page 1506

QUESTION

OFF-SHORE MINERALS

(Question No. 1419)

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Have the State Governments issued any permits for the exploration for, or exploitation of, off-shore minerals, other than petroleum, in (a) Australian territorial waters, and (b) the Australian continental shelf.
  2. Has the Commonwealth Government issued any permits for the exploration for, or the exploitation of off-shore minerals other than petroleum, in (a) Australian territorial waters, and (b) the Australian continental shelf.
  3. Have the Commonwealth and State Governments had discussions with respect to exploration for, or exploitation of, off-shore minerals other than petroleum.
  4. Is the recent High Court judgment in the fisheries case likely to have any effect on Commonwealth-State discussions on off-shore mining.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commonwealth through the Northern Territory Administration and the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea has issued authorities to prospect for minerals in offshore areas.
  3. Yes.
  4. The judgments in the recent High Court fisheries case are being studied by the Commonwealth.

page 1506

QUESTION

TOURISM: CORIN DAM

(Question No. 1420)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of the tourist potential of the Corin Dam in the Australian Capital Territory -

Why have not fresh supplies of an earlier brochure relating to the dam been reprinted; and

Why have not additional road signs been placed along the 37 mile route to the dam for the guidance of tourists.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. The Corin Dam pamphlet was produced by the National Capital Development Commission to provide information of a general and statistical nature about the dam during its period of construction.

Now that the works have been completed information about the dam will be included in the general tourist literature on Canberra.

  1. The signposting relating to the Corin Dam had not been developed beyond the erection of a sign at the junction of the Tidbinbilla and Corin Roads because all traffic travelling in either direction between Tharwa and the Cotter Reserve must pass this point. The location of the Corin Dam is shown on the A.C.T. Tourist Map and on maps and a model displayed in the Tourist Bureau and the Information Centre in Canberra.

However, to assist motorists wishing to make the return trip to the Corin Dam a survey has been made and arrangements completed to have signs indicating the location of the dam erected at the following points:

  1. at the junction of the Monaro Highway and Tharwa Road;
  2. at the junction of the Tharwa and Tidbinbilla Roads;
  3. at the junction of the Tidbinbilla and Point Hut Roads;

  4. at the junction of the Tidbinbilla and Paddy’s River Roads;

    1. at the Cotter Reserve.

page 1506

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS: STUDY GRANTS SCHEME

(Question No. 1437)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. How many Aboriginals who have made applications for assistance under the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme have had their applications rejected.
  2. What were the reasons for the rejection of such applications.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The total number of applications for assistance received in 1969 under the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme is 146. Of these, 12 applications have been rejected. Another 4 applications became ineffective because the required course was unavailable or because applicants failed to gain admission to the courses they had sought, and 12 applications are at present under consideration. The remaining 118 applicants received the offer of a study grant.
  2. Of the 12 applicants rejected, 10 nominated courses at secondary schools, which are outside the scope of the scheme, one applicant would have received no benefits from an award since he was studying under an alternative scheme with similar benefits, and one was found to be not suited for the course sought.

page 1507

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL STUDY GRANTS SCHEME

(Question No. 1438)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

How many awards have been made to Aboriginals under the scheme known as the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme, and, in which State or Territory do the recipients reside.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

As at 12 September 1969, 118 applicants have been offered awards under the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme. Of these, 91 are currently in receipt of assistance under the scheme, the number in each State being:

The remaining 27 applicants who receive the offer of a grant are not receiving benefits for the following reasons:

page 1507

QUESTION

BOUGAINVILLE MINING ROYALTIES

(Question No. 1441)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Why will a royalty of only1½ per cent be paid to the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea from mining ventures in the Bougainville area when normal royalties are invariably much above this rate.
  2. Why is the low rate of only 5 per cent of the total royalties received being paid as part compensation to the inhabitants of Bougainville.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The Bougainville Copper Agreement Clause 5 paragraph (h), provides that the Company pay royalty at the rate of one and one quarter per cent of the f.o.b. revenue obtained from sales made by the Company. This rate is the same as that provided for all mining ventures in the Territory under the Mining Ordinance 1928-66 Section 61a Sub-section (1).
  2. Mineral rights in Papua and New Guinea are vested in the Administration and not in individual land owners. However 5% of the mineral royalties are paid to the owners of the land.

page 1507

QUESTION

AIRPORTS: MOBILE STAIRCASES

(Question No. 1454)

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

As airport charges have been raised each year, until they are now among the highest in the world, and as these charges are then passed on to air travellers, will the Minister consider having available some kind of movable footpath which could be rolled out behind the mobile staircases and would enable passengers to walk from aircraft to terminal without the necessity of walking through deep puddles formed on the tarmac in wet weather with, at best, uncomfortable and, at the worst, debilitating results.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

I have referred your suggestion to the Department which, in turn, has discussed it with the Airlines and I regret to say that it seems that nowwhere in the world has a practical and worthwile arrangement been devised along the lines suggested.

The alternatives appear to be limited to the use of umbrellas, which are not an answer to the Honourable Senator’s problem; to the use of buses to get people from the aircraft to the terminal, which would only partly meet the need and which most people consider to be not worth the inconvenience with the walking distances involved in

Australia; and to the aerobridges which we are now incorporating in our latest terminals, such as Sydney and Melbourne.

I feel that the best the industry can do at other airports is to so arrange aircraft parking relative to the passenger terminal as to keep walking in the open to a minimum. The Honorable Senator may rest assured that this is a matter under constant study and application as a joint effort of the Airlines and the Department.

page 1508

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

(Question No. 1455)

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

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

Will the Minister initiate a departmental inquiry Into the operation of the airlines agreement and its effect on the ability of Trans-Australia Airlines to meet its schedules and provide the standard of service for which it has built up such a fine reputation but which at the present time is under widespread criticism from the travelling public.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The Government has reviewed continuously all aspects of its domestic airline policy and a separate inquiry into the operation of the airlines Agreement would serve no useful purpose.

As the result of the Government’s policy the two major domestic airlines one of which is Trans Australia Airlines have continued to provide airline services of world class standard. On a number of occasions other countries have expressed keen interest in the Australian air transport system because of its leading position in the world aviation scene.

page 1508

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY

(Question No. 1465)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. In the interests of industrial safety what role does the Department play in the design and construction of various types of cranes on the Australian waterfront.
  2. Is it a fact that Waterside Workers’ Federation crane operators at some ports have to ascend steep ladders with no guard rails attached.
  3. Is it a fact that in some instances a crane operator has only a small entry to the actual crane cabin.
  4. Have investigations been made into the modern types of maritime cranes used at the ports of Hamburg and Rijeka.
  5. Will the Department, in the future installation of maritime cranes, seek to eliminate the industrial hazards mentioned in (2) and (3) above.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Commonwealth has no legislative responsibility in connection with waterfront cranes. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority in performing its functions relating to safety, accepts the standards laid down by the State authorities who are responsible for approval of the design and for testing and inspection of shore-based cranes.
  2. I am advised that waterside workers working as crane operators frequently have to ascend vertical or steeply inclined ladders to gain access to control cabins. (3)I am also advised that the entrances to crane cabins are considered adequate for persons of normal physique, though difficulty could be experienced by particular individuals.
  3. No.
  4. While my department has no administrative function in relation to crane design it cooperates actively with the Standards Association of Australia in the development of national safety standards. I am advised that amendments to one of these standards which are currently under consideration should go a long way towards eliminating hazards associated with access ladders on shore-based cranes.

page 1508

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1472)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Is there a distance measuring equipment beacon situated on the west coast of Tasmania and, if so, is it recognised for use by passengercarrying commercial aircraft; if not, has the Department given consideration to installing such a beacon in this area.
  2. Does the Minister agree that flying conditions on the Tasmanian west coast are possibly the worst in Australia.
  3. What would be the approximate capital cost of installing a transistorised beacon in the area.
  4. Will the Minister take immediate steps to have such a beacon installed in the most advantageous position in this area.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) is not installed at any airport on the west coast of Tasmania at the present time. My Department is currently considering the installation of additional DME beacons at various locations throughout the Commonwealth including the west coast of Tasmania.
  2. There is no precise basis for determining worst flying conditions’. Procedures prescribed by my Department provide for the required level of safety irrespective of weather conditions or terrain.
  3. The estimated cost of providing a DME beacon is $25,000 provided a suitable site with ready access to power is available. Remote sites in unfavourable locations can result in significant increases in these costs.
  4. Navigation facilities are installed on a planned basis and the priority normally allotted to the installation of navigation aids at a particular location is influenced by the number of flights which can benefit from additional facilities and the claims of other locations. An overriding factor, however, is the availability of equipment. A transistorised DME beacon suitable for installation in remote areas has recently been developed and it is anticipatedthat such equipment will be available during the first half of 1970 to commence an installation programme at the locations selected as a result of the current investigations referred to in theanswer given to the first question.

page 1509

QUESTION

EDUCATION: COMMONWEALTH ASSISTANCE

(Question No. 1484)

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: (1)What requests have been received from each of the States for Commonwealth funds to meet the needs of Slate primary, secondary and technical schools.

  1. What has been the Government’s response to each such request.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senators question:

The attention of the honourable senator is drawn to the answer given in another place by the Prime Minister to Question No. 1500 asked by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. I do not wish to add substantially to the information already given, except to indicate that the extent of the Commonwealth response to educational needs is very clearly shown by its greatly increased financial contributions towards both the Government and private sectors of education. In 1963-64 the Commonwealth share of total expenditure by the Commonwealth and State Governments on education was $68 million (12%); in 1969-70 Commonwealth expenditure is expected to rise to$266 million (23%).

page 1509

QUESTION

BUSHFIRE FIGHTING AGENCIES

(Question No. 1490)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

When will a statement on the recent conference of Commonwealth and State bush fire fighting agencies be made, or its findings be published.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The final report of the Rural Fires Conference is not yet completed. Before being released it will be necessary for it to be considered by the Australian Forestry Council which meets on 31st October and which, in conjunction with the C.S.I.R.O., sponsored the Conference. As promised earlier by the Minister for National Development a copy of the Conference report will be made available to the honourable senator after the Council meeting.

A summary report, containing the resolutions put forward at the Conference, has been supplied to the honourable senator and a further copy is available in the Library.

page 1509

QUESTION

EDUCATION: SCIENCE BLOCKS

(Question No. 1512)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. How many senior high schools in Western Australia, other than Bunbury, will not have a Commonwealth subsidised science block by 1970/71.
  2. Why is the Bunbury Senior High School not eligible for Commonwealth subsidy.
  3. How many non-Government high schools in Western Australia have two science blocks.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following replies to the honourable Senator’s questions.

  1. The City Beach High School and Perth Modern School will not have received science laboratories from the Commonwealth by June 1971.
  2. The Stale authorities have advised us that the provision of additional science laboratories at Bunbury Senior High School has been considered but there is insufficient room on the site for further building.
  3. I do not know precisely what the Honourable Senator means when he speaks of a science block in this part of his question.How schools group together their science facilities is left to their own discretion. There are several independent schools which, like Government schools, have more than one laboratory. However, I can give the Honourable Senator an assurance that no independent school in Western Australia has been provided with more science laboratories than its needs justify. These needs are determined by the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Standards for Science Facilities in Independent Secondary Schools and are based on the number of science periods taught per week in each school.

page 1510

QUESTION

CONTAINER SHIPPING

(Question No. 1521)

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

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

  1. Is is a fact that the new $6 million Tilbury berth, built in Londonto handle container vessels on the United Kingdom-Australia run, has been idle since February 1969 and is to remain closed because London dockers cannot agree on employment terms.
  2. Will alternative arrangements be made to handle the container trade between the United Kingdom and Australia, or will this modern type of sea commerce be held up indefinitely.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. I understand that, as the industrial troubles at the United Kingdom port of Tilbury are still unresolved, the container terminal constructed for the United Kingdom/ Australia trade is not yet in use. The position in the future is dependent on the outcome of negotiations with the British Unions concerned.
  2. There has been no delay in the introduction and scheduling of container services between Australia and the United Kingdom, as alternative arrangements have been made for the container ships to discharge and load at Rotterdam or Antwerp, both of these ports being linked to the United Kingdom by regular trans-shipment services.

page 1510

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1528)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

With reference to the answer given to Senator Cohen on 12 August 1969 in connection with the F1 1 1 contract, that payments for the quarter ending 30 September 1969 will be of the order of $15 milion, does the Government intend to pay this amount before a decision is made concerning the possible cancellation of the order for the aircraft.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

As stated in earlier answers to questions by Senator Cohen the Australian Government has undertaken to reimburse the United States Treasury for work performed and materials supplied by the aircraft contractors.

page 1510

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 1530)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. How many vessels of the RAN are fitted with gas turbines, either as main propulsion units or as supplementary propulsion units.
  2. How many engineers are trained to a level where they can take charge of a watch on such vessels.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. No vessels of the Royal Australian Navy are fitted with gas turbines for propulsion purposes.
  2. The principles of gas turbines and, to some extent, their operation are taught to RAN engineer officers while under training at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon, in the United Kingdom. Engineer officers who have been trained at Manadon and who are currently qualified to take charge of a watch at sea would require a few weeks familiarisation with the operational requirements of gas turbine propulsion units before taking charge in gas turbine vessels.

page 1510

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

(Question No. 1535)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Was Cadet Richard Rolfe discharged from the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in January 1968.
  2. Did this cadet spend the last 5 weeks of his service in hospital after 2 days of torment by his sectional corporal.
  3. Was the statement in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16th September 1969, that the cadet was a bundle of nerves for 3 months after discharge, correct.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Cadet Rolfe spent approximately 10 days in hospital up to 29th February 1968 when a recommendation for his discharge was made to the Minister. Pending discharge on 15th March 1968 he remained in hospital.
  3. I have no knowledge of his condition subsequent to his discharge.

page 1510

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

(Question No. 1536)

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Are conditions for entry into the Royal Military College, Duntroon, most exacting.
  2. Does the interviewing panel consist of senior officers and a psychologist, and does each interview take a whole day.
  3. How is it that a young cadet so chosen is reported to have attempted suicide because of conditions at Duntroon.
  4. Does this report necessitate an immediate public inquiry outside the control of officers who are directly involved.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The conditions for entry into RMC are considered most exacting. Before interview by the RMC Selection Board candidates are required to satisfactorily undergo medical and psychological examinations, and to have passed, or to be studying, at Matriculation level.
  2. The interview panel consists of the Commandant of the College or the Director of Military Art as President, one member of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, one member of the academic staff of the College and a Psychologist. The interview procedure does cover one day.
  3. In the light of the medical and psychiatric evidence received in the course of the investigation into this case, the Commandant of the RMC was satisfied that there was no attempt at suicide. The cadet himself attributed his action to his unhappiness with his academic progress and denied it had anything to do with the suggestion that senior classes were ill-treating the junior class.
  4. No.

page 1511

QUESTION

ARMY

(Question No. 1537) .

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. In the past 10 years, how many members of the Citizen Military Forces have qualified for a first appointment but have not been promoted.
  2. How many of these persons are currently serving in the Citizen Military Forces.
  3. Do the examination results of these persons still qualify them for appointment; if not, why not.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) In the past ten years. 2745 members of the Citizen Military Forces have qualified in the examination requirement for first appointment to commissioned rank. Extensive research would be required to ascertain how many of these members have not been promoted and how many are currently serving in the Citizen Military Forces. However, I will undertake to obtain the required information if the honourable senator so desires.
  2. A member who qualifies by examination would normally be appointed within 12 months unless this action was deferred at the members request for personal or business reasons. Qualification for first appointment remains valid while the member continues to serve in the Active Citizen Military Forces.

If the senator is aware of any particular case of a qualified member who has not been appointed, and would care to provide me with the details the Minister for the Army would be happy to have the matter investigated.

page 1511

QUESTION

ANONYMOUS LETTER

(Question No. 1480)

Senator MILLINER:

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

  1. ls it a fact that on or about Wednesday, 16th July 1969, a Commonwealth Police Officer interviewed a Brisbane radio announcer for approximately two hours on the contents of a letter received by the Prime Minister?
  2. Is it a fact that the letter referred to was unsigned and the radio announcer was informed that the interview was of a confidential nature?
  3. Is it also a fact that, although the interview was supposed to be of a confidential nature, the officer then interviewed the General Manager of the radio station and disclosed to him the contents of the anonymous letter?
  4. As it is reported that no threat of physical violence against the Prime Minister was contained in the letter, will the Attorney-General make a comprehensive statement detailing the reasons which prompted the Commonwealth to act on information contained in anonymous correspondence?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer:

  1. A Commonwealth Police Officer did interview a Brisbane radio announcer on 16th July 1969 from 11.5 a.m. to 12.3 p.m. in relation to an anonymous letter received by the Prime Minister.
  2. Yes.
  3. At the specific request of the lady being interviewed, the General Manager of the radio station was acquainted with the nature of the enquiry. He was shown only parts of the anonymous letter to ascertain whether he could identify the handwriting.
  4. 1 do not propose to make a comprehensive statement on this subject. The Commonwealth Police were not acting on information contained in an anonymous letter. They were attempting to ascertain the identity of the author of the anonymous letter.

page 1511

QUESTION

CADETS, POINT COOK

(Question No. 1538)

Senator COHEN:

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

  1. How many cadets commenced courses at the Officers Training School at Point Cook in each of the years from 1960 to 1969.
  2. How many cadets successfully completed their courses, and what percentage do they represent of the original intakes.
  3. What is the estimated yearly cost ot training a cadet at this establishment.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

page 1512

QUESTION

CADETS, DUNTROON

(Question No. 1539)

Senator COHEN:

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

  1. How many cadets commenced courses at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in each of the years from 1960 to 1969.
  2. How many cadets successfully completed their courses, and what percentage do they represent of the original intakes.
  3. What is the estimated yearly cost of training a cadet at this establishment.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The estimated yearly cost of training a cadet at the Royal Military College is $14,000.

This figure includes the pay of cadets and the costs of their rations and other maintenance, plus a share of the salaries of RMC staff (including academic and military) and administrative personnel and of the costs of maintaining the equipment and buildings of the College.

page 1512

QUESTION

ZONE ALLOWANCES

(Question No. 1541)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minis ter representing the Treasurer upon notice:

Will the Treasurer undertake a survey of the prices which workers in Western and Northern Queensland are called upon to pay for consumer goods, to ascertain whether the relevant zone allowances should be reviewed.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

The amounts of concessional deductions authorised under the zone allowance provisions of the income tax law were reviewed only recently when the 1969-70 Budget was being prepared. Nonetheless, the Honourable Senator’s suggestion of a prices survey will be noted for further consideration when these provisions next come under study; but I point out that information on prices of consumer goods in particular areas such as those mentioned by the Honourable Senator would need to be viewed in relation to comparable information for other areas, and that relative prices of consumer goods in different areas are, in any case, only one of many factors relevant to the determination of the zone allowances.

page 1512

QUESTION

INDIAN OCEAN

(Question No. 1542)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

In relation to the question asked by Senator Gair, on 14th August 1968, regarding the withdrawal of British naval forces from the Indian Ocean area, and the Minister’s reply in which he gave an assurance of the Government’s continuing interest in that area and stated’ that the

United Kingdom would continue to have defence commitments there, does the Government still place the same emphasis on United Kingdom defence commitments, or would the Government now point to Russian interest as a reason why Australia should not be unduly worried.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

The Government has kept developments in the Indian Ocean area under close observation and is aware that other countries continue to do likewise. The United Kingdom continues to have defence commitments in this area, lt does not follow from the presence of some Russian naval ships that we are moving towards a situation in which the important international sea lanes and lines of communication across the Indian Ocean will be threatened. Many other countries share our concern for the security of the region and as opportunities arise exchanges of view take place al various levels concerning the future security requirements of the area.

page 1513

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

(Question No. 1544)

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

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

  1. ls it a fact that Trans-Australia Airlines, as a matter of policy, are having all air hostesses searched upon their return from flights to New Guinea.
  2. Is it a fact that air hostesses employed by TAA pass the most stringent tests, including tests relating to integrity and honesty, before being employed.
  3. Why are these girls, who do such an excellent job, subjected to such humiliating treatment.
  4. Is there any evidence of any large scale or petty thieving by air hostesses of liquor provided free of charge to first class passengers on these flights.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Following an investigation of an incident on a flight from Port Moresby to Sydney in which five air hostesses admitted taking liquor, the property of TAA, it was decided by TAA that a spot bag check should be carried out from time to time. The situation was fully discussed wilh the Air Hostesses Association and agreement was reached concerning the manner in which the spot checks would be carried out. The agreement with the Air Hostesses Association provided that the employees did not have to submit to the check if they did not wish to and that under no circumstances would the contents of their bags, etc. be touched other than by the air hostesses themselves. TAA has agreed to refrain from further spot checks pending further discussions wilh the Air Hostesses Association.
  2. TAA air hostesses are selected for employment on the basis of iwo interviews but the employment procedure does not include tests relating to integrity and honesty except by way of production of references which is normal in the selection of all personnel.
  3. Every effort was made to see thai the spot checks were bandied with the utmost discretion and the carrying out of these checks was noi in any way considered to be humiliating treatment.
  4. As mentioned in (1) above there was evidence that some liquor belonging to TAA had been taken from aircraft by air hostesses but the extent of this is difficult to assess.

page 1513

QUESTION

ROADS

(Question No. 1547)

Senator DEVITT:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. ls the Treasurer aware of a statement attributed to the Tasmanian Minister for Lands and Works in which he is reported to have laid the blame for the substantial reduction in the rural roads grant to Tasmania, under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act, on the Federal Government.
  2. Has the Treasurer been informed of serious embarrassment to a number of larger rural municipalities in Tasmania caused by the reduction in their allocations for rural roads and the possibility of staff retrenchments.
  3. Will the Treasurer earnestly consider restoring the Commonwealth allocation to Tasmania to a level consistent with the expectations of those councils which have planned works on the basis of their former matched grants from the Slate Government.
  4. Does the Treasurer agree that local government in Australia is at the crossroads and deserves far greater consideration than it is currently receiving.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The amount of the Commonwealth grant for rural roads which is allocated to municipal authorities is a matter for the Tasmanian Government. I am not aware of the effect of any reductions that may have been made in grants to municipal authorities for expenditure on rural roads.
  3. Under the new roads arrangements, Tasmania will receive $56.25m over the five years ending June 1974, an increase of $1 8.75m or 50% over the grant in the previous quinquennium. Although the requirement in the 1964 legislation that at least 40% of the Commonwealth Aid Roads grants be spent on ‘minor’ rural roads is not continued in the new arrangements, the grant allocated for such roads in Tasmania should enable a significant increase in expenditure to be achieved. Thus, over the next five years, a total grant of over $ 1.9.7m will be available for expenditure on rural roads other than arterial roads, an increase of more than $4. 7m on the amount required to be spent on ‘minor’ rural roads for the 5 years ending in 1968-69. A further grant of almost $ 10.9m has been allocated by the Commonwealth for expenditure on arterial roads in rural areas of Tasmania. Thus, over the 5 years, a total grant of $30.6m will be available for expenditure on rural roads in Tasmania, which is more than twice the amount required to be expended on rural roads during the previous 5 years. In addition, the State Government is free to make allocations from its own resources to local authorities for expenditure on roads.
  4. As mentioned above, the Tasmanian Government may allocate to local authorities any portion of the roads grants received from the Commonwealth. While the Commonwealth Government is fully conscious of the desirability of local authorities having sufficient financial resources to be able to expand and improve the services which they provide to the community, as these authorities are constituted and function under State Laws the Commonwealth has taken the view that it is the responsibility of the State Governments to determine to what extent the financial resources available to local authorities for roads should be supplemented, and what form any such supplementary assistance should take.

page 1514

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1549)

Senator MILLINER:

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

As the wife of an age pensioner could be placed in a difficult financial position if she should not qualify for an age pension, will the Minister consider introducing legislation to overcome this embarrassing situation where circumstances suggest such action should be taken.

Senator Dante ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

This question will again be considered when social services are next under review.

page 1514

QUESTION

MR MAXWELL NEWTON

(Question No. 1551)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. As the first public reports of recent incidents at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, were contained in a Maxwell Newton publication, will the Government carry out more raids on Mr Newton’s offices and home or will it avoid this type of action after the recent set-back it received in the court.
  2. Will the Government initiate an investigation to discover the person who released information to Mr Newton.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer:

  1. and (2) It would not be in the public interest for such information to be given of investigations that might be contemplated into alleged or suspected offences against the laws of the Commonwealth.

page 1514

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, DUNTROON

(Question No. 1553)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Did more than thirty cadets need medical attention following the celebrations, known as 100 days from graduation’, at the Royal Military College, Duntroon on 31st August 1969.
  2. Did one cadet suffer a broken ankle and another a suspected fracture of the spine.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Twenty-four cadets reported for medical attention on 31st August. Twelve needed medical attention as follows:

    1. 1 cadet - bruised coccyx
    2. 10 cadets - bruised knees, arms and legs
    3. 1 cadet - bruised face

The injuries of seven of these were due to the celebrations while the injuries of the other five were due to sport. The remaining twelve required medical attention for continuing treatment for previous complaints.

  1. The cadet reported as having been admitted to hospital with a broken ankle in fact broke his ankle on the obstacle course on a period of military training on the day preceding the ‘100 days from graduation’ celebration, and had no connection with any of the proceedings on 31st August. One cadet was admitted to the RMC Hospital on 31st August with a bruised coccyx. He was X-rayed at the Canberra hospital and subsequently returned to the RMC hospital on the same day.

The ‘100 days’ celebration is shared by all members of the Corps of Staff Cadets and is completely unconnected with the question of fourth class training.

page 1514

QUESTION

ROADS

(Question No. 1555)

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the aggregate road grant to Tasmania is considerably greater than last year and that some imbalance has been caused by the amount which must be spent on urban development and by the parlous position of State finances, inherited by the present State Government.
  2. Will the Government give consideration, in future road grants, to specifying that a certain proportion must be spent under the jurisdiction of municipal authorities.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. Under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969 provision has been made for grants totalling $56.25 million to be paid to Tasmania over the five year period commencing 1 July 1969, an increase of50 per cent on the amount provided in the preceding five years. In 1969-70 a grant of $9.1 million will be paid to Tasmania which is $0.6 million or 7 per cent greater than the grant in 1968-69.

An important aim of the new roads arrangements is to direct Commonwealth assistance for roads more specifically than in the past to the development of particular classes of roads. Thus, the new Act provides for specific allocations of the ‘principal’ grant for urban arterial and subarterial roads, rural arterial roads, rural roads other than arterial roads and for planning and research. The amount allocated for urban roads in Tasmania over the five year period is $22.59 million or about 40 per cent of the total roads grants to that State. In 1969-70 the amount allocated for urban arterial and sub-arterial roads in Tasmania is $2.98 million or about 33 per cent of the State’s total roads grants for the year.

In addition to the principal grant there is payable to Tasmania a ‘supplementary grant’ which is available for expenditure on any class of road. Over the five year period, the amount of this grant will be $2.25 million, of which $1 million is payable in 1969-70.

I am not aware that the specific Commonwealth allocation for urban roads has caused any imbalance in the pattern of the State’s roads expenditure. In this regard, it is relevant that the State undertakes a considerable amount of roads expenditure from its own resources. For example, in 1967-68 the State Government expended $6.76 million on roads from its own resources.

I should mention, however, that the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act includes provisions to meet the situation where a State experiences serious difficulty in expending the Commonwealth gran! for a particular road class.

  1. The Commonwealth has taken the view that, as local authorities are constituted and function under State laws, it should be the responsibility of the State Governments to determine to what extent the financial resources available to municipal and local authorities should be supplemented, and what form any such supplementary assistance should take. For this reason, it has been the general policy of successive Commonwealth Governments not to make subventions directly to or on behalf of local government authorities. However, the honourable Senator’s request has been noted for consideration when the next aid roads grants arrangements are under examination.

page 1515

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1558)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. At what time did each of the three aircraft referred to in the answer to Question 1489 arrive in the terminal area of Kingsford-Smith Airport on 27th August.
  2. What was the scheduled time of departure of the two aircraft from Melbourne and at what time did each of them actually leave Melbourne.
  3. Were they carrying passengers or freight or both.
  4. To which airline operator or operators did the two aircraft belong.
  5. What was the scheduled time of departure of the aircraft from Darwin and at what lime did it actually leave Darwin.
  6. In normal circumstances would the three aircraft referred to have come within the embargo on night flying operations.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. The actual times of arrival at Sydney Airport of the three aircraft referred to in the answer to Question No. 1489 as recorded by Sydney air traffic control were as follows:

Flight No. 486 DC9 at 11.51 p.m.

Flight QF 178 Boeing 707 at 11.54 p.m.

Flight No. 404 DC9 at midnight.

These aricraft would of course have entered the immediate environs of the airport a few minutes before the times stated.

  1. The scheduled and actual times of departure of the two flights from Melbourne were:

Flight No. 486 scheduled 8.00 p.m. actual 10.51 p.m.

Flight No. 404 scheduled 8.45 p.m. actual 11.02 p.m.

  1. The two flights were carrying passengers and some freight. They were scheduled passenger flights.
  2. The two flights were operated by TransAustralia Airlines.
  3. The flight from Darwin QF 178 was not scheduled to operate to that airport. It was a military charter flight carrying Australian military personnel planned from Saigon to Sydney with an estimated departure time of midday (Saigon time) and an estimated arrival time at Sydney of 10.30 p.m. Sydney time. It landed at Darwin to refuel. The actual time of departure from Darwin was 8.28 p.m. Sydney time and as stated earlier its actual time of arrival at Sydney was 11.54 p.m.
  4. Had circumstances been normal all three flights would have arrived at Sydney Airport well before the time when restrictions on jet operations apply. As indicated earlier the flights were delayed by weather conditions and considering all factors involved they were accepted as special cases which may be authorised to proceed under the night curfew arrangements.

page 1516

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1562)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

How many aircraft have

  1. taken off from and
  2. landed at Kingsford Smith Airport between the hours of 11.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. in each of the years since the embargo on night flying operations was introduced.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

It is taken for granted that the question relates to jet aircraft operations since the night restrictions do not and never have applied to other types of aircraft. Accurate records are available only for 1969. To date the number of take offs and landings by jet aircraft at Sydney Airport between the hours of 11.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. are 97 and 105 respectively. It is believed that the 1969 figures would not be significantly different from earlier years (1965 onwards). In fact it is believed that the figures for the earlier years would have been higher than for 1969. While there have been increases in jet aircraft operations at Sydney Airport the night curfew which applies to these operations has been more rigidly applied in recent years especially in 1969.

page 1516

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1574)

Senator GEORGES:

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

Has the Department of Labour and National Service the means to assess the number of false returns submitted for the national service ballot; if so, will the Minister inform the Senate, as soon as possible, of the number of false registrations received for the last ballot.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose the numbers whether they be small or large.

page 1516

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

(Question No. 1578)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer give consideration, when reviewing permissible income tax deductions, to increasing the maximum income tax deduction of $42 allowable for fees paid as union contributions.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

I will arrange for the honourable senator’s suggestion to be listed for consideration, along with other requests for new or extended taxation concessions, when the 1970-71 Budget is being prepared.

page 1516

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1579)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Will the Minister inform the Parliament of the designations of the units to which ninety-one national servicemen in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are attached.
  2. In which countries are 275 other national servicemen serving, and what are their duties in those countries.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The 91 national servicemen in Papua and New Guinea at 30 July 1969 consisted of 22 officers and 69 other ranks. The major portion of these - 3 officers and 45 sergeants - were members of the Royal Australian Army Education Corps and were engaged in the education of members of the Pacific Islands Regiment. The remainder were employed in units concerned with engineering, signals, supplies and medical and dental services.
  2. Of the 275 national servicemen located in other countries at that date, 274 were posted to Australian Army units serving in Malaysia and Singapore and were employed on normal regimental duties. The remaining soldier was a clerk who had been stationed in Bangkok as a member of the staff associated with a recent SEATO exercise. He has since returned to Australia on completion of that duty.

page 1516

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1581)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen the report that Ansett Airlines of Australia has recently issued its employees with 160 sets of earmuffs and that Trans Australia Airlines will issue its employees with earmuffs within the next fortnight.
  2. Are earmuffs issued because of the growing volume of aircraft noise at airports and for the purpose of combating deafness that could be caused and nervous strain that is caused by aircraft noise.
  3. Will the Minister give an undertaking that these matters will be taken into consideration so far as citizens living adjacent to airports and under flight paths of aircraft are concerned when applications are received from airline operators and/or State Governments to have the embargo on jet flying operations between 1.1 pm and 6 am lifted.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. I am informed that the Minister is aware of the report that Ansett Airlines of Australia has issued its employees with earmuffs and that Trans Australia Airlines is taking similar action.
  2. Earmuffs are issued to employees to be worn as protection against possible injury to hearing and other effects and discomfort which may be experienced by persons working in very close proximity to aircraft engines. It is a fact that noise levels increase as the distance from the source of the noise is reduced and therefore the highest levels are experienced within a short distance of the engines. <3) The Minister has already indicated that noise nuisance will continue to be an important factor for consideration if any proposals are submitted for the lifting of restrictions on the scheduling of jet operations during the night hours at certain capital city airports in Australia. At present no change in this policy is contemplated.

page 1517

QUESTION

COMPENSATION TO WEST GERMAN MIGRANTS

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 10th September, 1969, Senator Mulvihill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration the following question without notice:

Has the Australian Government participated in any discussion with the West German Government on ways and means of speeding up the processing of 12,000 individual compensation claims made by those migrants in Australia who were victims of Nazi tryranny during World War II?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– When Senator Mulvihill asked this question, I replied:

I am not certain whether this matter comes within the responsibility of the Minister for Immigration or the Minister for External Affairs. I shall take the matter up with the Minister for Immigration and obtain what information I can for the honourable senator.

The Acting Minister for External Affairs has now advised me that no such discussions have taken place.

page 1517

QUESTION

FOOD PROCESSING

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 10th September Senator Rae asked me the following question without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Army aware that a new process has been developed in the United Kingdom whereby foodstuffs may be preserved indefinitely without freezing, tinning or dehydration? Can the Minister advise whether the Army Food Research Establishment at Scottsdale in Tasmania has access to the process and whether the process has any application for armed Services food supplies generally?

The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer:

Advice has been received that a new preservation process is being or has been developed, by a private company in the United Kingdom. It is claimed that this new process will enable packaged meals to be kept indefinitely without freezing, canning or dehydration. However, the technique has not yet been released by the developer. The Army Food Science Establishment is definitely interested in the process and is being kept progressively informed by the Australian Army Staff in London.

page 1517

QUESTION

PROFIT SHARING AT MT ISA MINES LIMITED

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 10th September Senator O’Byrne asked me the following question without notice:

Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service recall the bitter strike which took place at Mt Isa and the arguments that were put up by Mt Isa Mines Ltd to avoid providing improved pay and working conditions to its employees which led up to the strike? Can the Minister supply the Senate with informal tion as to whether some consideration will be given to sharing some of the tremendous rise in profits of 158% above last year’s figures with the men who made it possible - the employee who performs the arduous underground work? Is it a fact that dividends will be increased by 50%. Is this merely another example of how the average worker in Australia misses out on the benefits gained from the exploitation of his country’s mineral wealth?

In reply I said that I well recalled the disastrous strike which was caused at Mt Isa some two years ago and its economic disadvantages. I was unable to inform the Senate on arrangements for profit sharing in the company and I undertook to obtain information on this at the earliest opportunity. The Acting Minister for Labour and National Service has now advised me that preliminary press announcements of a rise in profits by Mt Isa Mines Limited during the financial year ending 30th June 1969 have been made; but he also notes that the final figures for the year will not be known until the company’s full report and accounts are issued on 27th October.

He is net aware of any new proposals regarding profit sharing at Mt Isa, but points out that a form of profit sharing has been in operation there for some years. Following very harmonious and successful negotiations late last year between the company and the unions, a consent variation to the award was made whereby increases ranging from $1.50 to $3.50 per week were granted to classifications below tradesman level. A new agreement to operate for two years from 9th December 1968 was also negotiated late last year and he understands was ratified by unanimous decision at separate mass meetings of the Australian Workers’ Union and of the craft unions. Details of the agreement have not been made public. In addition, the bonus payments of $16 per week and the prosperity bonus of $10 per week made under the previous agreement of December 1966 was continued. Subsequently, in March of this year, a further agreement was made between the company and four unions representing underground maintenance employees at the mines, whereby an incentive bonus scheme making provision for at least $10 per week for those employees was introduced.

page 1518

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

-r-On 12th September Senator Poke asked me a question without notice in the following terms:

Has Australia any troops on, or are we in any way involved with, the prison island of Con Son off the coast of South Vietnam, where the Saigon regime’s political prisoners are gaoled under extremely harsh conditions? As startling reports of torture have been appearing in the American Press, can the Government assure the people of Australia that it strongly deplores such practices and will use its influence in Saigon to have these practices stopped?

The Minister for the Army has provided me with the following information in reply:

There are no Australian troops on Con Son Island or involved with the conduct of the Vietnamese prison on that island. One prisonerofwar, captured by Australian forces, is serving a sentence of ten years hard labour in Con Son civil prison. This sentence was imposed upon him by a court-martial for the murder of another prisoner-of-war.

He is visited regularly by an officer of the Australian Force, Vietnam in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. . This officer, on his most recent visit, found the prisoner to be in good health.

page 1518

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, DUNTROON

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 16th September 1969, Senator Ormonde asked me a question without notice in the following terms:

Is it true that a staff cadet at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, slashed his wrists in a suicide attempt on 1st September because of what is known as the bastardisation system in operation there? Is the cadet still in hospital in a severely depressed condition?

The Minister for the Army has provided me with the following information in reply:

The cadet did cut his wrists on 1st September. However, in the light of the medical and psychiatric evidence received in the course of the investigation into this case, the Commandant of the Royal Military College was satisfied that there was no attempt at suicide. The cadet himself attributed his action to his unhappiness with his academic progress and denied it had anything to do with the suggestion that senior classes were ill treating the junior class.

The cadet concerned is still in hospital under observation. His condition is quite satisfactory. He is not in a depressed condition.

page 1518

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, DUNTROON

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 16th September Senator O’Byrne asked the following question without notice:

Were forty of the academic staff of the Royal Military College who attended a meeting over the system known as ‘bastardisation’ horrified at the brutal treatment of cadets? Did Sir Leslie Martin, Professor of Physics and Dean of the Faculty of Military Studies, say that because of what he had heard he was not sure whether to continue to allow his name to be associated with the college? Did the meeting record its disgust at the reports of humiliation and ill-treatment of new cadets? Will the Minister initiate a public inquiry to be attended by units of the Press so that the public will be given all the facts associated with this rather alarming situation in the Royal Military College at Duntroon?

The Minister for the Army has now supplied me with the following answer:

It is a fact that a meeting of the Staff Association was held on 10th September under the Chairmanship of Professor S. Hodges. Sir Leslie Mania who attended the meeting, is unable to remember his precise words but he does say that he was upset at the allegations, concerning ‘Fourth Class Training’, which he heard at the meeting.

The Staff meeting did record its disgust at reports of humiliation and ill-treatment of new cadets.

A complete statement on the situation at Duntroon was given in the House by the Minister on 25th September.

page 1519

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, DUNTROON

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 16th September Senator Poyser asked me the following question without notice:

I also refer to the disgraceful allegations now being investigated by a board of inquiry at the Royal Military College. Is this the first inquiry into brutal and sadistic treatment of cadets at the College? Or have there been previous incidents and allegations hushed up by the Army and the Government? Further have any boards of inquiry been set up to inquire into similar allegations in relation to any other Army establishment?

The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer:

There have been earlier enquiries on incidents concerning alleged ill treatment of cadets at the Royal Military College. As the College was founded in 1911 complete records are now probably not available and in any case the research involved would be considerable. However formal enquiries are known to have been conducted in 1956, 1952, 1935 and 1934. In regard to the remainder of the question, the research involved would extend back almost to Federation, if the relevant records could be located. However there have been some fairly recent instances such as the enquiry at the Apprentices School in 1967; the enquiry by a Committee appointed by the Minister for Defence into all practices and procedures at detention barracks arising from allegations concerning treatment of soldiers undergoing detention at the Military Corrective Establishment at Holsworthy, the enquiry into 2nd Recruit Training Battalion at Puckapunyal in 1969.

page 1519

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, DUNTROON

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 17th September Senator Cavanagh asked me the following question without notice:

Will the Minister for the Army issue orders that all practices at Duntroon which have been complained of and which are now subject to inquiry will cease until the report of such inquiry is available.

The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer:

Positive steps have been taken to ensure that the practices complained of must cease. The matter is fully dealt with in the Minister’s statement in the House on Thursday 25 September.

page 1519

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral ask him to give consideration to including the Thursday Island, Bamaga, Weipa area in the next list of television stations to be established.

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply.

In the statement which I made on 15th May, 1969, when I announced the Government’s decision to extend television by means of low powered television stations to a further thirty-eight areas of the Commonwealth, I emphasised that it should not be concluded that other remote centres would not in due course be provided with service and that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board would continue its examination of ways and means by which service might be provided to the people resident in other remote areas. In this connection I have asked the Board to keep in mind the Thursday Island, Bamaga, and Weipa areas which the Honourable Senator has mentioned. At the same time, as I said in my statement, I should point out that there are difficult problems involved in the further extension of the services, which are not easy of solution; these problems are both of a technical and economic nature arising from the remote location of the areas remaining without service and their relatively sparse population in relation to the costs involved in the provision of service. In this connection it is pointed out that the approved extension to a further thirty-eight areas involves an expenditure of $5,000,000 to achieve a population coverage of the order of 110,000.

page 1519

QUESTION

TELEVISION

When the investigation into the establishment of low power television stations in Western Queensland is conducted will the Minister ensure in the case of towns such as Longreach, which is surrounded by smaller towns, the station be of sufficient range to cover these outlying areas or alternatively the local authority be given every assistance if it desires to relay programmes to these communities.

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply.

The honourable senator’s question refers to the extension of television to a further thirtyeight areas of the Commonwealth in the seventh stage of television development as announced in my statement of 15th May, 1969. The extent of the coverage which will be achieved by these stations can only be determined after the necessary site surveys have been completed and I am not in a position at this stage to comment on the coverage which will be achieved by any particular station, however, as the stations will be low powered installations, it is not to be expected that their coverage will be very great. It is not expected, therefore, that the coverage area of the proposed station at Longreach would include any centres at a substantial distance from Longreach.

However, I emphasised when making my statement of 15th May, 1969, that it should not be concluded that remote centres other than those in the seventh stage would not in due course be provided with service and that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board would continue its examination of ways and means by which service might be provided to the people resident in other remote areas. At the same time, as I said in my statement, I should point out that there are difficult problems involved in the further extension of the services, which are not easy of solution; these problems are both of a technical and economic nature arising from the remote location of the areas remaining without service and their relatively sparse population in relation to the costs involved in the provision of service. In this connection it is pointed out that the approved extension to a further thirty-eight areas involves an expenditure of $5,000,000 to achieve a population coverage of the order of 1>10,000. Any proposals from local government and authorities for provision of television service will, of course, be fully considered.

page 1520

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Yesterday, in answer to Senator Cohen’s question concerning a letter in ‘The Australian’ by Dr Talbot, I undertook to have the matter examined. I am now able to inform the honourable senator that the statements contained in the letter are partly true; Dr Talbot failed to mention that on 14th August he was supplied with a copy of the letter sent to him on 13th May. This was only two days after the Department had been advised that Dr Talbot had not received the original letter. In approving applications for the release of prohibited publications to individuals for research purposes it is normal practice to add a special condition specifying a limited period. On 9th May, I approved Dr Talbot’s applications subject to the normal conditions, governing custody and use, and the special condition that the publications were to be returned to the Collector of Customs for New South Wales at the expiration of six months or such further period as the Minister may allow. Dr Talbot took possession of the publications on 14th August. By letter of the same date Dr Talbot was advised by the Department in Canberra that if he required the publications for a further period he should write requesting an extension.

page 1520

HOURS OF MEETING

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

– by leave - I wish to inform the Senate that following discussions which took place fairly early this morning between Senator Murphy and myself - I have signalled the information to

Senator Byrne, the Whip of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, for the information of Senator Gair and his colleagues in advance-

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

– Do not mind me.

Senator ANDERSON:

– You would not have been here when we were discussing this. It is suggested that we should attempt to proceed today on the following basis: After we have dealt with the formal business on the notice paper - and that includes a matter in respect of which Senator Bishop will seek leave - we should continue our consideration of the Estimates, beginning with the estimates of the Department of the Interior. The Opposition has indicated that it wishes to raise a particular matter in relation to those estimates and that that will be dealt with by not later than 11.30 this morning.

Senator Murphy:

– Not later than half an hour afterwards.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes. We will make what progress we can on the Estimates and then I will bring on the matter of the papers relating to the purchase of the Fill aircraft, which is listed on the notice paper. We anticipate that about half an hour will be occupied in discussion of that issue. We plan then to resume the debate on the Estimates. Perhaps I should indicate now that in a few minutes I will move to vary the sitting times for today. We hope to conclude our discussion of appropriation and supply matters by 2.30 p.m., leaving us the time from 2.30 to 4 p.m. to deal with the National Health Bill. I will be bringing on a formal matter in relation to Standing Orders which I suggest will be no more than a formality. We will then have a little time until 4.30 p.m. to deal with those matters appropriately dealt with before a parliamentary recess. The programme I have outlined will require a high degree of mutual co-operation. I know that on all sides there will be a ready response to keep to the planned schedule.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– by leave - We agree with what the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) has said. We will endeavour to get through the business according to the programme he has laid out. It will require a good deal of co-operation and also a good deal of restraint. It is obvious that ,if every honourable senator exercised his rights to the full in speaking on every matter we could not get through the business. It will mean the imposition of selfdiscipline so that every honourable senator receives as much chance as possible to deal with the business.

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

– by leave - I simply want to indicate that as usual, the Australian Democratic Labor Party will be co-operative in ensuring the expeditious dispatch of business.

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That the times of sitting of the Senate today be as follows - 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. 1.45 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

page 1521

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1969-70

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 25 September (vide page 1498).

Department of the Interior

Proposed expenditure, $87,713,000.

Proposed provision, $72,138,700.

Civil Defence

Proposed expenditure, $766,600.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak to Division 352 - Real Estate Management. I wish to indicate to the Senate that last Friday, on behalf of the Senate Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir, I tabled in this chamber a report setting out the findings of that Committee as a result of a quite exhaustive inquiry into the affairs of the Canberra Abattoir. It was stated in the report that the works had been sold, to an organisation which did not want to buy them, for the sum of $100,000 when they were valued at $500,000. In other words, it was a sale at an undervalue of $400,000 on the basis of a payment of $10,000 down, no further repayments for the next 5 years except the servicing of interest, and then for a period of 15 years thereafter the servicing of the interest and the repayment of the capital sum. In the opinion of the Committee this represents - in fact it is stated in the report - a serious neglect of the public interest. There was absolutely no reason at all why those works should have been sold in the first place and there was certainly no justification whatsoever for allowing the property of the people to be sold for $100,000 when it was worth $500,000.

The position is that there are two substantial cottages on the site conservatively valued at $20,000, there are 83 acres of land upon which the works are sited which must surely, seeing the area borders on the town of Queanbeyan and is in the area of the Australian Capital Territory, be worth $80,000 at least. Therefore, in view of those two items alone, which make up the sale price of $100,000, the works were absolutely given away. The Government recouped nothing at all for these substantial works and the installations in them. Why was this done? The Senate has a right to know the answer to this question. Was it on the basis of the poor performance of the abattoir? Certainly not. The administration of the works was such that the medical officer said that the hygiene standard had for some time past been at zero, and when further questioned at a subsequent hearing of the Committee he said that the standard was as low as it could be. I refer to those matters because, consequential upon the attitude adopted by sections of departments of government which had the responsibility for running this works, a determination was made as to the value of the building. Apparently if a government or an instrumentality managing a business of this kind wants to sell it, the course to take is to let it run down until it gets to such a state that somebody in the community can find the necessary funds to purchase it at the reduced figure. That seems to be the implication of the Government’s action here.

The report contains a statement to the effect that the wholesale operator, Red Hill Meat Supply Pty Ltd, did not want to buy the abattoir but believed it ought to have been retained by the Government and run as a public instrumentality. This point of view was confirmed by witnesses from the Queanbeyan section of the Graziers Association of New South Wales, by witnesses representing the 64 retail butcher outlets in the area and by other witnesses who appeared before the Committee. The same view was held by at least one of the adjoining shire councils. The general view seems to be that the works should have been run as a public enterprise in the interests of the people of the Australian Capital Territory.

The Committee found no justification for the sale of this asset, even though it attempted to find some justification for the Government’s action. The report indicates that for 6 out of the last 8 years the abattoir made a profit - leaving aside the factor of notional interest. It made a profit when the practices carried on there were the least desirable practices that could be carried on in a works of this kind. Mr Towns, an expert on abattoirs, who runs the Goulburn abattoir for the Goulburn City Council, referred to the inadequacies of the practices there, including the solo system. Bearing in mind that reports had been received from responsible authorities on the way to operate a works of this kind, Mr Towns believed that the way that this abattoir was operated was the least desirable way and the least desirable method of those that could have been employed there. During the early part of its deliberations, the Committee visited the works and found it to be in a dirty, filthy, run down condition. The place looked decrepit. It was run down.

The report contains a statement that it will cost $200 to replace broken windows. Probably some of the windows were broken in order to let the light in because the rest were so filthy that daylight could not filter into the works. The practice there has been alluded to in the evidence. If any honourable senator wants to query what I say, he can read the evidence himself. The practices there were highly undesirable and most unhygienic. How this situation could have been tolerated by the Department of Health in the Australian national capital, one would not know.

Subsequent to the initiation of this inquiry, I inquired of witnesses whether the Department of Health would permit works in this condition to be operated by any other operator under the system employed there and under the conditions employed there. I was advised by the Department of Health authorities that they would close such works. I agree with them. I have never seen such dismal working conditions and I have never seen a more decrepit looking situation in all my life. The crude and inefficient administrative and managerial practices carried on there were no credit to anybody.

I believe that this Government is deserving of the most severe censure possible. I believe its actions are symptomatic of the arrogance, contempt and cynicism of a government which has been in power too long and which refuses anybody the right to inquire into what it is doing. It does not matter how much the public interest is neglected, the Government is king, master and overrider. It does not matter what anybody else says, what it says will go. The report, which has been tabled in the Senate, is couched in the most restrained terms. The Committee could very well have been much more critical than it was of the practices there, but believed it had a duty to be restrained particularly as the Government did not provide members for that Committee. We were restrained to a very large degree in the kind of language we used to describe the dirty, filthy, rundown conditions at that place at the time. I must say to the credit of the organisation which purchased the abattoir that within one weekend it had spent $700 to clean the place up. The sort of thing that had happened was that the blood line which carried blood from the slaughter floor to the cookers had become blocked. The cookers were falling to pieces anyway and were in such a state that they could no longer be used. Although the blood line had blocked, no-one had sufficient initiative to do anything about it, but within a few days of the new operator taking over he managed to poke a hole in the line or in some other way to clear the blockage in the pipe to restore it to working order again.

When we went to the by-products section of the abattoir, the section where the cooking of the meat meal and blood and bone was carried out and other activities of this kind were going on, we found that of the three cookers two had fallen apart. In the words of the operator, it was not unusual to see bolts coming out from the cookers and going into other valuable plant further along the line and in the process doing further damage. Honourable senators can imagine the dismal looking place that we found and the broken down decrepit atmosphere of the abattoir at the time that our Committee commenced its activity.

The Committee attempted to find out the justification for the sale of Commonwealth property. I suppose it would be reasonable to expect that if the Committee were inquiring into the reasons for the strong desire to sell these works some reasons must have been advanced. The position is that in 1957-58 about $360,000 was spent on improving the chillers at the abattoir in the certain expectation that the capacity of the slaughter floor would be built up at the earliest possible date to match the capacity of the chillers and to provide in the Canberra community a works which would serve the requirements of the community for years in the future.

The report sets out for the Senate the fact that funds were voted for the purpose of improving the capacity of the slaughter floor. Those funds were provided for a number of years, but after about 4 years the Government decided that the funds would be no longer provided. That in itself inhibited any chance that the abattoir had to perform its function, to show its ability to make a profit and to serve the needs of the Canberra community. This was an instance of one leg being taken from under the establishment and of its then being unable to stand on the remaining leg.

The situation now is that the new operator has a bonanza which he had not expected. He did not want to buy the abattoir but was compelled to buy it, as the report states, because it was the only way in which he could preserve his interests. I want the Minister to tell the Committee what justification there was for the sale of this asset worth $500,000, which was the estimate of the Commonwealth valuer. The book value of the works stood at about $445,000, the Commonwealth valuer’s figure was $500,000, and the valuation placed on the works by Consolidated Abattoirs Services, an organisation which it was not denied was capable of making a reasoned and sound judgment and assessment of the value of the works, was $575,000. The new operator over the next 2 years, I believe it is, has to spend $225,000 to bring the works up to an acceptable health standard. I repeat those words because we are dealing with an undertaking which was run by the Commonwealth Department of Health: The new operator has to spend $225,000 to bring the works up to an acceptable health standard. But when he does that, taking into account that he has spent or will be required to spend $100,000 and a further $225,000 for these works, he will have an asset worth not $325,000 but $800,000. Is there any justification whatever for a Government entering into a contract of this kind when the Australian Capital Territory

Advisory Council, a responsible organisation in this community, for many years had made an offer which would have returned $259,000 to the Government over the period of the lease? It would have expended about $300,000 on these works and at the end of the period of lease - in fact, right throughout the life of the works - the works would still have remained the property of the Government and therefore of the people of the area. I believe that this whole matter indicates a very, very serious and culpable neglect on the part of the Government of a valuable asset. The Government was not prepared to come clean with the Committee and reveal all of the facts of the situation and I suggest that it has something to hide. If honourable senators can draw any other conclusion I invite them to say so. I should like to know why any responsible authority, be it a government or otherwise, should sell for $100,000 an asset worth half a million dollars when it did not have to, against the resistance of the person who bought the works. In all of the circumstances I believe that this represents a serious neglect of the public interest and I therefore move:

At the end of motion add: but the Senate is of opinion that the Government has been responsible for maladministration in connection with the operation of the Canberra Abattoir and in selling that public asset at a gross undervalue.’

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– The honourable senator raises a question in relation to the selling of the Canberra Abattoir. He states that we as a government should run it and should have kept it rather than allow private enterprise to run it. This abattoir was established in 1943 and at that time it cost about $80,000. It was built to provide sufficient meat for about 23,000 people. The price of meat from the abattoir to butchers became so high in the early 1950s that the Commonwealth Government decided that in 1958 it would allow free meat to come into the Australian Capital Territory for sale by butchers. When it allowed the meat to come into the ACT this reduced the price of meat to the housewife and this, of course, was the aim of the Government. The prices of meat to the housewife having been reduced the production or output from the abattoir was reduced because very few were buying from it. We then got to a stage where a lot of money had to be found for repairs. We had to decide whether we would go on with this project as a government run enterprise or sell it and allow private enterprise to run it. As we are a private enterprise government we decided we would call tenders for it. We did so and it was sold to Red Hill Meat Supply Pty Ltd for a price of $100,000. I understand that now that the company has spent money on the abattoir it is running successfully. We as a Commonwealth are pleased to be out of it, because we do not want to control the abattoir in the ACT and we do not want to control abattoirs in other parts of the Commonwealth Territories. That is the reason why we decided to relinquish control of the Canberra Abattoir.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The opportunity has been taken, in this debate on the estimates for the Department of the Interior in these last hours of sitting, to make some comments on the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir. This occasion highlights a situation which, in these dying hours of the Twenty-sixth Parliament, must give grave concern to those who constitute the Parliament. I refer to a trend which is becoming increasingly manifest and which has been most evident during the last 3 years; that is, the tendency for the Executive Government to bypass the Parliament of Australia. This is highlighted in the fact that when a Senate Select Committee had been established to look into this vexed question the Executive took action to dispose of the abattoir before the Select Committee could bring in its report. This is a very serious situation.

This was the second manifestation of the same kind during this Parliament. The other was the decision regarding the siting of the new parliament house. A brave effort was made to establish the opinion of the Parliament, whether in conjunction with the other House or in an assembly of all members. When a slight impasse arose, the Executive Government immediately stepped in and made its decision. That decision was contrary to the expressed will of the majority of the members of the Parliament. A further manifestation of this trend - one that is perhaps even more dangerous - has been the bypassing even of the Executive Government in some cases by means of individual statements and personalised government.

Therefore, as the Senate has now embarked upon the constitution of select committees to look into particular aspects of government, as we have achieved a greater sophistication in our form of government which is evidenced in the electorate by the emergence of new parties which represent certain sections of the community and are represented in this place, as we’ require closer examination of legislation and as we can expect that legislation coming into this place in the future may well be referred to select committees of the Senate, are we to face a situation in which the Parliament will constantly be laid aside by the Executive Government?

These are trends in government which must cause grave concern. I do not think we should allow this Twenty-sixth Parliament to be dissolved without registering our concern. In the coming years the Parliament may have to look at the parliamentary procedures governing the passage of legislation through the Parliament and the Administration. This is a matter that may well come before the Parliament in some form or other. This tendency, which is of constant and increasing danger, may well come up for scrutiny in such an examination. Without going into the merits or demerits of the question of the disposal of the Canberra Abattoir by the Government, but looking at the implications of this action from the point of view of parliamentary control, we register our concern. We trust that this concern will continue to be reflected in the incoming Parliament and that steps will be taken at all times to ensure the supremacy of the Parliament of Australia over the Executive Government, which is subject to its jurisdiction and control.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Devitt’s amendment) be added:

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 21

Majority.. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The question now is:

That the proposed expenditure and the proposed provision for the Department of the Interior be noted, but the Senate is of opinion that the Government has been responsible for maladministration in connection with the operation of the Canberra Abattoir and in selling that public asset at a gross undervalue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 1525

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1968-69

Statement of Expenditure

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

– I present the following paper:

Statement for the year 1968-69 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901- 1966 (Advance to the Treasurer).

Ordered:

That consideration of the statement in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 23 September 1969 (vide page 1235), on motion by Senator O’Byrne:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I move the following amendment to the motion that the Senate take note of the statement:

At the end of motion add - but is of opinion that the Government has mishandled the purchase of the Fill aircraft’.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is that all you say - mishandled - after all those questions?

Senator COHEN:

– I am obliged to the honourable senator who has seen fit to interject before I even commence my speech, because my statement that the Government has mishandled the purchase of the Fill aircraft is the understatement of the century. This is the most expensive of the Government’s chickens coming home to roost. Back in 1963 on the eve of a Federal election the Government decided to take a punt and order the Fill which was then only on the drawing board. Six years later on the eve of another general election the same Government is still undecided whether it finally will accept the Fill aircraft, the price of which has escalated from an original $100m to approximately $300m not out. It is the view of the Opposition - indeed I cannot see how the statement can be contraverted - that the situation in which the Government found itself this week is the result of its own bungling. It had finally to come to grips with the matter and try to make a decision to deal with a desperately unhappy situation created, firstly, by its own political opportunism in making the original decision to buy the aircraft in unseemly and indecent haste, and secondly, by its indefensible ineptitude in entering into an openended contract and by its subsequent dealings in relation to the contract and the negotiations with the United States authorities.

The case which can be made against the Government over the whole of this issue is fully documented and has been made on a number of occasions inside this chamber and outside it. Everyone in the country knows that the Government has blundered with the Fill purchase.

Senator Webster:

– Rubbish.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is selfdelusion.

Senator COHEN:

– Everyone is dissatisfied, and according to a recent gallup poll 62% of the people of Australia favoured cancellation of the contract. Irrespective of whether that percentage is statistically accurate, it is obvious that the people are thoroughly fed up and disillusioned with the way in which the Government has handled this contract. It is the high water mark of irresponsibility. It took 2 or 3 days to make the decision. It was a political decision. Since that time, and as time has gone on, costs have escalated. Already we have paid $183m without getting a single aircraft. We are due to pay another Si 5m by the end of this month and another $9m or so by the end of the year, when we will have paid out virtually $200.

Senator Cant:

– You mean $200m.

Senator COHEN:

– That is right. 1 meant to say $200m. In any case, I think everyone knows that when you talk about the Fill aircraft you talk in hundreds of millions of dollars, not hundreds of dollars. Everyone knows that the Government has not had a clue for a long time about what is happening. The Government itself must have had for several years a chill feeling in the pit of its collective stomach that the gamble it took in 1963 might not pay off. This week the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has made another statement in which he again is hedging his bets. He is saying: ‘We have now decided that we will take this aircraft subject to testing and to our being satisfied.’ Another $1.5m for each aircraft has been added to the ceiling price of $5.95m each of the original contract. But what is an extra $1.5m for each one of these two dozen aircraft, when the Government has lost touch with reality? We have to relate the whole of the exercise to the purpose. The original purpose was to buy the Fill because of a potential confrontation with Indonesia. That was the basis upon which the aircraft were ordered. Now the Government is looking around to find and to justify a use. of a proper defence character, for these highly expensive aircraft - these breath-takingly expensive aircraft, as one of the respectable journals of public opinion in Australia has recently described them.

Frankly, it is very difficult to find such a use. A good deal of material suggests that there is a big doubt about the use to which this plane can be put. Assuming that the aircraft is accepted by the Government, this question arises: Has it a range adequate to meet its intended role? Obviously that is a critical point in relation to the aircraft’s performance. My colleague Senator Wriedt has drawn attention to an article in the August 1969 edition of ‘Armed Forces’, a journal specifically published for the top echelon of military personnel in the United States of America. ‘Armed Forces’ has stated that a big query is raised by the experts about this particular aspect of performance. The Fill needs refuelling facilities. No provision has been made by the Royal Australian Airforce for in-flight refuelling facilities.

I believe that the Government is not at all clear on where it will use the Fill or where it thinks it ought to be used in any given situation. At least we ought to be clear about its purpose. We are proceeding with the purchase of these very expensive machines. We are on the eve of an election in which the people of Australia will judge between the contending parties as to the level of responsibility exercised in the conduct of public affairs. The Opposition believes that the Government must be condemned for its mishandling. I put to Senator Greenwood that that is a mild word to employ.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is what surprises me - that you should use such a mild word.

Senator COHEN:

– I think it would be impossible for anyone but a person who has just returned from a trip to the moon and has not been in Australia for the last 5 or 6 years to vote against the amendment I have moved. I will make my speech short. I invite the Senate to join the Opposition in voting for the amendment. Back in 1963 everybody except the Australian Government knew that there were problems about the costing of these aircraft. I remind honourable senators of the several debates we have had on the subject. In November 1963 Mr Gilpatric, then Assistant Secretary of Defence in the United States of America, was questioned by a special United States Senate investigating committee on the order by Australia for the purchase of the aircraft, then known as the TFX. He was asked:

Just what kind of contract do you have with Australia? Are they going to buy the planes willy nilly? If your figures are off $2m and the cost is $7.5m apiece, are they going to buy them for $10m? Have they any top limitation or do they simply say, ‘We will take 2 dozen planes at whatever price they are’?

Mr Gilpatric answered:

That is the way the agreement reads.

As a result of the Opposition’s questioning and the support of the Senate the Government last year was forced to table a set of documents relating to the purchase of the Fill, including a copy of the contract.

Senator Little:

– And because of the activities of the Democratic Labor Party.

Senator COHEN:

– I acknowledge that Senator Little’s Party was active in seeking the same goal. But when the documents were finally produced they were heavily vetted. We got a few documents and they all added up to the fact that this was an open-ended irresponsible piece of bungling by this Government. It stands condemned. I ask the Senate to support the amendment.

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

– The Government does not accept the amendment that Senator Cohen has moved. I suggest that most of what he has said has been dealt with before. The honourable senator talked about irresponsibility and mishandling. I think that the conduct of the Australian Government in relation to the acquisition of the FI 1 1 has proved the Government’s responsibility. It has at all times seen to it that when Australia accepts the Fill it will have a capability to perform the things required of it. In that sense, contrary to what Senator Cohen says, the whole conduct of the Fill acquisition is a story of responsibility. The Government, with the best advice available to Australia, has acted with propriety. Senator Cohen moved into the wider sweep of tactical situations and defence policy. It must become apparent that the Labor Party sees no merit in the acquisition of the Fill aircraft because it is contrary to Labor’s defence policy which is based on a Fortress Australia concept. How a country of Australia’s size and population could ever hope to survive in this modern world with a Fortress Australia policy is difficult to comprehend. Still, that is the basic defence policy of the Labor Party for a continent which, I think, has a coast line of about 12,000 miles, an area of 3 million square miles and a modest population of 12 million people.

Apparently the defence policy of the Labor Party is to sit back within Australia and hope and pray that we never have to do anything beyond the breakers, as it were. The fundamental basis of Australia’s acquisition of the Fill aircraft is the capability to meet forces as far away from Australia as possible with the help of our allies. Senator Cohen talked about the capability of the Fill. I noted with interest an article in the ‘Australian’ on 24th September 1969 to the effect that the United States has decided to increase its FI 1 1 order. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) made the position abundantly clear in the statement that we are debating at the present time. He said:

The United States 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 it 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.

The suggestion that there was a degree of insecurity in relation to the aircraft is not sustained by comparison with the experience of other military aircraft. It is interesting also to note that Senator Cohen talked about the capacity of the aircraft to be refuelled in flight and so on. He suggested in his comment - his very brief comment, I acknowledge - that the aircraft would not have a defence capability because of problems associated with refuelling.

The testimony given by the pilots who have flown the Fill in Vietnam, published in ‘News of the World Report’, pointed out the Fill’s peculiar capacity to approach the target under the radar, in all kinds of weather, to drop its bombs with complete accuracy and to disappear from the scene before the enemy is even aware that it has been there. Because of its range it does noi need tankers; because of its extraordinary weapons system capability it does not need electronic counter measures; because of its speed it does not need fighter cover. On the testimony of the pilots who have flown these aircraft in battle, two pilots and one Fill can do a job in bad weather, with complete accuracy and with safety, which could only be done half as well by 5 or 6 other aircraft. As Mr Fairhall, the Minister for Defence, said, this in itself must indicate a tremendous cost benefit advantage to the Fill.

The Government does not acknowledge or accept the criticism inherent in the amendment. The whole history of the acquisition of the Fill aircraft is based on an Australian requirement to meet our recognised defence responsibilities. Throughout the history of this acquisition the Government has taken the view that it should accept the advice of its best technical experts. That advice has been that the Government should take the aircraft when it is satisfied that all requirements have been met. There is not any doubt that, in the near future, when the Fill comes to Australia it will be a fundamental support in relation to the defence of Australia. In my view, denigration of it is a failure to recognise its importance and a failure to recognise the importance of the defence of Australia away from Australia.

It is true that the Government found it necessary to send to the United States of America some of our best technical experts. Some were employees of my own Department and indeed the head of the Department of Defence was included in the team which studied the possible problems that emerged in the initial stages in relation to the wing carry through box. As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement, there is a viable solution provided for that which will enable us very shortly to acquire these aircraft.

Finally I say that, contrary to the argument about lack of responsibility, this Government has shown significant responsibility in making certain that we get the aircraft and that when we have it it will be the best and most sophisticated aircraft in the world and it will have outstanding and significant attributes for the ultimate defence of Australia.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Turnbull.

Senator Anderson:

– I have closed the debate.

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

– Then I will speak to the amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The Minister spoke to the amendment; he could not close the debate.

Senator Anderson:

– I did not intend to speak to the amendment. I spoke to close the debate, but I am perfectly happy to let Senator Turnbull speak in the debate.

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

– I support the amendment, for the simple reason that there is no greater truth than what is contained in the amendment. Nothing that the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) or the Government can say can rationalise this mishandling of the purchase of this aircraft. The Australian people are sick to death of the statements that appear-

Senator Sim:

– Is the honourable senator speaking for them?

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

– I think I am speaking for them. It is rather strange that when the result of a poll favours the Government, the Government mentions it. When the result of a poll is against the Government, it is a ridiculous poll.

Senator Sim:

– I never mentioned a poll.

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

– The honourable senator did not, but Government members do. The recent poll shows that two-thirds of the Australian people believe that the Government has mishandled the purchase.

Senator Sim:

– You believe-

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

– If the honourable senator wants to be pedantic, I will change that statement to ‘I believe’. I think I have quite a lot of support on this. Originally when we became interested in this aircraft there was supposed to be a possibility of its use, and the purchase of it was an urgent necessity. We rushed in and signed the contract to buy the aircraft without looking at the contractual arrangements. It was done on a government to government basis which excluded any contractual arrangement that could have been agreed to if it had been between the Department and the General Dynamics company.

The second thing that I want to say about this aircraft is that it is the most sophisticated aircraft in the world for carrying nuclear bombs, but the one that we are getting cannot carry nuclear bombs. This means that instead of getting a supersonic aircraft we will get a subsonic aircraft. No-one on the Government side of the chamber mentions this. The aircraft originally ordered was supersonic, but now we are to get a subsonic aircraft. Why do we not have a statement from the Minister concerning this matter? Surely that is one of the most important things in the purchase of this aircraft We order a supersonic aircraft for the delivery of nuclear weapons and we are to get a subsonic one which cannot deliver nuclear weapons. Because it will be carrying conventional bombs it will have a lower speed and the best distance that it will be able to achieve will probably be as far as Singapore. So we -are to have an aircraft with a very limited range. Where can we use it? Everyone believes that it is supposed to be for the Australian requirement, but that is not so. The members of the mission that went to America agreed to the purchase of this aircraft after Mr Townley, the Minister for Defence at that time, went over to America in a hurry because the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, wanted it in a hurry.

Senator Sim:

– That is a damaging remark to make.

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

– I know it is, but many members of the Royal Australian Air Force did not agree that this was the best aircraft. We all want to have a Rolls Royce if we can have one, but many of us have to drive Holdens. That is what happened in this case. Any man who flew the aircraft could see that it was the type of plane that he would love to have, just as I would love to drive a Rolls Royce. But can we afford it? No-one is saying that we should have no aircraft, because we all believe in the defence of Australia.

Senator Bull:

– That is what we would have if we cancelled the order.

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

– Not at all. There are Phantoms available and there is another one, the name of which I cannot think of at the moment. We could have bought those aircraft.

Senator Bull:

– We could not do it now.

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

– We could. We could buy Phantoms today if we wanted them. About 2 years ago we were offered Phantoms, and even the British offered us aircraft, but the Government would not accept them because it was so tied up with American policy. I do not want to go back as far as the TSR2 which this Government killed.

Senator Sim:

– That is not true.

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

– The honourable senator says it is not true, but the prototype of the TSR2 had already flown.

Senator Sim:

– We did not kill it.

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

– The honourable senator may say that the Government did not kill it, but I inform him that in my belief the Government did kill that project This was an aircraft that the British were planning and the prototype of which had already flown. Who is to say that it would not have been the most sophisticated plane that there was? Are they not using parts of that plane in the present American FI IIA? Because the project was killed, no one can tell how good the TSR2 would have been. One of the factors in the death of the TSR2 was that we refused to purchase them and purchased the American plane instead. Forgetting whether it was a suitable plane, forgetting that we could have bought Phantoms, and forgetting that the British offered us manned squadrons of bombers and that the Government would not accept them, the situation now is that we have the problem of still waiting for a plane that we think will fly and that we think will have no problems when it arrives here. The Government’s attitude is: If any problems do occur, do not worry because the American people will supply further wings for the aircraft. But what happens to the plane when it crashes? Will the Americans supply a new plane if one crashes because of this wing carry-through box?

What are we going to do with twentyfour planes? I ask the Government to tell us what we can do. What are Australia’s requirements today for twentyfour planes which have a life of 15 years? Can any honourable member opposite envisage any war in the next 15 years or anyone coming to attack us? And if it did happen, what would we do? These aircraft are to be our defence. It is necessary to have sophisticated ground equipment as well as sophisticated aircraft and we do not have that. The Government is ashamed to tell us of the millions of dollars that it has tied up in the Air Force station at Amberley or of the millions of dollars that have been spent to keep that aerodrome open. The Government hides all of this. If it were honest it would get the Americans to buy back the spare parts because it will have plenty of spares as each plane crashes in this country.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– -I wish to indicate that the Democratic Labor Party feels that the amendment to this motion is a reasonable one. It states that the matter was mishandled. We make no criticism of the aircraft. We believe that the investigations that have taken place in the last 12 months were justified because of some doubts that had arisen. The Government and its technical experts seem to be satisfied now that a situation has been reached where the aircraft will be a valuable part of the defence of this country. We have always been sympathetic to the attitude of the Government and to the risks that have to be run if we are to have an up to date defence structure. We have to buy a sophisticated item of defence equipment such as the F111 virtually from the drawing board rather than wait until it is a reality because if we waited we would always be behind the times.

Our criticism of the mishandling goes to the letting of the original contract which was made on an election eve. There has been plenty of evidence to show that Britain, which also committed itself to the purchase of the aircraft had a distinctly different and much more advantageous contract than we were able to get. We feel that that is where the original mishandling took place which involved us in the situation that we have faced recently. We hope that this aircraft will fulfil every expectation that arose from the original contract, although there is reason to doubt whether it can quite reach those specifications. It is in the interests of Australia’s defence that the contract be proceeded with now if the aircraft can approach the performance set out in the original specifications, because Australia at the moment is so desperately in need of a reasonable forward defence programme, in which the F111 can play at least a reasonable part.

For that reason we think that the Government’s statement should be accepted but we do not see any reason to kill completely the justifiable criticism that has been expressed here previously. Indeed, the Government was forced by a vote of the Senate to put a paper before the Senate to give us the details of the letting of the original contract. In that paper we believe plenty of reasons can be found to justify criticism of the concept of the original contract and the rapidity with which it was entered into on the eve of an election. We believe there is justification for criticism of the contract, not necessarily of the aircraft. The contract was received on about a Friday and with a weekend intervening, it seems that it was signed on the following Tuesday. We think that a deal of this magnitude is just a little bigger than that indicates and requires far more mature consideration than could be given in such a short period. It is on that basis that the criticism of the Democratic Labor Party is levelled, not at this Government but at the Government that proceeded it which accepted the contract some 6 years ago. We hope that the F111 fulfils the expectations of the Government, because we feel that Australia today needs it.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 22

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 1531

QUESTION

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1969-70

In Committee

Remainder of Divisions - by leave - taken together.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) will remember that yesterday I asked him a question concerning the agreement on the FI 1 1 aircraft. He suggested that I raise the matter in the Estimates debate. As I understand the position, the agreement that has been made is subject to a number of conditions. I want them to be cleared up. As one reads the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and the speech made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall), one comes to certain conclusions. I would like to know whether I am correct in concluding that the aircraft will be accepted only if the present modified wing carry through box is proved or is successful under test. I take it that that is one of the conditions.

But satisfying that condition does not really determine that the aircraft will be accepted. The Prime Minister has stated that arrangements have to be worked out in relation to a new modified wing carry through box, which is not yet designed and which will probably be available in 1972. There is a further arrangement that if any of the existing wing carry through boxes fail during the flight of the aircraft the United States Government will replace those boxes.

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

– If the aircraft do not crash.

Senator BISHOP:

– That is the point. What I am trying to find out is whether there are those three conditions. Are they practical conditions which mean that the aircraft is in a condition in which it might be acceptable for use in Australia? In relation to the point that has just been raised by Senator Turnbull, has it been considered that, if the carry through box that is now under test fails in an aircraft, the failure may take place while the aircraft is in flight? As I see the matter, there are three basic questions. I believe that they should be cleared up and that it should be made clear to the Australian people whether in fact there is a practical acceptance of the aircraft at the present time.

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

– We agreed that we would take the remaining estimates as a whole, but my understanding was that we would follow the general pattern and dispose them roughly in the order in which they have been listed. I have just moved from one situation and find myself confronted with another.

Senator Bishop:

– The Minister could defer giving the answer.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I will defer giving a reply until a later hour of the day. As I see Senator Bishop’s questions at the moment, the answers are to be found in the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) on 23rd September. But I will have another look at them and speak again later.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I understand that we are dealing with the remaining estimates in globo. I wish to ask a number of brief questions in connection with the administration of the Department of Civil Aviation. I have alerted the appropriate Minister. With reference to the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) stated that tenders had been called for a number of retail shops. I wanted to know about the position of somebody who wanted to establish a florist shop. I was told that it was not contemplated. I want to know whether anyone who has a concession at the airport at the moment is entitled to change to a florist shop without ministerial approval. Does the Minister’s letter of 28th August mean that if either an existing tenant or somebody else wants to establish a florist shop the matter will be reopened?

The other matter to which I wish to refer is one on which I have alerted Senator Wright, as Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. On Sunday, 10th August, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) issued a Press statement in which he said that 44% of the young men called up for national service were rejected because of physical defects. He did not say what those physical defects were. I believe that as the percentage is so high we should be told what they are. I am thinking not so much of the Army call-up as of the future of a man of 20 years of age who has something wrong with him and has 40 years or so ahead of him. Surely we can be given some idea of whether the Government intends to leave these young men as they are or to rehabilitate them if they have foot ailments, deafness or defects of that nature.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I have to advise Senator Mulvihill that tenders have been called for a number of retail shops in the new terminal building at the Sydney Airport, but those shops do not include a florist shop as there is insufficient space available at the moment. Those who secure retail shops will have to operate a business as called for in the tenders. As I mentioned, space is not available at the present time for the operation of a florist shop. However, should space become available at a later date the provision of a florist shop will be taken into consideration.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I direct attention to the appropriation for salaries and allowances in the Patent, Trade Marks, Designs and Copyright Offices under Division 138 of the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department. I refresh the memory of Senator Wright, who is the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by saying that this matter was discussed on 29th May. Senator Greenwood and Senator Cohen spoke about the salaries of the people working in the Patent Office. The Minister then said:

The only other comment I wish to make relates to staffing. Having listened to what Senator Greenwood has had to say with regard to salary scales, and looking at some of the salary scales for professional people in comparative positions not only outside the Public Service but in some other strata of the Public Service-

That is the point I want to make -

I confess that I feel some dismay at seeing some of the salary scales which are offered.

It is not difficult to see the reason why there is a backlog of about 44,000 applications in the Patent Office and it is 4i years behind. The fact is that the salaries that these people are receiving are completely out of relationship to what they could receive outside the Public Service or in any other government organisation such as the Weapons Research Establishment or the Postmaster-General’s Department.

I point out to the Minister and the Committee that the salary of an A grade examiner in the Patent Office, who is comparable with a senior technical officer grade 3, is $800 a year behind the salary of that officer. In other words, if an A grade examiner went to the Weapons Research Establishment or the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and did the same job and used the same qualifications he would receive $800 a year more. Going down the scale, the salary of a B grade examiner in the Patent Office, who is comparable with a senior technical officer grade 1, is $740 a year behind the salary of that officer.

The situation has become worse since 1961. After the engineers No. 1 case a base grade engineer received $4,400 a year at the top of his salary range. He could be compared with a clerk of a particular grade receiving $4,660 a year at the top of his salary range. At the present time the base grade engineer, who is now called an engineer class 1, receives $5,118 a year at the top of his range. He has received an increase of 16.3% in that period, but the clerk with whom I am making the comparison, without promotion to a higher grade, now has a maximum salary of $6,997 a year. He has received an increase totalling about 50%, compared with the increase of 16.3% received by the engineer class 1. In 1961 the base grade engineer had a status equivalent to that of a clerk class 7 - that is the current classification. However, an engineer class 1 now receives a salary below the bottom of the salary range of a clerk class 4. He now has a status between that of a clerk class 3 and that of a clerk class 4.

In 1962, after the engineers No. 2 case an engineer class 3 received a salary of $6,382 a year at the top of his salary range. The equivalent grade clerk at the top of the range received $6,542 per annum. Today the same engineer at the top of his range receives $7,177 per annum having had a salary increase totalling 12.4% as against the clerk, without promotion, who has received an increase totalling 44.7%.

I do not think it is hard to find the reason why the Patents Office is behind with its work. It is because of this gross difference between the salaries that these people working in the Patents Office receive and those paid to people working in other areas where the same qualifications are required, as is the case in the examples that I have mentioned of the senior technical officer, grade A, who is down $800 a year and the senior technical officer, grade B, who is down $740 a year. I wonder whether the Minister can explain to me the reasons why there is this big discrepancy and why a person holding these qualifications in the Patents Office can move into other departments and immediately receive an increase of $800 per annum and $740 per annum in the respective cases that I have mentioned?

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– In dealing with the question of salaries, I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who represents here the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I refer to the estimates for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. My query relates to the long standing dissatisfaction which the CSIRO Officers Association feels with the progress of present salary negotiations and, indeed, with the broader aspects of the arbitration system as it functions at present.

As I understand the position, there have been up to 4 years of abortive salary negotiations and what the officers consider to be excessive delays in arbitration. The stumbling block apparently is the rigid attitude of the Public Service Board in relation to the fixation particularly of professional salaries in these areas. I am told that in an unprecedented protest last April 80% of the CSIRO professional staff signed a petition to the Minister for Education and Science drawing attention to their extreme dissatisfaction with the present position. I think it is very bad when a situation like this can lead to a deterioration in relationships. I would like the Minister, if he would, to give me some indication of what the present position is.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I wish to deal with the Department of Primary Industry. In the ‘Australian’ of 19th September, a statement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) appears in which the Minister sets out to try to recover a position that the Government had allowed to deteriorate in the wheat farming areas following a lot of discontent expressed by those engaged in the wheat industry. A few days ago, I asked the Minister who presently represents the Minister for Primary Industry in this place, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott), whether the Australian Wheat Board operated a capital account that would allow it to carry out works. I have not received an answer to that question, but I do know that the Australian Wheat Board does not operate a capital account.

Therefore, it is necessary to try to find out just where the Wheat Board will obtain the $10m of urgent money to construct additional storages at the present time for 60 million bushels. The ultimate objective is to provide additional storages for 170 million bushels. This work will cost $28.3m. At this time, the additional storages will amount to $10m. One of the greatest confidence tricks that has ever been put over people is being put over about the use of this money. I want the Minister to explain it to me. The only way that the Australian Wheat Board can get money is out of an overdraft that has been made to it by the Reserve Bank for the first advance payment on wheat. The farmer is paid $1.10 per bushel as the first advance guaranteed payment less freight and service charges. So, that amount of money is not drawn until such time as the wheat is shifted and services money drawn. The freight money would not be drawn until such time as the Commonwealth or State railways moved the wheat into places for shipment.

It seems to me that what will happen is that the Australian Wheat Board will use this retained freight money for the purpose of constructing additional storage. I notice that, in this statement, the Minister refers to available storages in Australia at the present time for 610 million bushels. This is quite a meaningless statement for the Minister to make because where is the 600 million bushels? Will the storage space serve the purpose for which it is required? It is known that in Western Australia there will probably be a shortfall in the amount allowed to that State under the quota system this year. Storage will be available in that State but a shortage of storage space will occur in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. If there is storage space for an extra 140 million bushels in Western

Australia it will be useless to those three States or to talk in globo about the amount of storage space available without having regard to where the wheat will be produced. This just does not mean anything to people who like to make an examination of the matters.

The vital question on which I wish the Minister to give me some information is this: Where is the $10m to come from? If the Australian Wheat Board uses the retained freight funds out of the first advance of SI. 10 per bushel because last year’s crop is still in the country silos, what happens in regard to freight payments when the time comes for the delivery of the wheat? Will wheat farmers be expected to pay an additional freight rate? Will the Government appropriate moneys to reimburse the Australian Wheat Board? Will a further advance be made by the Reserve Bank to cover the amount that has been used in advance?

Further, there is storage space for approximately 200 million bushels in Western Australia. At the present time in that storage space is a carryover of approximately 60 million bushels. It is expected this year that the wheat crop will amount to approximately 80 million bushels with about 20 million bushels of coarse grains. This will leave Western Australia at the end of this year with storage space for approximately 400 million bushels. Surplus storage space is available in Western Australia. None of the additional storage to be provided by the $10m will be constructed in Western Australia. I want a comment from the Minister on this point: If Western Australia, which we all hope will have a normal year next year, produces the amount of wheat allowed to it under the quota system, will further moneys be taken out of the retained freight money, if there is any left, or will further advances be made to accommodate the normal Western Australian wheat crop which under the quota system is set at 85 million bushels, 5.2 million bushels more than it should have received under the 5-year averaging system?

It is now expected that the quota will fall by another 40% next year so that not only the farmers but also the State will be deprived of the income from the 5.2 million bushels that the farmers were cheated out of last year and which now will be com pounded to about 8 million bushels. I think that the Government has to look at this position very closely.

It is obvious that this year the greatest bulk of Western Australia’s production of wheat will be left in the silos. Whatever wheat is sold will be directed mainly from the silos in eastern Australia, firstly, because of the over-production in that area, and secondly, because Western Australian wheat stores very much better than does eastern Australian wheat due to the nature of the climate. Western Australian wheat is produced in a much drier condition and it stores and handles a lot better than does wheat grown in the more moist areas of eastern Australia. So it can be confidently expected that little wheat will be shipped from Western Australia this year. This is another reason why there will be heavy pressures on storage in Western Australia if there is a normal crop next year.

Taking the position overall, the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry must be criticised because he has tried to tell the people that there is available storage space for 610 million bushels without giving, siding by siding or even State by State, any breakdown of the storage space which will be required. What does the Government propose to do about Western Australia in this context next year? Where will the Australian Wheat Board obtain the money necessary this year and next year?

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I should like to direct two questions to Senator Wright who represents the Attorney-General. Firstly, when may we expect a new consolidation of Commonwealth statutes? From memory the statutes were last consolidated in 1950, and I think before that in about 1938. It has been almost 20 years since the last consolidation, and that makes reference to the annual volumes very difficult. I know that this is associated with another problem which is the second matter that I wish to place before the Minister, namely, the plight of the Parliamentary Draftsman. It is not easy to attract recruits to the staff of the Parliamentary Draftsman whose work, which is always highly responsible, is becoming increasingly burdensome and increasingly complex. If the work of consolidation of the statutes were presented to the existing staff it would place an impossible burden on them. I am not aware whether the work of consolidation is passed out to private contractors or whether it is done by the Parliamentary Draftsman’s own staff.

In the past few days we have had a situation here in which, as is usual at the end of the sessional period, there has been a tremendous congestion of legislation. That may be due to many causes - I appreciate that some of them are unavoidable - but it must impose an extremely heavy burden on the staff. Therefore the staff must be adequate to handle such congestion. Legislation which is very hastily drafted and belatedly comes before the Parliament and denies the opportunity for scrutiny in that detail which I think this chamber should devote to such scrutiny is the conjunction of two very dangerous situations. 1 always have the greatest admiration for the staff of the Parliamentary Draftsman. It must show initiative, a high degree of skill and a great command of the many aspects of law - common law, statute law, equity and other fields of commercial law. I do not know the system of recruitment but I often wonder whether a better system could not be discovered to attract recruits to this branch of legal administration. Perhaps the Department could embark upon the institution of fellowships by which young men could go to university under a contract to spend so many years on the staff of the Parliamentary Draftsman on graduation. In that way we could build up our own highly skilled and adequate staff of draftsmen. If something is not done, the Parliament and the community will suffer by the absence of well-drafted statutes. That does not occur at present due substantially to the dedication and devotion of the staff we have, but I often wonder whether the burden is just too much for them to bear and whether they can bear it for an unduly lengthy period.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

- Senator Mulvihill directed his remarks to the estimates for the Department of Labour and National Service and asked for a breakdown of the 44% of young men who fail the medical examination for national service. We have at hand details in relation to only two categories. The first indicates that 38,403 examinees were determined as medically unfit but at this stage we have no information as to the various specific reasons. I will see whether the Department has analysed the number and has the information available at head office. If it has, I will advise the honourable senator. Those rejected as not meeting psychological and educational standards - this is the second category to which I referred - numbered 5,497.

Senator Branson referred to the comparative salaries of patent examiners. The Patent Office comes within the responsibility of the Attorney-General, whom I represent in this place, but the fixation of salaries and the general inter-relation of salaries as between departments is the responsibility of the Public Service Board. Insofar as the material relates solely to comparisons between the salaries of engineers and the salaries of clerks, it is a matter specifically for the Public Service Board. The Board, however, has equated the salary of examiners of patents, class 1, and the salary of engineers, class 1, and the maximum salary of both is $4,890. Class 1 is the base grade of the professional structure.

The existing salaries of examiners of patents were reviewed by the Public Service Arbitrator who confirmed the equity of engineers’ salaries fixed by the Board. The Department has recommended to the Public Service Board that the salaries of professional examiners of patents be raised because of difficulties of recruitment and retention. The Board has not made a decision on the departmental recommendation, no doubt because a claim for higher salaries for professional engineers is presently being heard by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It will be remembered that I gave the Senate information on the progress of that case within the past few weeks. That case will be the determinant for comparable salary scales in comparable fields.

Insofar as technical examiners of patents are concerned, that is, those in grades A and B, the Department has recommended reclassification based on a comparison of the salaries of other positions in the technical grades which recently received increases. The Public Service Board has not made a decision on the departmental recommendation, no doubt because there is a nexus between the salaries of examiners in the technical grades and the salaries of professional examiners. Senator Cohen also referred to scientists employed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I remind Senator Cohen that I gave particular details of that position in answer to a question asked within the last few days. In that answer I told him that the question of CSIRO scientists is wrapped up in or interrelated with the engineers’ case. The case to which he refers is at present before the Public Service Arbitrator. It has been under consideration for some time and is part heard. A decision is expected by December next

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– There are several matters I would like to raise with the Minister but because we are pressed for time I will refer to only one of them. I asked the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) who represents the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz), this question:

Will the Minister initiate a departmental inquiry into the operation of the airlines agreement and its effect on the ability of Trans-Australia Airlines to meet its schedules-

Senator Scott:

– To which item in the estimates is the honourable senator referring?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My remarks are related to the appropriation for the administration of the Department of Civil Aviation. It is a general query. My question went on: and provide the standard of service for which it has built up such a fine reputation but which at the present time is under widespread criticism from the travelling public?

The Minister supplied the following answer:

The Government has reviewed continuously all aspects of its domestic airline policy and a separate inquiry into the operation of the airlines agreement would serve no useful purpose. As a result of the Government’s policy the two major domestic airlines one of which is Trans-Australia Airlines have continued to provide airline services of world class standards. On a number of occasions other countries have expressed keen interest in the Australian air transport system because of its leading position in the world aviation scene.

Whoever supplied the Minister with that guff wants to get airborne instead of chairborne. If he engaged in as much flying as I do he would know of the delays that arise at airports during which the announcements are continuously made by the airlines: ‘We regret to advise passengers of a delay of quarter of an hour, half an hour, an hour, an hour and a half’.

Senator Poke:

– Or 4 hours.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Often of 4 hours. The Minister has been misinformed by whoever gave him that reply. Today it has been announced that TAA warns that rising costs may force up fares. But the Commonwealth Government received last year from aviation fuel tax $1.4m; air navigation charges $3.1m; payroll tax $629,000; and sales tax $330,000. Last year TAA paid altogether $9. 3m into Consolidated Revenue from a capital investment of $15m. This places a great imposition on the travelling public who are asked on the one hand to pay more, while on the other hand a poorer service is provided.

Trans-Australia Airlines states in its report that it has 53 aircraft, and a Boeing 727 and 6 DC9 aircraft are on order. It has seventeen aircraft retired from service awaiting disposal. This fellow who provided the Minister with the guff I have quoted, instead of giving wrong information should get out and sell those seventeen retired aircraft and pay the proceeds into Consolidated Revenue. Then TAA might be able to replace the Friendships. In my view the Friendships provide second class accommodation for passengers. Too many people are crowded into them in order to make the flights economical. There is not enough room for the comfort of passengers. People like myself who do a lot of flying do not want to be cramped up in accommodation below tourist standard as is provided on the Friendships. The sooner they are phased out and converted to freighters the better it will be for TAA, at least.

Last year TAA earned a great profit despite a crippling strike by transport workers. But TAA had to bear the brunt of the industrial dispute. Its opponents carried on business as usual during the strike. Why was TAA placed in that position? I admit that it was a good thing that one airline was able to operate during the strike, but it shows an unfair bias against TAA. Generally speaking the travelling public is becoming very disappointed with the operation of the airlines agreement. I have referred before to TAA’s great safety record, which is shared by all our airlines. While the schedules are important to TAA, the safety of passengers is of the utmost importance. I appreciate that the safety of passengers is vital, but the running of the schedules appears to be a disgrace to people who travel a lot on Australian airlines.

A great deal of time is wasted and frustration is felt when planes run late. Appointments in other capital cities are made but cannot be kept. It has become part of our way of life to organise our appointments in accordance with flight schedules. We keep appointments in one place today, finish one job, and then board a plane to keep an appointment in another State. I guarantee that every public servant present today to advise Ministers has felt the same sort of frustration as that to which I have referred. I believe the Minister has a responsibility not to supply me with guff that states that everything in the garden is rosy, lt is not good enough. The Department should have another look at the working of the airlines agreement.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– Senator O’Byrne knows that we hope to adjourn at 4.30 this afternoon, but as he is so pessimistic I suppose he will book a seat on a plane to leave at some time in the next day or two, anticipating a breakdown in the service this afternoon. I wish to comment on some of the statements he made. He claimed that the travelling public is losing faith in the Government’s dual domestic airline policy because of inconvenience resulting from holdups in the schedules. The number of domestic passengers using the airlines in Australia last year was over 5 million. The two major airlines have decided to phase out aircraft other than jets or turbo-jets by 1971. This involves the need to sell those planes. No doubt they are being offered for sale throughout the world today, but probably a second-hand aircraft is hard to sell. I do not know. I think that the dual airline policy operating in Australia provides one of the best and safest services of any country in the world. Senator O’Byrne should be proud of the service provided by Ansett-ANA and TAA to the travelling public.

Senator Cant:

– A lot of other countries have made surveys of it and have not adopted it.

Senator SCOTT:

– And large companies operating airlines in those countries have examined the Australian system and have decided to reduce the number of services they provide in their own countries.

Senator Cant:

asked a question about the proposal to spend $10m on the provision of wheat storage. The Australian Wheat Board has made special arrangements with the Reserve Bank. The Board is investigating the best method of amortising the cost of the additional 60 million bushels emergency storage with a view to charging the cost against growers delivering over-quota wheat in the States concerned.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– My concern is to draw the attention of the Senate to a matter relating to Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation referred to specifically in the Organisation’s Twenty-first Annual Report under the heading ‘Division of Land Research’ and the sub-heading ‘More water for South Australia’. The matter with which I am concerned is not directly related to that subject but rather to the effect of pine plantations upon water availability. The report states:

Land use can have an important effect on recharge. The (Division found that the evaporation from pine forests in south-eastern South Australia during winter and spring equalled the rainfall so that there was no recharge of the underground water beneath the forests. lt also found that the evaporation from the forests was about twice that from neighbouring grassland. This result probably applies to most catchments other than high mountain catchments. It seems likely, therefore, that stream flow from forested catchments is less than from catchments in grassland or crop land.

My interest in this problem arising from our practice of introducing exotic pines into the Australian economy was first aroused when farmers in the south-west of Western Australia reported that wells which had never gone dry in living memory had gone dry soon after considerable pine plantations were established there. In the Perth region, particularly north Perth, pine plantations which are very successful in terms of growth are to be seen but these pines are planted in an area where there is a considerable recharge of the potentially valuable underground water supply.

Senator Wright:

– ‘From what source?

Senator PROWSE:

– From rainfall on to an aquifer at reasonable depth. If the findings in relation to South Australia have general application I think we should devote considerably more than the allocated amount of $256,245 to land research under which this work was done because we could be creating a major problem if we continue the practice of planting pines in water catchment areas. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution I raised this question with officers of the National Capital Development Commission who were concerned with pine plantations in the Canberra area but I failed to get any satisfactory reply to my query about their effect upon water yield in the area. But from the evidence now available it seems that we need to direct considerable attention to this problem which could be one of some national concern if we proliferate pine plantations without regard to their effect on the water catchments and water yields in the areas in which they are established. I hope that more attention will be directed to this problem, particularly as the report is to a certain extent delayed, I tried to check on the matter in the Library but I found that it was not sub-headed and that there was no reference directly to it. I had some difficulty in finding just where it was published. I hope my expression of concern will assist in having some further work done on this urgent problem.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– My query is about the appropriation of $2,600,000 for railway standardisation works in South Australia under Division 891. To what extent is any part of this money now being used for consulting work going on at the present time as agreed between the South Australian and Commonwealth Governments? Or is it to be used exclusively for works projects? As honourable senators know, in 1 949 the South Australian and Commonwealth Governments entered into an agreement to standardise the railway gauge in South Australia, including that of some of the northern lines. The gauge of the southern lines was converted as part of an arrangement that when the 4 feet 8i inches gauge became fairly general in that State would convert its 5 feet 3 inches lines to standard gauge. Last year the South Australian Government wrote to the Commonwealth Government in respect of the standardisation proposals which were then necessary because of the early completion of the east-west system. In 1964 the Playford Government wrote to the Commonwealth Government and said that the Commonwealth ought to consider standardising the South Australian railway system as had been agreed. In all those years no satisfaction was gained. No allocations could be obtained from the Commonwealth Government to do the necessary work in South Australia to link Adelaide with the standardised system. So we have the situation where the east-west line will be open next year but where South Australia is still battling with the basis of the consultant’s opinion which will not be available until 1970.

The South Australian Government put it to the Commonwealth in June 1968 that grants should be made to standardise the link. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) wrote back on 23rd October 1968 and said that he would offer a feasibility study which would be restricted to a link between Adelaide and the interstate railway but that he was not prepared to expand the study to include the basic agreement to standardise the South Australian railway system which had been agreed to in 1949. There was a great deal of resistance from the South Australian Government and the Labor Opposition of the time, but finally after a lot of frustrating discussion with the Commonwealth the South Australian Government decided to advise the Commonwealth in November that it agreed to these terms. This, as honourable senators can imagine, was greatly criticised.

The consultant’s report will not be available until early next year and when the report is available there will be a wrangle as to whether the work which has been recommended ought to be started and restricted only to the link between Adelaide and the standardised system or as to whether the Commonwealth should comply with the contract it made in 1949 to standardise the whole system. If the South Australian Government accepts this position it simply means that it will have break of gauge problems at every junction on northern country lines and the Government and the railways will suffer heavy expenditure to install bogie systems. That is the issue, and it is an important one. I would like the Minister to tell me why the Commonwealth

Government cannot decide the matter at this stage instead of waiting for a consultant’s report. It is appreciated that there are already rumours that before the election some grants will be made to Victoria and New South Wales for railway work, and I think it is very important for the Minister to state at this time whether consideration might be given to an immediate grant to make the connecting link that we are talking about; otherwise South Australia will be shut off from this east-west standardised system, probably for another 12 months or 2 years.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– The honourable senator asked two questions in relation to Division 891. Provision is made under this vote for financial assistance to the State of South Australia, within the terms of the Railway Standardisation (South Australia) Agreement Act, for the purpose of converting the permanent way between Port Pirie and Cockburn to standard gauge. This project extends over a distance of approximately 215 miles, and track laying is virtually complete. Expenditure by the Commonwealth on this project to 30th June 1969 was $34,283,237 and as the project is now nearing completion the estimated expenditure for 1969-70 is down to $2. 6m.

In relation to the expenditure under the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Act, provision is made under this vote for financial assistance by the Commonwealth to the State of Western Australia within the terms of the Act for the purpose of construction within the State of a new standard gauge railway linking Kalgoorlie, Fremantle and Kwinana, a distance of approximately 428 route miles; together with associated narrow gauge railway works from East Northam to Midland with necessary deviations of the Northern and Great Southern railways in the vicinity of Northam, a mileage approximating 74; and the acquisition of rolling stock. The estimated total cost of these projects is $160m. Of this, $110m will be provided directly by the Commonwealth, partly by a grant and partly by repayable loans. Main line track laying is complete and the line is in use for most traffic between Kalgoorlie and Perth. Since June 1969 interstate passenger trains have been operating direct between Port Pirie and Perth. The estimate each year is based on a programme of works put forward by the State and $7.9m is the amount that the State has indicated that it will require from the Commonwealth during 1969-70. These are the two matters which the honourable senator mentioned.

Senator Bishop:

– Who is paying for the consultant studies now going on between South Australia and the Commonwealth?

Senator SCOTT:

– I will make an inquiry and advise the honourable senator.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– 1 wish to raise a matter in relation to the Department of Primary Industry, Division 410 - Administrative. That must take into account the administration of soldier settlements. Tasmania is an old State in regard to soldier settlements. I have heard a lot of contention about the scheme among departmental officers in Tasmania. Who fixes the option of purchase price with respect to soldier settlements? Is it a State responsibility or a Commonwealth responsibility? Who fixes it and on what basis is it fixed? There has been a lot of contention about this among soldier settlers. They have expressed dissatisfaction. I want to clear up the doubt. Who fixes the option of purchase price allocated to the settlers?

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– I want to direct my remarks to the Department of Shipping and Transport and specifically to page 224, paragraph 218 of the Auditor-General’s report. Before doing so I want to raise a matter which has been well canvassed in this place during the past 12 months by senators on both sides of the chamber. 1 refer to the role of the Federal Government in bringing north Queensland and Tasmania into the overseas container service. I will not dwell on this because the subject has been well canvassed. Suffice to say that the Commonwealth abrogated its responsibility in this matter. It said to the overseas container companies: ‘This is your responsibility. Let us know what you intend to do about it.’ This is why the Commonwealth asked the overseas container companies to submit a report to this Government before the Budget session so that the Government would have some idea of what was going on. I think this should be placed on record. I have no doubt that before the middle of next year Tasmania and north Queensland will be brought into the service, but it will not be because of any efforts on the part of this Government.

Specifically on the question of the revenue item in paragaph 218, to which I referred earlier, for the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission the estimated revenue is over $2m. Some weeks ago the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) made a statement, I think in Queensland, to the effect that the dividend return to the Department could not be maintained on the present freight rates being charged and that therefore there would be an increase in the overall freight rates on the Australian coast. This would include the Tasmanian service. Like many others, in recent months I have been concerned about and suspicious of the fact that the Tasmanian searoad service has been a money spinner for the Australian National Line. I asked a question of the Minister seeking information about it and details of the net profit being earned by the Australian National Line in its Tasmanian searoad service. I have been refused this information. The reason, ostensibly, according to the Minister’s reply, is this:

The Commission operates as a commercial undertaking actively competing with other lines. It is not therefore the practice to disclose to the public and its competitors such details as those sought of the results of its individual operations.

I suggest that the real reason why we have not been given this information is that there would be a public outcry in Tasmania if the facts were made known. I could understand the position if, from one of the mainland States, the Australian National Line were earning an undue proportion of its profits. The exporters and the importers in that State could use an alternative means of transport. But in Tasmania, as is well known, we are over a barrel in regard to transport problems and we depend on shipping services. It is an imposition on and an insult to the people of Tasmania that this increase should apply to us as well. Of course there is the other reason and that is that the Federal Government hangs on precariously to two seats in southern Tasmania. I believe this is another reason why this information has not been made public at this stage. I assure honourable senators that these facts regarding the nondisclosure will be made public before 25th October.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They will both be here after 25th October.

Senator WRIEDT:

– They will both be here after 25th October, as Senator O’Byrne has said. One other question which I want to ask the Minister is this: ‘What proportion of the expenditure is being applied towards urban transport in Australian capital cities? Recently we have seen statements to the effect that S40m may be expended in Melbourne on an underground railway. Such expenditure has gone beyond the financial capacity of the States. I would like to know whether the Department has any thoughts on an overall Commonwealth contribution.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I direct a question in relation to the estimates of the Department of Labour and National Service, at the request of a number of unions embracing members employed operating earth moving equipment. Could the Minister state whether any action is being taken by his Department to reduce the large number of accidents associated with the industry?

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– My question is in relation to the estimates of the Department of Labour and National Service, Division 370 - Administrative. I rise only to express my disappointment that the Government again this year has failed to appoint anyone from Queensland as a conciliator or a commissioner on the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. To my way of thinking, it is disgraceful that no representative from Queensland has ever been appointed as a conciliator or a commissioner. Queensland has long been an industrial State and it is useless the Minister saying, as he has in the past, that the Government does not look at States but looks at the ability of the people to do the job. I say, without fear of contradiction, that many people in Queensland would be capable of carrying out the job of conciliator or of commissioner.

At present one member of the Public Service, whom I shall not name, is a Deputy Industrial Registrar in Queensland and is carrying out the job of conciliator and commissioner, but he is not given the status of those positions nor is he receiving the remuneration payable to either position. I believe that the situation is scandalous and that it is almost an insult to the State of Queensland that no-one from that State has ever been appointed as a commissioner or conciliator. It must be obvious to the Minister and to the Department that there are approximately 100 federal awards which have operation in either the metropolitan area of Brisbane or in other places throughout the State. I suggest that if the Govermment believes that that is not sufficient justification for someone from that State to be appointed to police those awards and to attend to the difficulties that confront the respective industries then the Government does not know ils work in the industrial sphere.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– It will be remembered that Senator Byrne asked me a question about parliamentary draftsmen. I remind him and the Committee that early this year the Parliamentary Draftsman undertook a personal inquiry overseas into the possibility of recruiting additional staff. His inquiries established conclusively that there was a world-wide shortage of qualified draftsmen in common law countries and that none were available. Fellowships are not considered to be the answer. Only a small proportion of graduates in law prove to have those special qualities which enable them to give an interest to and to develop a skill in draftsmanship. This matter is of ever-continuing concern to the Department, but I think the Committee would generally acknowledge that during this session we have experienced less retardation of our legislative programme on the basis of drafting difficulties than hitherto.

Senator Byrne:

asked about a consolidation of Commonwealth statutes. He pointed out that the last consolidation was in the early 1950s. The situation, as I understand it, is that one item of $95,000 appears in the Estimates for all publications but that no special provision has been made for a consolidation of the statutes. However, I understand that consideration has been given to the possibility of dispensing with periodic consolidations and keeping up a revolving edition of statutes by a leaflet system. Honourable senators might have noticed in recent times that annual volumes of statutes have been reprinted on a continuing basis. Whether that will be finally adopted in substitution for a consolidation has not yet been determined.

Senator Greenwood:

– Does the Minister know for how long that system has been going on? When did it start?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I do not know, but it is my general impression that it has been the practice over the last 3 or 4 years. The system has to be experimented with to see how satisfactorily it can be developed. As Senator Greenwood is interested in the problem, 1 suggest that the complexity of the law is one of the great difficulties and that until there is some law reform and simplification of it the consolidation of statutes will not be the complete answer.

I regret that Senator Prowse is not in the chamber. He asked an interesting question in relation to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and drew attention to the annual report, He referred to that passage which had been mentioned by Senator Martin Cameron in the Senate the other day, and to which I gave an answer, about the interesting knowledge that had been revealed as to the underground aquifer in the Mount Gambier basin. Senator Prowse asked about the effect of pine plantations on water catchments. The position is that a study is being undertaken in other catchments and it is possible that results will differ according to the size of the catchment, the type of vegetation, meteorological conditions and soil type. Work being done in the Soils Division and the Meteorological Physics Division, as well as in the Division of Land Research, is being performed in co-operation with other authorities, particularly the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The importance of getting reliable information about the effect of different types of vegetation on the yield of catchments is appreciated and Senator Prowse may be assured that I shall direct the Minister’s attention specifically to his interest in reference to the CSIRO.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 1.45 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Before the suspension Senator Milliner asked about appointments of conciliation commissioners from Queensland. When matters of this kind have been raised the Minister has made it clear that he is concerned with appointing the most suitable available person, and State boundaries have little relevance. But as a matter of interest, five of the six most recently appointed commissioners were employed at the time of their appointment in organisations with Australia-wide activities. It could not be said that they were attached to any one particular State. The fact that amongst the existing ranks of the Commission there is nobody appointed from a particular State cannot be taken to mean that people in that State or in other States were not considered for appointment or were not offered appointment.

It is only fair to point out that it is probable that there would be more people with suitable experience and qualifications in some States than in others. The question of lay appointments is continually under review but I think it will interest Senator Milliner if I say that although it may be true that 100 federal awards are in operation in Queensland only a relatively low percentage of employees are employed under federal awards in that State. The latest figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician show that in May 1968 only 23.4% of employees in Queensland, compared for example with 52% in Victoria and 37% in New South Wales, were employed under federal awards.

Senator Mulvihill:

asked a question concerning the administration of the Department of Labour and National Service in relation to standards of safety of plant. Legislative responsibility in relation to industrial safety, including that of plant operators, lies wholly within the States, except so far as Commonwealth responsibility for its employees and for conditions within the territories is concerned. Nevertheless the Government can and does exercise a considerable influence on the overall matter of minimising accidents at work. Much of this influence is exercised by virtue of the Department of Labour and National Service’s membership on the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee, which comprises the permanent heads of the Commonwealth and State Departments of Labour. Probably about half of the business at each of the annual meetings of the Committee is devoted to industrial safety. Over the years the many papers based on research brought forward by the Department of Labour and National Service to the Committee have, I believe, had a considerable influence on thinking and policies in the States. Conversely, the Committee’s discussions, supplemented by continuing contacts with the State departments, are an important determinant of the research programme conducted by that Department. The Department co-operates actively with the Australian Standards Association in the development of national safety standards. The honourable senator will be aware that the Government has for some time been giving each year a grant of $10,000 to the National Safety Council of Australia to help it in developing its activities at federal level. At the international level the Department is also closely in contact with the work of the International Labour Organisation in the field of occupational health and safety.

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

– Senator Lillico asked two questions in relation to war service land settlement. The scheme operates under State legislation and the relevant statutes provide that the State Minister will fix the auction price. However, the State has a responsibility under the conditions attached to the grant made by the Commonwealth to agree with the Commonwealth on auction prices. The basis of the auction price is the cost or market value, whichever is the lower, at the time when the leasehold valuation was made. The cost of work done subsequent to the time of leasehold valuation can be added to the auction price but in practice this is only taken in at value.

Senator Wriedt referred to the Australian National Line and the importance of shipping to Tasmanian ports. One of his questions related to profits made by the Line on its service to Tasmania and he asked whether they could be disclosed. He stated that in reply to a previous question the Minister had informed him that they could not be disclosed. That is still the position. The significance of the container service is well recognised. It is intended that a residual service with conventional vessels will continue to be provided to those outports which are not at this stage to be serviced by container vessels. The residual service will cover the refrigerated cargoes that are so important to Tasmania. There is an obligation to provide an adequate and sufficient service for these ports and at this stage an inquiry is being undertaken by the shippers association and the shippers conference into ways and means by which these outports can be brought within the service at the standardised rate. It is my hope that this will result in a satisfactory solution and that the ports of Tasmania will be given the same opportunities to ship their goods by this improved form of transport as they have enjoyed in the past.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I refer to Division 130 which provides for salaries and payments in the nature of salary in the Attorney-General’s Department. The first matter to which I wish to refer arises from a question asked earlier by Senator Byrne to which the Minister has already given a reply. It concerns problems connected with the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office. I believe that these problems and the difficulties under which not only members of that office but also those who are dependent on the output from that office have to labour make this a matter that should be of prime concern to the Parliament and the Public Service generally.

The particular difficulties that arise from the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office have been referred to recently in a number of committee reports. At the end of 1968 the Joint Committee of Public Accounts submitted a report in which it stressed the delays and difficulties confronting various departments in the promulgation of regulations. It stressed what it found on investigation to be difficulties in recruitment and difficulties in attracting people to the work of the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office in a variety of ways. In 1968 the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee, in its twenty-fifth report, stressed that delays in the promulgation of regulations were creating and over a number of years had been creating a serious problem because retrospective payments going back for 4 or 5 years in some cases were involved in regulations. Let me read one passage from that report:

The second area of delay occurs in the drafting of the necessary statutory instruments by the Parliamentary Drafting Section of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. Whilst the Committee accepts the explanations given over the last 8 years and realises that there are difficulties in recruiting staff with sufficient training and experience for this specialised work, it must be stressed that this situation cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely.

The Committee was pleased to note that investigations have recently been carried out over- seas, and that plans are at present being formulated in an attempt to overcome the lengthy period of delay which occurs in the drafting section.

That was 12 months ago. I know that since that time the Parliamentary Draftsman has been overseas. As Senator Wright has informed the Senate, he has confirmed that there is a world-wide shortage of parliamentary draftsmen. Although the Minister also says that this is a matter of everincreasing concern, it appears to me that we are reaching a stage at which a number of very real problems have arisen and are mounting in their complexity and consequence. Some radical solution will have to be undertaken.

As Senator Byrne said and as the Minister has conceded, it is not only a question of delay in preparing legislation for this Parliament, although the Minister indicated that there had been fewer problems in thai regard in the current session. There are a number of other fields. There certainly is a need for the consolidation of statutes. It is 20 years since the last consolidation of the Commonwealth statutes. The procedure that is being adopted in some States is to have periodical consolidations of individual statutes made available. I know that that matter has been under consideration for a number of years. One would hope thai some activity could be achieved in that field.

Then there is the consolidation of particular regulations. Last year I asked a question about the Public Service Regulations, which were last consolidated in 1962. By the end of last year there had been ninetytwo separate amendments and they had not been brought into another consolidated set of Public Service Regulations. The average of 15 or 16 Public Service regulations each year has been maintained in the 12 months since then. Many people in the Public Service are dependent in many ways on what the Public Service Act says and what the Regulations say as to their entitlements. I know that people who want to find out what their entitlements are cannot obtain a set of the Regulations. I believe that that is a matter that should be remedied.

I appreciate that one of the very real problems is that the draftsmen are not available to do the job. We can also look at the need to have regulations brought down speedily. That is a matter to which the

Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee has referred. Another field is the whole question of law reform in the Australian Capital Territory. This is dependent for its development upon draftsmen being present, ready and available to undertake what is necessarily the drafting work of bringing together existing ordinances and relevant law from New South Wales and advising on a proper and up to date code for the Australian Capital Territory. Here again it is in the field of drafting that the real problems must lie.

This is merely a statement of the problems. I have stressed earlier that in my opinion the question of salaries is one of the vital factors, and linked with salaries is the prestige of the office. Lawyers outside the Public Service in these days can receive remuneration that is attractive. In those circumstances they will not be induced to come into the Public Service, where the rewards are not high and the prestige is not high, lt is very difficult for those who are interested in raising the standard of the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office to obtain any satisfaction from the Public Service Board or the Public Service Arbitrator because essentially the way in which the Board and the Arbitrator look al problems is to do some industrial justice; whereas what is really required is the raising of the office, and that ought to be a matter of concern basically for the Parliament.

Whether one solution would be to take the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office away from the Attorney-General’s Department and make it a separate department or put it under the Parliament so that it would be a section over which the Parliament would have control, wilh the Attorney-General’s Department being able to make use of it - undoubtedly that Department would make the major use of it - is a matter for investigation. It appears to me that this is a matter which should be of more concern than I suggest, with all respect to the Minister, has been expressed year in and year out in saying that it is a matter of ever-increasing concern. 1 hope that in the next Parliament this matter will be seized by members of all parties on a non-partisan basis. It is a problem of mounting complexity. 1 believe that what is done at the moment by the draftsmen in the Public Service and by the Parliamentary Draftsman himself reflects a remarkably high degree of service and dedication to work which is far beyond what should be required of people in the Public Service. They perform their work tremendously well. Notwithstanding that, they cannot do everything that has lo be done. Wilh so many things not being done, the problems will so mount that we will have a crisis on our hands and will not be able to cope with it. I would like the Minister to make some comments on what is being done in this field in order to remedy the situation.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I. wish to ask Senator Wright, who represents the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury), to look into certain matters. That may take some time. Firstly, I refer to the appropriation for payments for the services of State officers and agents under Division 370. It has been reduced from $95,100 to $75,000. I would like lo know why it has been reduced and to what extent agents are still used. I refer now to the appropriation of $460,000 for financial assistance in respect of apprenticeship training under the same division. Does that amount include money provided under the recognised subsidy system by employers? Could the Minister supply me with information on that item on an Australia-wide basis? 1 also refer to the appropriation of $15,000 for technical training of exservicemen. 1 would like to know whether that amount is appropriated for the training of national servicemen as well as other members of the Services. Could the Minister supply me with details of that item? I refer now to the appropriation for the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal was set up 2 or 3 years ago as a result of a pilots’ strike. This year the appropriation has been reduced to 37,000. What is the reason for that reduction? 1 have two general questions that 1 would like the Minister to consider. One relates to the administration of the National Service Act under Division 755 and the re-establishment provisions - particularly section 9 - of the relevant Act. In South Australia in the last 12 months we have had two cases of young people being dismissed from their employment, in connection with national service. In one case in Whyalla a boy who had just recently completed his time as an apprentice was called up for national service, and he was dismissed. He could not get another job in e area because the employer who dismissed him has a fairly strong influence in the area.

Two inquiries were held. The Department itself held an inquiry. A request from Mr Birrell and myself was directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service, Mr Bury. The Department as a result of its investigation of that request, decided to hold a second inquiry. 1 received advice that no action would be taken to prosecute the employer concerned.

The second case is a recent one. In June, I wrote to the Director of the Department in South Australia in relation to the dismissal of a casual employee. The reply was that no substance was to bc found in the case. In respect of the last case, I make the point that it took 3 months for advice to reach me that an investigation had been carried out. I am not complaining that the Department did not do its job. 1 ask the Minister whether he can tell me what sort of special machinery the Department has set up to cope with the situation? Is it a case where separate sections of the Department work separately? On a matter like this within the Department, for example, does the section that deals with arbitration check the relevant awards and then pass the matter across to the section that handles national servicemen or to other sections such as the one which deals with prosecution? It seems to me that there ought to be some special liaison in the Department or a group committee comprising representatives of the sections of the Department to act in respect of investigations and to recommend speedy action rather than have this long process of wailing.

Senator Wright:

– In resolving what difficulty?

Senator BISHOP:

– In resolving the question as to whether an employer is guilty under the Act of having wrongfully dismissed an employee or having not reinstated an employee as required. Let me point out what I think happens. All these officials are very good to deal with. A need exists in an organisation such as the Department of Labour and National Service to have some sort of special committee to deal with matters such as those that 1 have raised.

My last question deals with automation. The Minister announced recently that a special section of his Department deals with the question of automation. Some special information has been put out on this subject. I ask the Minister whether at this stage it has been possible to establish criteria for procedures in relation to redundancy, reemployment and retraining and whether these criteria have been recommended to employers Australia-wide through the various States? I conclude on this point. I notice that Mr Archer, the Commonwealth Statistician, recently said that Australia was fortunate that the introduction of computers had coincided with the rapid expansion of the economy. It seems to me that these basic or foundation principles ought to be established and that, where necessary, they ought to be placed in industrial codes.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Referring to the questions asked by Senator Greenwood concerning the Attorney-General’s Department, particularly the Parliamentary Draftsman’s Branch, J am grateful to Senator Greenwood for keeping attention directed to this matter. The Committee will realise that a specific inquiry was undertaken by the Parliamentary Draftsman in an overseas examination of the situation. That inquiry did not produce any solution. There are and have been also some matters of a personal nature within the Department at high level that have made it difficult to proceed with the energies that this situation calls for this year. These difficulties will be resolved at an early date. I do not wish, if I may, to be pressed upon that matter any further. I would wish the honourable senator to know that the figure provided for the establishment of the Parliamentary Draftsman’s Branch is about 40 positions. As 1 read the Budget papers, referring to Division 139 I see that the estimate for staff this year is 35 and last year was 34, although I am instructed that the professional staff has increased by a net figure of only 2 during that period.

As to the Public Service Regulations, I inform Senator Greenwood that they are included in a special volume issued by the Public Service Board. A copy is available for reference by any public servant within a department. I realise that that is not what Senator Greenwood seeks. He seeks that these Regulations should be available to anybody who is concerned to become a public servant, who wishes to be advised of regulations governing public servants or is concerned as a matter of public interest to know the terms and conditions upon which public servants are employed. I am fully alive to and myself have criticised the delay in making freely available to the public printed authentic expression of the laws of this country. But 1 trust that the Committee will take the indication that has been given in my preliminary remarks that concentrated attention will be placed specifically upon this problem, if not in December, early in the New Year.

With regard to law reform lo which Senator Greenwood also referred, I wish him to know that staff dealing with matters of law reform has been strengthened over recent years. New positions provided are one position of First Assistant Secretary and two positions of Senior Assistant Secretary, plus subordinate staff. Matters dealt with over the past 2 years exceed those of previous years and further improvement is expected when all the new positions are operating on a settled down basis.

On the subject of criminal law, two senior officers have been detached from normal duties to concentrate on reform. 1 think Senator Greenwood would like me to remind the Committee that the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen) laid down the draft of a code completely codifying the criminal law for consideration by members of this Committee and others only this year. That code was a product of very intensive work much of which was contributed by the Austraiian Law Council. But it was under the guidance at all times and was performed with the assistance of the Attorney-General’s Department. I would submit the view that that one contribution alone is a very notable contribution in the field of law reform for the work of 1 year. 1 will defer at this stage replies to the questions that were posed by Senator Bishop and which were rather detailed until I have an opportunity to reply at a later stage.

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

– I would remind my colleague, the Minister for

Works (Senator Wright), that we are only a couple of minutes off the anticipated time when we will move from the consideration of this matter. Perhaps the Minister might arrange to have incorporated in Hansard at a later stage the replies that will be forthcoming to the questions raised by Senator Bishop. 1 wish to respond to a question from Senator Bishop. When I first spoke on this matter, I said that the answer was to be found in the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). If one analyses very carefully the statement made by him, one will find that the statement by the Prime Minister indicated quite clearly that, provided tests are satisfactory and give an assured life for service in the Royal Australian Air Force until the new box is fitted in 1972 at no cost to us, then we will take delivery of the aircraft. The recent mission indicated to the Government that it had every confidence on information given to it in the United States of America that these tests should be satisfactory. If for some reason tests shortfall in giving us the complete endurance we require to 1972, the matter will be examined in the light of the results. Again, there is no reason to assume that this would mean we would still not take delivery, particularly in the light of the assurance we now have that the United States Air Force will provide, at no cost to us, modified present-type boxes to the RAAF to enable it to operate completely safely until such time as the new design box has been manufactured and proved for introduction into both the United States Air Force and the RAAF.

Proposed expenditures and proposed provisions noted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:
VICTORIA

– Mr

Deputy President, 1 have to report that the Committee of the Whole has considered the particulars of proposed expenditure and has agreed to the following resolutions:

  1. That the Committee take note of the proposed expenditure;
  2. That in taking note of the proposed expenditure for the Repatriation Department the Committee resolved to recommend to the Senate that a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon certain repatriation matters, such committee to commence its inquiry nol earlier than 1st January 1970;
  3. That in taking note of the proposed expenditure for the Department of the Interior the Committee resolved to add the following words ‘but is of opinion that the Government has been responsible for maladministration in connection with the operation of the Canberra abattoir and in selling that public asset at a gross undervalue’.

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That resolution No. 1 be agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) put:

That resolutions Nos 2 and 3 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake Brockman) - Order! There being 2.3 ayes and 23 noes, the question is resolved in the negative.

AYES

NOES

page 1547

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1969-70

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 September (vide page 1400), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I take this opportunity to ventilate in this Parliament two matters exercising the minds of the citizens of Canberra. The first is the prolonged uncertainty about the proclamation of the Mount Kelly region as a national park. On a previous occasion when I raised this subject I was assured that there was not much likelihood that the land would be used for other purposes, but in the meantime a study has been taken of multiple land use in the Canberra region. The result of that study showed the need for an ironclad defence of this land against the depredations of mining interests. I say that deliberately because of the dilemma of the Commonwealth and State governments over the Great Barrier Reef through attempts to get the best of both worlds. I emphasise the need for the Commonwealth at all times to state clearly that the land is to be used as a national park with appropriate wilderness areas, so that if mineral deposits are found or suspected it can stand firm and resist the approaches. This will avoid a situation as has arisen in the States which have tried to get the best of both worlds and have finished up with the worst.

The second matter I wish to raise is equally important, and relates to the agitation of the Australian Capital Territory National Parks Association. Dr Stephen Boyden is the instigator of a move to establish a biological centre on the western slopes of Black Mountain. He believes that there should be a region provided with better access to Australian fauna. I am not ignoring what is being done at Tidbinbilla. Mr Lindsay, the Mayor of New York, has explained a concept of pocket handkerchief parkland areas. I pay full tribute to the decisions taken by the National Capital Development Commission, particularly when the results it achieves are compared with the shocking situations that exist in most areas around our State capital cities. On behalf of the electors of CanberraI make the plea that surely in the area of Black Mountain the suggestion of a biological centre can be implemented. Any action taken to reserve land there in the next 3 years will probably be the best we can do. Sometimes developers and other people beat the big drum and claim it is virtually the end of the world if they are not able to make a quick quid. The supporters of parklands quite often do not have the finance to support their ideas by propaganda.

I remind Senator Scott that we have had vague assurances. I direct his attention to the Canberra ‘Courier’ of 11th September. It points out that surveys indicate it is necessary to have greater husbanding of land for recreational purposes. I have always believed that Canberra’s planning has been far superior to that of the States, but Canberra should not rest on its laurels. The sooner we get two smart decisions the better, the first of which is needed for the Mount Kelly region. I have in mind particularly the Nursery Creek area. Honourable senators engaging in a get fit campaign should hike there and spend a pleasant day. I pay a tribute, as I did last year, to the officers in the Department of the Interior who have plans for the area.

I emphasise that time is running out. If a rich mineral discovery is made there will be all the squeals in the world about a change in policy if action is not taken until then. The second decision needed is in regard to a biological centre on Black Mountain. This position should be looked at speedily so that the planning for Black Mountain is not devoted only to roads.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1969-70 Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 September (vide page 1400), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill he now read a second lime.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1548

QUESTION

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1969-70

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

– I seek leave to make a statement about a situation that arose in connection with a report from the Committee of the Whole in relation to proposed expenditures.

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

Senator ANDERSON:

– During the course of taking note of the paper two resolutions were carried by division. Then when we came to report to the Senate they were incorporated in the report from the Chair. 1 moved that the Committee lake note of the paper and Senator Murphy moved two resolutions which had previously been carried by division at the Committee stage. I quite obviously said no to the second and third resolutions because we had voted against them at the Committee stage. lt transpired that there was a misunderstanding in relation to a senator who was led to believe that he was paired, lt is quite clear that there was a misunderstanding. If we do not now vote again on the resolutions Senator Murphy will have his option to raise the matter again and we could go through the whole exercise on the Appropriation Bills. There would be a division and the will of the Senate would bc expressed.

I suppose every honourable senator realises that it is rather difficult for me, having won a division, to have to vote again on the two resolutions, in view of the fact that they are critical of the Government. But I have always believed that the intention of the Senate should be reflected in the votes, even though they are at limes unpalatable. I think morally I should seek a re-vote on resolutions Nos 2 and 3 and I ask for leave to do so.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- ls leave granted to take the vote again? There being no objection, I restate the question:

That resolutions Nos 2 and 3 be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1548

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1968-69

Statement of Expenditure

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That the Committee approves the .statement for the year 1968-69 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36* of the Audit Act 1901-1969.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1548

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 September (vide page 1465), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin;

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– J do not rise to oppose this Bill. The Government knows that we are placed in a dilemma. We cannot oppose the Bill because it confers benefits on some people. But the Government again stands condemned not only for the unseemly haste associated with the proceedings of this week but because of its approach to the problem of health. In bringing down this Bill it might appear that the Government has acted graciously and decently. This is a Bill to amend the National Health Act. The Government has not limited us to specific details as it has in the past but it has limited us by virtue of the nature of this week’s proceedings and in the time available to us. Consequently we are not at liberty to utilise the maximum amount of time to portray the position of our present unsatisfactory and inefficient health service. The people are accorded a patchwork health service and each time a defect develops another patch is added. It is like a housewife calling in a plumber to repair a leak in a pipe; the plumber repairs the pipe, which is rusted, and finally after he has put about 100 patches on it he has to replace it.

Is it not about time that the Government had a decent look at the health services of Australia? The deficiencies have been pointed out often enough. Ever since I arrived here I have pointed them out and have asked for an inquiry almost every year and, on occasions, I have asked for the appointment of a royal commission. Nothing was done until last year when the Government appointed the so called Nimmo Committee and the Senate appointed a select committee. Honourable senators know from the findings of those two committees how ineffective this particular approach to the health problem of the nation is. 1 think the Nimmo Committee made forty-two recommendations. The Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs has made a greater number, because it had authority to investigate on a wider basis.

There are three provisions in this Bill - one to make benefits available to persons on an income of $39 a week or less, the second to make benefits available to the unemployed and the third to make benefits available to migrants for 2 months after they arrive in Australia. But these are only stop gap alterations. How repeatedly do we come forward and talk about improved amenities and facilities in the field of education? I know how desirable and necessary education is if we are to enjoy society to the fullest. An uneducated person can work but a sick person cannot. The Government did not seek to improve the scheme which it inaugurated some 17 years ago until there was a public outcry against it because of its ineffectiveness and its failure to provide the full facilities necessary for optimum health. Consequently we should have a full investigation and the incoming government, whether it be Labor or anti-Labor, should do something about this.

We on this side of the House are partly to blame because we are now taking to the public a so-called alternative health scheme. It is not an alternative health scheme at all; it is the same old ineffective, inefficient system being financed on a different basis - a compulsory basis through taxation. Whether or not it is argued that it will cost more, it will still be an ineffective scheme. It will not provide the maximum number of measures necessary to obtain an optimum of health in the community. It is desirable that full health, medical, hospital and associated services should be available to the people. This year over $ 1,200m will be spent on health, hospital and associated services. Surely there must bc a more effective way of mobilising this tremendous sum of money. This is the money provided by the Federal and State governments and the people themselves. After all, in the ultimate it is the people themselves who provide the lot. Surely this tremendous sum can be mobilised in a more effective way to provide a more efficient overall health scheme. But nothing is being done about it.

The Government has done nothing. All it has done over the last 12 months has been to patch up various defects that it has seen in its present inefficient service. I appeal to the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) and the Government, if they are returned, to do something about it. It is questionable whether they will be returned. This is a matter for the people, but judging by the way the newspapers are reporting at this time it may not be as easy for them as it was last time. When one realises the deficiencies pointed out in the Select Committee’s findings and when one realises that the Nimmo Committee, limited as it was to inquiring into the present unsatisfactory so called voluntary health insurance scheme, made forty-two recommendations it is appalling to think that after 6 months the

Government has only acted on one. I agree that investigation of these recommendations takes time, that finding a solution takes time and that possibly finding the money is a problem; but it should not have taken this long. The Minister has at no time signified that any of the other recommendations will be considered or introduced to rectify the anomalies that exist. Surely this is the responsibility of a central government. We do hear people, particularly the health funds, quarrelling about the cost of central administration. Central administration does not seem to be defective in the case of mining concerns or merchandising firms. The policy of such concerns is determined by a central office. Even the sales targets in outlying areas are determined by offices in Sydney or Melbourne, and they do not seem to find that this is a costly way of doing business. More and more we see one enterprise taking over another 1.000 miles away and then determining the policy of that organisation. If we have an efficient man at the head determined in his own way to bring about that which is most effective and most economic, why should that be more costly than having a scheme of the nature we now have which does not completely meet the needs of the people?

What I am concerned about is that people should have facilities provided for them so that they may attain during life the optimum of health. In this way they become greater economic assets in the community and can make a contribution to their own economic welfare and the economic welfare of the nation. Surely it is not too much to ask the Government to have an inquiry with a view to establishing an effective and all embracing health service. Much commendation is being heaped upon Scotton and Deeble. I am not denying their industry in the economic field, but frankly they did not set out to find an alternative health scheme. All they did was an economic exercise and found an alternative basis of financing the unsatisfactory scheme at present in existence.

This present unsatisfactory scheme has so many deficiencies that time would not permit me to detail them. In past sessions various speakers have outlined some of the defects. Tens of thousands of people can speak of the defects that they have experienced with the schemes. They are in the schemes. Over one-tenth of our population is not covered by any scheme. Over one million arc not covered by any scheme, bc it a repatriation, voluntary, pensioner or any other type of scheme. Some may elect, through their own affluent circumstances, not to bc in a scheme. Many cannot afford to be in schemes. No inquiry has been made and no systematic endeavour has been attempted to find out the reason why these people are not covered. A large number of people have not available to them, the health services so necessary to maintain a condition of wellbeing. Consequently we cannot do other than condemn the actions of governments over successive years in not facing up to their legitimate responsibility to provide an effective service. The Minister should make representations lo the Minister she represents.

A person goes into hospital. On his discharge he gets a hospital bill. That is the basic charge. The voluntary insurance covers a greater or a lesser proportion of that bill. In the case of medical services, it is usually a lesser proportion. Most of the other services rendered are not covered. The associated services, mostly those embraced by the ancillary services that are so necessary to the wellbeing of people, are not covered at all. These services have lo be provided. They have to be paid for. In many cases people, through economic necessity, have to deny themselves of these not only desirable measures but also these absolutely essential measures for their physical and mental wellbeing. No attempt is made to cover hospital or similar charges.

The Government cannot arrive at an equitable distribution of the burden between the Commonwealth and the States, lt introduced a hotch potch arrangement and said that it would give £2 for every £1 the States paid for buildings. The Commonwealth said that the maintenance of the buildings was the responsibility of the States. The Government, knows the state in which many of these hospitals are. At present there is a so called enlightened outlook towards mental diseases. Throughout Australia, as with many other countries, the position is nothing less than a disgrace. I am prepared to admit that Australia is not alone in that regard. It is so difficult to improve the conditions of hospitals. We have before us now the report of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs. You,

Madam Acting Deputy President, had the honour to be Chairman of that Committee. A number of distinguished senators served on it. We have not time to debate the report. I think the incoming government should study carefully the report and should facilitate debate on it. I hope that, irrespective of the worthwhile suggestions made by the majority on that Committee, the Government neglects those and accepts that part of the report which suggests that there should be an all-embracing health scheme financed in accordance with the economic capacity of the people to pay. Only by that means can we get an effective and an efficient service that will improve the wellbeing of the people, to which the people are entitled, and will make a substantial contribution to the economic welfare of the nation. This is the responsibility of the Government of the day. lt is no good the Government using arguments about the constitutional difficulties between the States and the Federal Government. They should be concerned about this particularly important condition and position. Surely they should be reasonable enough to arrive at some measure of compromise which would provide the maximum benefits to all and which will make a real contribution to the wellbeing of the nation. Professor Griffiths, Professor of Hospital Administration at the University of New South Wales, has said that in New South Wales alone $ 1 ,000m is required to rehabilitate the existing hospitals and to provide adequate hospital services for the people of New South Wales. Simply dealing with the problem on a mathematical basis, the Government must realise the tremendous amount required throughout Australia. I do not suppose the position in New South Wales is any better or any worse than the position in the other States. An overall approach to the problem is called for. 1 think little less than a royal commission, with experts in the purlieu I infields, is required. The Royal Commission in Canada sat continuously for 4 years and had 167 research workers engaged on projects. That is what the Canadian Federal Government thought of the tremendous size of this problem.

In Australia we are lagging far behind. The late Sir Earle Page introduced a scheme which he thought would please the doctors and which he thought would be pushed onto the people. It has been pushed on to them more and more. As its apparent weaknesses have become real weaknesses, successive Federal governments have made minor alterations, picking up one patch here and putting it over there, shifting another patch to another place and picking up what they thought were deficiences. They have not adopted an overall approach to the problem. I suggest that the Government investigate the medical and hospital needs of the people, not forgetting the associated services which mean so much to so many people who are the victims of unfortunate circumstances. There is no provision for people who require wheelchairs, crutches, calipers or anything like that. Some hospitals help to provide these. Voluntary agencies have been culled upon. I have been called upon to assist people to get a wheelchair or an artificial leg. Many of us have met people in similar unfortunate and sad circumstances and they have had to help such people, lt should not be the responsibility of individuals lo provide these aids, except through a central form of control and through a taxation measure, lt is no use saying that the provision of these aids will not cost money; it will cost a lot of money. Today the people are providing over SI, 200m. With the increasing nature of and complexity of medical care and with increasing costs, this amount must increase. The people must face up lo increased taxation. In return they will get a benefit of: a reasonable character and a reasonable and efficient service will be provided to the people. As human beings, they are entitled to that.

Senator McMANUS (Victoria) [2.521 - Because this Parliament is in its last 2 hours prior to the election there is not the time to debate fully a measure such as this. Therefore my remarks will be extremely brief. The Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill because it proposes to offer remedies for the disabilities suffered in regard to the national health benefits by two sections of our community - one, the underprivileged section; and the other, migrants who are new to the country. As Senator Dittmer pointed out, these are small matters even though they are acceptable to those concerned. As yet we have no substitute for or no offer of the comprehensive national health or insurance scheme which, in my view mid in the view of my Party, is the only effective remedy for the problems with which we are faced today in the national health arena. A foreword to a booklet on the guide to national health benefits, issued by the Department of Health some time ago, claimed that Australia’s national health scheme has been developed as a joint exercise in private and public responsibility. Essentially it is a voluntary service in which individual responsibility is balanced with Government protection to cover the great majority of the population against major medical, hospital and pharmaceutical costs.

For a period the health scheme functioned reasonably well, but problems arose with the increases in costs associated with health. At certain stages the Government attempted to assist by increasing its contributions. In many cases the public assisted by transferring to higher and higher tables, but a danger point finally was reached so that a growing number of people were starting to think and say that the Government was not doing enough. The result was that many people were unable to contribute to the tables which they would have needed to contribute to provide adequately for their own health problems. As a result we had the inquiry which has just been held and which has presented an interesting report. There have been other interesting reports. I hope the Government will study those reports, from which I hope will come a much better system for providing for the health needs of the community. I would like to see some system whereby dental expenses are covered. Quite a number of other possible benefits will occur to the minds of honourable senators. I. know that members of the public and people associated with our universities and hospitals have devoted their attention also to inquiring into these matters. A number of these people have put forward proposals which they believed would be of benefit to the community. We have all been studying those proposals and we shall continue to study them. I know that the question of national health will be much discussed during the coming election. I hope that from the discussions and the vote will come a scheme that is suitable to the needs of our people.

In the view of my Party, dealing with this matter on a piecemeal basis will never be satisfactory. I. conclude by repeating the policy of my Party which was put to the people by Senator Gair at the last election. The present Democratic Labor Party policy is to provide a comprehensive national health insurance scheme to cover sickness, accidents, unemployment, death of a breadwinner and old age. Ours is a comprehensive policy and the sooner it is adopted, the better it will be for Australia.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– As one of that band of distinguished senators referred to by my friend, Senator Dittmer, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs which has just brought in a plenary report on hospital and medical costs, I wish to say a few words only on this Bill. The Bill follows the report of the Health Insurance Committee of Inquiry, which is known as the Nimmo Committee, which recommended that the low income group in the community should be insured. The Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs found from its investigations that there is an area of need in this field. We found also that at any one time there seems to be a proportion of the population - it was estimated as varying between 10% and 15% - which is either not insured or is under-insured. The reasons for this situation are somewhat complex and there does not seem to be available any definite information as to why some people are not insured or are under-insured. The Bill seeks to overcome this deficiency.

The three groups which are affected are the low income group, which in the Bill are deemed to be those whose income does not exceed $39 per week; those who are receiving unemployment or sickness benefits; and migrants, temporarily, when they come into Australia. There is no question that we all accept that the community has a responsibility to care for the less fortunate ones among us. One might wonder whether an arbitrary figure of $39 a week is best. The Committee gave a great deal of thought to this subject and we felt that in the time available we could not come to any definite conclusions, but in paragraph 172 of the report we suggested that perhaps the amount should be based upon the entitlement for a pension. We suggest that this is one matter which requires further investigation by any future committee which may be set up in relation to this matter.

I express some little concern that the Commonwealth alone is carrying this burden. There was available to the Committee much evidence to suggest that the medical insurance funds could bear at least a proportion of the burden. There is one section of the community - the pensioners - who are at present covered under the pensioner medical service. The Committee said in its report that it had given consideration to this group. We had evidence from some of the funds to show that they were prepared to provide, and indeed had an obligation to provide, with the Commonwealth, assistance towards the pensioner group who would be insured under the normal hospital and medical insurance scheme, the cost to be borne by the Commonwealth and the funds in a combined operation. This suggestion, quite frankly, has considerable appeal, but we recognise that there are involved some complex problems which require further investigation. One rather fears that the Commonwealth’s acceptance of the full responsibility might well undermine any attempts to bring the funds in with the Commonwealth to provide a scheme for pensioners.

Apart from the social or humane question involved in this there remains the question of the difference that this would make to the finances of our great public hospitals. There is no doubt that at least a substantial portion of their debts, which are extremely high, are caused by this group being unable to afford any payment for their hospital treatment. I believe that this scheme would assist the public hospitals financially and, from that point of view, would indirectly lower the costs to the taxpayer in another field. While (he taxpayer provides for the insurance for these people he will gain some benefit because the indebtedness of public hospitals will be substantially lower.

I do not want to present any argument as to the desirability of the national health scheme proposed by the Australian Labor Party. Although I believe that the present scheme has some very grave deficiencies, just as any scheme which is introduced will develop deficiencies unless it is overhauled continuously - 1 believe that this should not be a patchwork operation - it is immediately meeting an area of great need. 1 have little doubt that the present scheme when reformed will meet adequately the health needs of the community. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill with the qualifications that I have stated. I believe that it will help people in a section of the community who are in need.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– This Bill, which has as its purpose the provision of free medical and hospital insurance to persons in receipt of an income of $39 or less a week, is supported by the Opposition. We of the Labor movement believe that voluntary health insurance has completely failed the Australian people. Because of the shortage of time and the lateness of the hour in this sessional period of the Parliament, my remarks must necessarily be brief. I suggest that it is a great pity that a measure so important as this has to be debated in the dying hours of the Parliament. I understand that about 100,000 Australians will receive some benefit from this measure and, for this reason, we do not oppose the passage of the Bill. But notwithstanding this legislation there will remain in Australia about 900.000 people still uninsured.

We say that a system must be devised whereby all people will be roped into a national health scheme. To date it would appear that there are three great areas of voluntary health insurance which have been ignored by the present Government. Firstly, the Government appears to have ignored the problems of those who are underinsured. Their problems are quite distinct from those of the uninsured. Certainly there are still many thousands in this economic category. Secondly, it has been ignoring for some considerable time the very pressing problems of the family man who finds that he or his family runs into a bout of prolonged illness and that he cannot cope with the very wide gap existing between the doctor’s fee and the inadequate refund provided to him by the medical benefit insurance fund and the Commonwealth contribution thereto. Thirdly, the Government has for some considerable time chosen to ignore what I would regard as excessive and in some cases unjustifiable administrative expenses of large insurance funds. The Government appears to be prepared to close its eyes in this regard. In my opinion this has been one of the great mistakes and one of the great tragedies of the existing scheme, and one of the reasons why it has failed to serve and cater for the needs of the Australian people.

I do not think that anyone can condone the expenditure by one fund of some $40,000 on the purchase of an aircraft, which incidentally crashed subsequently and was not replaced by the fund. I suggest that it was a purchase designed as a status symbol for the executive of the fund - keeping up with the Joneses, as it were - and it certainly in my opinion could be regarded as an act of self-interest on the part of the management of that fund. There is also the question of excessive advertising which has been referred to in the interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs, of which you Madam Acting Deputy President, were Chairman. The Committee found that excessive advertising was being directed towards the transfer of contributors from one fund to another, thereby unnecessarily increasing management expenses. There is the question of commissions paid by funds to agents to get people to transfer from one fund to another. In my opinion, no-one can condone a commission payment of $8 to $9 by a fund to an agent - referred to in evidence before the Committee - merely to get a contributor to transfer from a fund to which he already contributes, to another fund.

Then there is the question of the establishment of a political fighting fund to preserve - and only for the purpose of preserving - voluntary health insurance in Australia. In 1961 when an election was being closely fought a document headed ‘Public Relations and the National Health Scheme’ was prepared and circulated by a Mr J. W. Wyett who is connected with one of the funds. Amongst other things he called on the Blue Cross funds to set aside a sum of $20,000 a year for a period of 5 years, to be raised from contributions made by each member and to be related to the size of the funds. The purpose of this sum was the employment of a public relations consultant to wage nothing more or less than a political campaign.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is that any different from what the unions do?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The unions are voluntary organisations for the purpose of improving the industrial conditions of their members and they arc registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but these funds are non-profit organisations for the purpose of providing health insurance for their members and I suggest that it is very scandalous indeed that there can be such a misue of contributors’ moneys for political purposes. Indeed, Mr Turner, the Director and Public Officer of the Hospital Contribution Fund of Australia, called the Voluntary Health Insurance Council of Australia a misleading name adopted by a closed body created by three registered benefit organisations to present their own views on matters within or complementary to the field of voluntary health insurance, and he said that this organisation must not be regarded as the voice of the voluntary health insurance industry. Mr Turner went on to say in evidence before the Committee that the original proposal put forward by Eric White Associates bore heavily upon medical politics and upon the manner in which medicine should be provided for by the public and it had a political motive. I agreed with Mr Turner when he added in evidence:

We do not regard benefit organisations as having any right to participate in politics in any v/ay.

As Senator Dittmer has already said on behalf of the Labor movement, voluntary health insurance has failed the Australian people. A dissection of health services expenditure with a percentage apportionment of cost in 1966-67 shows that public finance provided for 51.8% of the cost of health services, the Commonwealth bearing 29.3%, the States 21.5%, and local government 1%: private finance provided for 48.2%; patients’ fees provided for 34.2%; voluntary health insurance provided for only 13%; and other sources provided for 0.9% .

We say that the cost of the present scheme is too great. I commend the courage of the Deputy Director-General of Health in telling the Committee in evidence that he saw nothing in the Nimmo Committee’s report which in the light of what the Department knew was considered to be exaggerated. I congratulate the Director of the Research Section of the Commonwealth Department of Health for saying in evidence before the Committee that as far as he had been able to check the figures submitted for a health scheme based on a surcharge on taxable income the figures were soundly based and were based on solid assumptions. The plain fact is that this nation is faced with a breakdown in effective health care unless more determined and concerted action is taken by the Government to improve the situation that has existed for some considerable time.

The Government has a responsibility for leadership in promoting a change. I suggest that as this Parliament conies to a conclusion and parliamentarians leave Canberra to return to their electorates for the holding of a general election it is only the Australian Labor Party which has come up with a soundly based plan and we as members of the Labor Party leave tha question lo the Australian people to decide, and we believe that they will decide that it is time for an alternative health scheme to be introduced in the interests of Australia and the Australian people.

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

– 1 support the Bill because one has to support the Bill, but one must lake exception lo the fact that the Government continues to introduce piecemeal legislation instead of looking at the problem as a whole. Instead of the problem being tackled properly we find that here again there is another little handout to two groups of people. Mind you, I think that the provision relating to migrants is an extremely good proposition and should go a long way towards helping in the immigration programme. The question of supporting those who unfortunately are not able to be insured is not such a serious problem. The public forgets that there is a service - admittedly it is not the best service - for people who cannot afford to pay. It is provided in our public or general hospitals. If the Government is to adopt the principle that anyone earning less than S39 a week should be entitled to be insured, this worries me, because one can see that the Government might say that all pensioners should be insured. I am not so sure whether or not this will be a good thing, but I will not debate it because it is one of the matters upon which the Committee has not yet reached a conclusion, and 1 am not sure of my position in regard to the Committee that may be formed next year. 1 want to sound a note of warning. 1 have not been convinced that insuring pensioners will be in the best interests of the pensioners.

Let us get down to the facts of voluntary and compulsory insurance. The Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs has voted, by a majority, for voluntary insurance. Let me say that there need not have been anything wrong with voluntary insurance. But there are many things wrong with it. Senator McClelland enumerated some of them, but he did not mention the fund reserves, which have become colossal. One fund has reserves of $22m. He did not mention the abuse of the special account system. These things should never have arisen. There would be nothing wrong with the voluntary health insurance scheme if the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) ami/or his Department paid attention to it.

I do not know who is to blame. If the Department of Health advised the Minister and he did not accept the advice, he is to blame. If the officers of the Department of Health did nol give him advice, they should be sacked because they are the people who have brought the voluntary health insurance scheme into disrepute. So. whichever way one looks at it, the Minister or his Department is responsible for the present controversy over voluntary and compulsory health insurance. The voluntary health insurance scheme would have been all right if the Department had watched it. lt knew all along about these reserves, lt knew all along about the administrative expenses. But not a thing was done. Do nol let officers of the Department say: ‘We cannot do anything’. Had they just asked the Minister to bring in legislation and ensured that it was done, most of the faults that lie in the scheme at present would never have been the basis for controversy, as they are at the moment.

The faults of the scheme have been enumerated. But let me refer to the major fault in the whole scheme, namely, the failure of the Government to support its own voluntary health insurance scheme. I cannot understand how people in the Labor Party and in the Liberal Party can stand up in public and talk about a voluntary scheme and a compulsory scheme when the fault lies with the Government itself. The Government introduced the scheme. We know that every time any. social service benefit - maternity allowance, child endowment, pensions, health insurance or medical insurance - is introduced, the Government lakes all the credit, throws out its chest and says: ‘Look what we did. We introduced this. You did not introduce it. Vote for us’. But then the Government just lets the scheme wither on the vine. That is what has happened in the field of voluntary health insurance.

As I said only last week, for general practitioner consultation services item 1 the Commonwealth contributes 80c. That has been the Commonwealth contribution for 10 years. Since the inception of the scheme it has been raised from 60c to 80c. In that period the average weekly earnings of Australians have increased by about 1 12% but the Commonwealth Government has increased its contribution by only 334%. I suppose that parliamentary salaries have increased by about 120% in that period. But we do not count that. The Government introduces the scheme and then leaves it to wither on the vine. Then it tries to blame everyone else but itself.

No-one but the Department of Health and the Government is to blame for the fact that today the Commonwealth benefit of 80c is the same as it was 10 years ago. In the period that it has been 80c the value of money has depreciated by about half. So the contribution should be $1.20 if the Government wanted to give it its true value. No-one minds when Second Division public servants receive salary increases of $2,000 a year. It is said that they are justifiable. But the Government does not raise its contribution one iota. Then it wonders why there is so much dispute about its scheme.

If the Labor Party gets into office at the next election - mind you, 1 doubt that it will - the Government will have only one person to blame, and that is the Minister for Health. If the people are swept away on the domestic issue of voluntary or compulsory health insurance, the fault will lie with the Department of Health and its Minister because they have let the people of Australia down in that year after year they have refused to increase the Commonwealth contribution.

I have supported the voluntary scheme. At one stage I was in two minds as to which way I should go. If we patched up the voluntary scheme and had a real look at it, it would be ail right. I cannot see why, instead of introducing legislation to do a bit here and a bit there, we cannot have a comprehensive new scheme of voluntary health insurance - one that the people can enjoy and one to which the Government can contribute on a proper basis. So, 1 am quite happy to stay with the voluntary scheme for the next couple of years and see what happens. If it fails and the Government fails, I will say: ‘Let us drop it in favour of a compulsory scheme and see what happens then. At least let us give it a try’.

Senator Cant:

– You said that it had failed.

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

– No, it has not failed. I said that it need not have failed if the Government had brought it up to date. The whole fault lies at the door of the Government because it has not helped out under its own scheme. The Government has only itself to blame for any faults.

I want to make a couple of comments on doctors’ fees. Firstly, one hears time and time again that they have reached a point where the public cannot pay. That is utter nonsense. Figures that were given to the Senate Select Committee showed that in spite of increases in fees the number of people visiting doctors is increasing. So do not let anybody try to tell me that doctors’ fees have reached a peak. What about parliamentary salaries? What about public servants’ salaries? Have not they reached a peak?

Secondly, there has to be some stability and some appreciation of the three bodies concerned, namely, the Government, the doctors and the health insurance organisations. Some method must be arrived at by which we can achieve some stability in fees. I am totally opposed to the fixation of fees. . I have never practised it myself. Our fees have always been 50c dearer than those of any other doctor in town, and that has never stopped our practice from growing. So, 1 do not believe for one minute that the level of fees has anything to do with whether people will see a doctor. But this is not of much use in a scheme in which there are three partners. I believe that the doctors must come to heel and accept some form of common fee.

The only trouble is that the common fee is largely misunderstood by doctors as representing the lowest fee. That is not so. This system still does not stop a doctor from charging more than the common fee. But there has to be some basis for stability. At first I was opposed to the common fee. But now I believe that it is quite a good solution, provided - I emphasise this proviso - that the fee is fixed for a limited period and is subject to revision and is tied to some index. 1 will not have a bar of any scheme that is not tied to an index, because one cannot trust governments. We have seen that in the field of health insurance the Commonwealth contribution has stayed at 80c for 10 years, when it should now be $1.20. If we do not have some scheme that is tied to an index there will be (rouble.

Evidence was given to the Senate Select Committee that one just cannot trust the Government. I am not arguing whether the Government’s decision in regard to the chemists was right or wrong. The Government said to the chemists: ‘We will have a look at your fees by arbitration’. But when the arbitration decision went against the Government, the Government said: What a lot of rot. It was not done properly’. Whether the Government was right or wrong 1 do not want to argue in the short time that we have available. But that is the sort of thing that will happen. That is why I say that there has to be an automatic review. If there is an automatic review every 2 years and the scheme is tied to an index, there can be no dispute about the fee being adjusted. The system would probably operate in the same way in that doctors would still be entitled to increase their fees if they wanted to do so. I do hope that in the policy speech of the Government, which will be so full of bribes that one will wonder where they will stop, at least a new health policy will be included and that a promise of doing something about the health scheme instead of leaving it as it is will be forthcoming.

I am most certain that most of the recommendations that the Committee of which I was a member will be accepted by the Government - they will certainly be accepted by my Party - to improve the health scheme. But that is not good enough. Let us hope that, when we return next year, instead of a Bill like this one we will have before us a Bill which clears up all the misunderstandings in the scheme and makes it work. Believe me, if this scheme does not work within the next year or 2 years the Government has had it. lt will have a compulsory scheme because people will just not tolerate the present scheme any longer.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[3.26] - in reply - I thank those honourable senators who have spoken in support of this Bill and for the speedy passage which has been given to it this afternoon. This Bill is just one more piece of legislation introduced by this Government to assist those people who are in need. This time, those assisted by this Bill fall into two special groups. Those who will receive adequate medical and hospital insurance benefits are those in the low income group and migrants. I believe that everybody present realises that this is one more piece of legislation which is playing a very important part in assisting those in our community who are in need. I thank honourable senators for their support. I close the debate with those remarks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1557

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

First and Second Reports of Standing Committee

Consideration resumed from 19 August (vide page 130).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1557

INTEREST ON CONVERTIBLE NOTES

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - In the Budget Speech it was announced that the Government intended, subject to conditions, to restore income tax deductions for interest on convertible note issues. A statement which I made on Tuesday evening last week gave a broad outline of the conditions that are proposed. It will not be practicable for the amending legislation - which, because of the intricate nature of the subject, will require some time in the drafting - to be introduced before the Parliament rises. In these circumstances, the purpose of my statement today is to give honourable senators a fuller picture of our proposals before the amending legislation is brought down.

In proposing to restore tax deductions for interest on convertible notes the Government has in mind that this type of security can play a useful and legitimate role in company financing. For a new and developing company that is unable to complete for equity capital in terms of the dividends it can offer, convertible notes can provide a means of keeping down the cost of capital until such time as the company is performing well enough to offer attractive dividends. On the other side of the coin, they can give the investor, in a developing company with good, but by no means certain, prospects for future growth the advantages - in terms of income and security - of a fixed interest issue combined with the opportunity to convert his loan into shares if the company eventually fulfils its early promise.

Convertible notes have worthwhile advantages apart from considerations such as those I have mentioned. They have been widely used as a means of raising capital on international markets and could, therefore, place Australian companies in a better position to raise funds overseas. Quite importantly, too, they offer a convenient means by which Australians might be given the opportunity to acquire equity holdings in overseas-owned ventures in Australia. As I said in the statement last week, the Government has in mind particularly ventures of this kind in the extractive industries. On the other hand, the Government has no wish to re-open the opportunities for tax avoidance that unconditional restoration of deductibility of interest on convertible notes would provide.

As mentioned when this proposal was announced, the income lax law was amended in 1960 to disallow the deduction of interest payable by companies on convertible notes, to prevent the use of these securities to avoid tax. In many cases there was little to distinguish the convertible notes being issued in 1960 from deferred shares. By one means or another the companies issuing the convertible notes virtually ensured that the notes, on maturity, would automatically be converted into shares. In effect, companies were issuing notes that really amounted to shares and were obtaining tax deductions for interest payments that really amounted to dividends. They were thus able to breach a fundamental rule of our tax system that, while interest is tax deductible, dividends are not.

It is proposed, therefore, to restore the tax deduction for interest on convertible notes, largely to assist Australians to acquire a stake in major ventures undertaken here. This will, however, be on conditions which while not stripping convertible notes of their advantages for legitimate business purposes, will minimise their use for tax avoidance purposes. The first condition that is proposed is that it must be the noteholder and not the issuing company who has the option to convert or take repayment in cash. The option will, broadly, be one to have shares in that company or another company allotted to the noteholder. In a fixedinterest borrowing the lender must have the right to repayment in cash of the full amount he has lent. Clearly, if the borrowing company had the right to make the notes convertible it would be able to give a deferred issue of shares the form of a borrowing and thus obtain tax deductions for interest payments that were essentially disguised distribution of income.

The second condition is that the noteholder’s right to exercise the option lo convert is not to be deferred longer than two years after the date on which, broadly speaking, subscriptions to the particular convertible issue can first be made. In the absence of such a condition, noteholders could be put in a position where they would have to go on holding the notes and not convert them for an unduly long time after the issue of the notes, simply because the issuing company had drawn the terms of issue in such a way that the option was to be deferred until the company was ready to redeem its debt by an issue of shares. This second condition will not require the option to be deferred for 2 years - it will be open to the issuing company to make the option exercisable immediately if it wishes. Nor will there be any obligation on the noteholder to exercise his option at the end of the two-year period. If he chooses to do so he will be able to continue holding the notes and determine for himself the time to convert or, alternatively, wait and take repayment in cash when the notes mature.

Another condition concerning the noteholder’s option will be that it must remain open up to a date not more than 1 2 months earlier than the maturity date of the note. The option could, of course, remain open right up to the maturity date - but not later - if the issuing company wished. In other words, the condition allows the option to be terminated as much as 12 months before maturity so as to allow the issuing company, if it wishes to have it, reasonable notice of the funds it will require on the maturity date to repay in cash notes that are not converted.

It is also proposed that the convertible note must have a currency of not less than 7 years or more than 10 years. The minimum borrowing period of 7 years is designed to give noteholders a reasonable period in which to judge the performance of the issuing company and decide whether or not to exercise their options. The maximum period of 10 years is considered to be long enough to permit the investment to become sufficiently revenue-producing to justify a share issue. Once that stage has been reached there would seem to be no justification for exclusion of noteholders from the company’s equity or for the continued distribution of income in the form of tax deductible interest instead of as nondeductible dividends.

Another condition will be that the terms and conditions applying to the convertible notes are to be fixed and not subject to any variation throughout the period of their currency. That is, the rate of interest on the notes must not vary and the terms of the issue, such as those governing conversion of the notes into shares, are not to be shaded’ in such a way that a noteholder is induced to convert at one time rather than another. This condition is, therefore, essentially a backstop lo other conditions.

Finally, it will be a condition for deductibility of interest that the conversion price for shares is not to be less than 90% of their market value when the convertible notes are offered for issue, or par, whichever is greater. As background to this condition, I mention that in convertible issues on the international market it is usual for the conversion price to be fixed at a premium on the current market price. In the pre- 1960 situation in Australia, however, it was not usual for conversion prices to be fixed in this way. As often as not the conversion price was par.

Looking to the present situation, and even with convertibility being at the option of the noteholder, the absence of a conversion price test such as the one the Government proposes would mean that companies could make conversion in due course a more-or-less practical certainty. In this way the convertible notes could, to all intents and purposes, be a deferred equity issue. The proposed minimum conversion price is intended to discourage this substitution of convertible notes for equity issues. As I have indicated, the price which a noteholder must pay to have shares allotted to him when he exercises his option will need to be at least 90% of the market value of an equivalent share in the company when the note issue is made. For shares that are listed on a stock exchange, the market value will be based on the market prices of the particular class of share in a period shortly before the note issue is floated. The market value of other shares will be determined by a valuation of a company auditor.

It is proposed that the conditions I have outlined will apply to convertible note issues made after the necessary amendments become law. These amendments will be introduced as soon as possible. Restoration of deductibility on the basis of the proposed conditions will, the Government feels, make available a useful and suitable means of financing companies through periods of establishment or expansion without opening the way to large-scale tax avoidance, lt will also pave the way for wider participation by Australians in the ownership of the great ventures that are doing so much to promote our development and prosperity.

page 1559

CENTRAL QUEENSLAND POWERHOUSE

Ministerial Statement

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

– With the concurrence of honourable senators, I circulate and incorporate in Hansard a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) relating to the subject of a central Queensland powerhouse. Honourable senators will note that where the first person personal pronoun T appears, it refers to the Prime Minister. The statement reads:

In September 1968 the Premier of Queensland wrote to me concerning negotiations between the Queensland Treasurer and industrialists interested in major development in Queensland. The Queensland Government intended to build a power house in central Queensland to feed electricity into the Queensland grid, and proposed that the Commonwealth might provide capital so that the power house would be larger than one required solely for this purpose, and so that the additional capacity could be used to attract industries to central Queensland. The basic requirement for such industries, if they are to be so attracted, is the provision of large blocks of power on a continuous load basis, at tariffs comparable with those offering in major industrial centres overseas. If this could be attained it appeared there was a real possibility of the development, in that underdeveloped area, of a new industrial complex that would grow - and become a tangible expression of our interest in decentralised development.

At this point I stress the advantages which this underdeveloped part of Australia possesses. There are vast coal deposits and cheap steaming coal is available as a by-product of the coking coal export industry. There are extensive brine deposits as raw material for a power intensive chemical industry producing caustic soda for the alumina industry and chlorine for export. The existing alumina industry will expand with consequent opportunity for aluminium production - which requires large amounts of power. A deep water port and harbour facilities suitable for bulk carriers are ready at hand in Gladstone. All in all it is an area crying out for that development, and for that use of its natura] resources, which will benefit the area and add to the greatness of the nation. It offers an exciting opportunity for a great stride forward in national development. And it offers opportunity to increase our exports.

After preliminary consideration I arranged with the Premier that Commonwealth and State officials should examine the proposal. In March 1969 our officials met with their Queensland colleagues to consider the technical proposals prepared by the State Electricity Commission of Queensland; these official discussions continued in April and May. At that time the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority was retained as consultants to make an independent study of the proposal. The Authority presented a comprehensive report. Following study of it by the officials, the Premier of Queensland, on 25th August 1969, presented the State’s financial proposals for the development of the project. An interdepartmental committee, after examining the project in depth, reported to us on 19th September. The Government is greatly impressed with the potential of the project both for the development of central Queensland and for the development of exports. We are convinced that the project is feasible from a technical point of view. We believe the estimates of cost are soundly based technically and financially. And we believe that - given the establishment of certain key industries - there is a real prospect of attracting a variety of other important industries in the future. Given an initial stimulus we think that growth will continue and that the wide spaces of central Queensland, presently under-populated, will be able to develop natural resources to the full and will see towns grow to cities.

Therefore, on behalf of the Commonwealth I have advised the Queensland Premier and Treasurer that we are prepared to advance up to $80m to the State over a 6-year period to help with this scheme. It is proposed that the advance should be repayable over 30 years and that it should bear interest at the semigovernmental rate. This offer is made for the purpose of financing that part of the power station which will meet the requirements of the special industrial development envisaged and it is hoped that this will enable the power station to sell bulk supplies to the industries at rates which will enable them to compete in world markets. The offer will enable the Queensland Government to proceed further with its negotiations with industry and to settle with the Commonwealth, as a result of such negotiation, the exact amount of the advances which will be required and the final terms and conditions for the servicing of the loan. The offer is, of course, conditional on the State being able to satisfy the Commonwealth that it can attract a viable export-oriented industrial complex in central Queensland with a demand appropriate to the output of that part of the station which the Commonwealth contribution is intended to finance.

page 1561

BORROWING IN AUSTRALIA BY OVERSEAS INTERESTS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - In the course of his statement on 1 6th September on overseas investment in Australia, the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) announced new guidelines in respect of borrowings in Australia by overseas interests. I now wish to provide more detailed information on the borrowing guidelines for the information of honourable senators, and for the guidance of companies and financial institutions concerned. The borrowing guidelines have been in operation since May 1965 when, following measures taken by the United States Administration to limit capital outflow from that country, the then Treasurer, the late Mr Harold Holt, requested overseas interests operating in Australia to consult with the Reserve Bank concerning any proposals they might have for financing their activities here by means of local borrowings. A year later, the British Government took action to limit the movement of funds from the United Kingdom to Australia.

In circumstances in which United States companies and, later British companies were being urged by their respective governments to finance investment overseas to the maximum extent possible by borrowing overseas, and in which Australian interest rates were lower than in many other countries, the initial objective of the guidelines was to avoid excessive calls being made by overseas interests on Australian sources of loan capital and substitution of local borrowings for funds that, if previous practice had been followed, would have been remitted from overseas. If borrowings in Australia by overseas interests had increased substantially, this would have led to a largely commensurate reduction in the amount of overseas funds brought into this country and therefore to a slower rate of growth of the Australian economy. It would also have made it more difficult for Australian enterprises to borrow.

Since their inception, approvals under the guidelines to borrow in Australia have been related to the amount of overseas funds invested here and to the extent of Australian equity participation in the borrowing company. In the case of wholly or substantially overseas-owned enterprises established in

Australia prior to the introduction of the guidelines, approvals to date have also taken account of the financing practices that were previously followed by the companies concerned. The broad principle has been to allow such companies to continue to have access to Australian borrowings consistent with their past financing practices, but this has been subject to certain maximum and minimum limits and to adjustment according to the extent of Australian equity participation. In the case of enterprises established subsequent to the introduction of the guidelines by or in association with overseas interests not previously operating in this country, the general principle followed to date has been that the proportion of local borrowings to total borrowings should not exceed the proportion of Australian equity to total equity. Additionally, approvals have readily been given for local borrowings for certain short-term purposes such as the financing of export transactions and fluctuating seasonal requirements.

The guidelines as they have operated to date have therefore provided a protection against undue reliance by overseas interests on borrowings in Australia and have consequently provided support for the Australian balance of payments. At the same time they have provided an inducement for overseascontrolled companies to admit or to increase Australian equity participation. Experience in their operation and changing circumstances since their introduction showed that they were in need of review. The Government’s review of the guidelines has had as a prime objective an increased inducement to overseas-controlled enterprises to admit or to increase local equity participation. A further objective has been to remove certain unsatisfactory features in regard to the equitable application of the guidelines.

Under the new guidelines announced by the Prime Minister, all enterprises in which overseas interests directly or indirectly own more than 25% of the equity are requested to consult the Reserve Bank in respect of proposals to borrow in Australia. For the purpose ‘borrowings’ include borrowings of all kinds - bank overdrafts, term loans, mortgage loans, debentures, most types of preference share issues, convertible notes, unsecured notes, deposits, inter-company loans, loans from the short-term market, and so on. Such financing arrangements as leasing finance of the type provided by finance companies and banks, vendor’s credit on property sales, and large hire purchase transactions may also need to be taken into account in particular cases.

The new guidelines take as their starting point the situation of each company as at 30th June 1969. Borrowings approved as acceptable as at that date under the old guidelines may, without further approval, be continued and re-financed as they fall due for repayment.

In relation to increases in funds requirements after 30th June 1 969, the new guidelines provide, first, for reasonable access to Australian borrowings for financing normal requirements of funds for working capital. For the purpose, working capital includes fluctuating seasonal funds requirements and bridging finance as well as continuing carry-on requirements. The individual circumstances of each case will be taken into consideration in determining the amount of borrowings for working capital considered reasonable. Cases in which working capital requirements represent a large proportion of total funds employed - a situation that commonly obtains for such enterprises as finance companies, import trading firms and construction companies - will require special consideration.

As was the position under the old guidelines, in all cases approval will readily be given in full for borrowings for that part of working capital requirements that is for the specific purpose of financing export transactions in circumstances where full payment for the goods is not received at the time of shipment of the goods.

In respect of borrowings to finance capital investment, wholly overseas-owned enterprises that are regarded as having been established in Australia for a period of 4 years or longer will in addition be allowed to borrow in Australia up to 10% of the increase in funds employed subsequent to 30th June 1969. For this purpose ‘funds employed’ means total of shareholders’ funds (including retained earnings) and other funds financed from overseas sources, plus local borrowings including bank overdraft limits but excluding borrowings to finance export transactions and other increases in working capital.

Companies wholly owned by overseas interests established in Australia for periods of less than 4 years will be allowed access to local borrowings on a basis of up to 2i% of the increase in funds employed in the foregoing sense, for each year the overseas interests have been established in Australia. Such companies will for the purpose have a moving base until the overseas interests concerned are regarded as having been established here for 4 years.

For enterprises with Australian equity participation, additional borrowings will be allowed according to the proportion of tola! equity held directly or indirectly by Australians. In respect of an enterprise’s requirement of funds additional to any new share issues, retained earnings, and local borrowings allowed under the provisions I have already explained, local borrowings will be allowed on a proportionate basis to overseas borrowings, the proportionate basis being related to the proportion of equity held by Australians. Australian equity will be weighted on a 4 for 3 basis, so that the proportion for an enterprise with 30% Australian equity, for example, will be 40%. Enterprises with 75% or more Australian equity will have unrestricted access to Australian borrowings regardless of whether Australian borrowings are accompanied by overseas borrowings.

There may be cases in which the overseas participants cannot for special reasons arrange overseas borrowings to match local borrowings on the foregoing basis. These cases will be considered in the light of all the particular circumstances. The guiding principle will be that Australian equity will increase access to local borrowings. For the purpose of calculating the extent of Australian equity, account will be taken of outright offers to Australians of new or increased equity which are not taken up but which the Reserve Bank considers to have been genuine and reasonable offers of local equity participation in the enterprise.

Convertible note issues by overseascontrolled companies to Australians represent a form of local borrowing of a special kind in that, provided the terms of the conversion option are genuine and reasonable, they confer on the Australian lenders the opportunity, which depending on circumstances might or might not be exercised, to take up equity at a future date. If and when the notes are converted, they cease of course to be a borrowing and become actual equity. Under the guidelines, convertible note issues while remaining unconverted will be treated as borrowings, but in calculating the extent of Australian equity one-half the future increase in Australian equity that would result if the notes were converted will be taken into account. If there are proposals for making convertible note issues for amounts in excess of the amounts of local borrowings qualifying for approval under the provisions I have outlined, such proposals will receive special consideration under the guidelines.

As was the case under the old guidelines, approval will not normally be given for borrowings that would facilitate the remittance of funds abroad for such purposes as the repayment of overseas borrowings and the diversion of the financing of imports from overseas to local sources. In support of long-standing exchange control policy under which overseas interests taking over or acquiring participation in Australian enterprises are required to bring in cash to the full extent of the purchase price, approval will also not normally be given to local borrowings for these purposes. In the event of an overseas takeover of an Australian company wilh outstanding local borrowings, the overseas interests concerned will be asked to consult the Reserve Bank concerning the local borrowings involved. It is not intended that overseas interests should necessarily consult the Reserve Bank on each individual proposed borrowing operation. The consultation will relate to total borrowing programmes; after approval has been given under the guidelines to a borrowing programme the detailed manner of implementing the programme, within the limits approved, will be a matter for the company concerned.

Local borrowings of up to $100,000 in total in any one year by any one overseas group will not be subject to the guidelines. Such borrowings do not in the aggregate represent significant amounts for guidelines purposes, and this exemption will operate to simplify administration.

For the information of companies concerned, I point out that it would be helpful if overseas interests, when submitting borrowing proposals to the Reserve Bank, were to furnish details of funds employed at 30th June 1969, supplemented by forward estimates of funds proposed to be employed over the period- concerned. This should include separate information on projected changes in working capital requirements and consolidated group or individual company balance sheets. Normally borrowing proposals will be considered on the basis of funds requirements during an individual financial year. In respect of proposals for the financing of projects extending over longer periods, consideration will be given in appropriate cases to the funds requirements over such longer periods. In the case of undertakings which are members of a group of overseas-controlled subsidiaries, the usual procedure is to consider borrowing proposals by any one subsidiary on the basis of consolidated balance sheets for all members of the group. This is usually more convenient for the companies concerned and it reduces the number of occasions on which referral under the guidelines is necessary. However, this may not always be appropriate and consideration will be given to dealing with submissions on an individual company basis instead of a group basis if desired by the companies concerned. 1 emphasise that the guidelines are concerned with the sources of finance for investment in Australia by overseas interests, lt is not part of the purpose of the guidelines to attempt to influence the kinds of investment undertaken by overseas interests or to make administrative judgments on the relative merits of investment projects. Nor are the guidelines used in any way to attempt to regulate the distribution of local borrowings by overseas interests or the interest rates to be paid on such borrowings. These are matters for each company concerned to decide in the light of its own circumstances and what can bc negotiated with lenders. 1’also emphasise that although the guidelines had their origins in measures taken in the United States and later in the United Kingdom, the same rules are applied to all overseas interests, whatever their country of origin.

The Government appreciates the cooperation that has been forthcoming from both borrowers and lending institutions in the administration of the guidelines to date.

We haveno doubt that this co-operation will continue, if anything in a strengthened way, in the light of the full explanation that has been given of the purposes and objectives of the guidelines and of the manner in which they will operate in the future. The new guidelines are, we believe, eminently fair and reasonable and we hope they will be accepted as such. They will remove certain unsatisfactory features of the old guidelines and will at the same time give added emphasis to the Government’s wish to encourage greater Australian equity participation in the activities of overseas enterprises in this country that are making such a major contribution to the quite spectacular rate of growth and development of our economy.

Under the new guidelines some companies will in future obtain greater access to local borrowings, and others less, in comparison with the borrowings that would have been approved on the basis of the old guidelines. The effect, in the aggregate, will depend on a great many factors and cannot be estimated with precision, but it is considered that total borrowings qualifying for approval under the new guidelines will not be significantly different from the total that would have resulted from continuance of the old guidelines.

page 1564

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

– by leave - The Senate will meet again in accordance with the requirements of the law before the Christmas break. Therefore, we will not have, as some honourable senators may have thought, the usual valedictory messages and speeches on this occasion. I move:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1564

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1564

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

page 1564

GREAT BARRIER REEF

(Question No. 1460)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Commonwealth endorsed permits for oil drilling in the Great Barrier Reef area, as stated by Queensland Government Ministers; if so, why was a sharply conflicting statement made by the Prime Minister on this matter at the Liberal Party Convention in Queensland.

Senator ANDERSON- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer:

I draw the honourable senators attention to the following answer which I gave to a question in the House of Representatives on 26th August 1969 (Hansard page 640):

I believe that the Barrier Reef, being one of the great wonders of the world, should not be in any way endangered and should not in any way run the risk of having its ecological balance disturbed, or in other ways put in jeopardy. There were a number of leases issued, as the honourable member will know, by the Queensland Government before the introduction of the arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States for off-shore petroleum. On entering into the arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States on off-shore petroleum, the existing leases which the State had given were protected. That is the situation as it stands at the present time. But I can only repeat what I said before, and which I say to the honourable member now, that anything which in any way would seem to endanger the Great Barrier Reef, not only on the question of drilling for oil, is something which should not, as far as legal possibilities are concerned, take place.

page 1564

SULPHUR

(Question No. 1491)

Senator PROWSE:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What is the landed cost of sulphur which is currently being imported.
  2. What was the average landed cost of imported sulphur in August last year.

Senator SCOTT- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The landed cost of imported sulphur for the quarter ended 30th June 1969 was $46.12 per ton.
  2. $48.04 per ton.

page 1565

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS

(Question No. 1496)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

If a person who has been a member of one of the existing health insurance funds for 15 years had one claim only in that period, for$30, and received $6 back, would this be considered just.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

Fees charged by doctors show considerable variations according to the nature of the case, the district and the status of the medical practitioners concerned. Because of the variation in the level of fees charged for a particular service it is inevitable that cases will arise where the total benefit paid will fall short of a reasonable proportion of the fee charged. These cases may arise from some special or unusual circumstance or because a doctor makes a charge higher than that customarily made for the particular service. The Government is well aware of this problem. The Nimmo Committee has made certain recommendations designedto bridge the gap between the cost of services received and the insurance benefits payable. One of the main questions to be resolved is the concept of common medical fees. There is a basic agreement between the Government, the Australian Medical Association and the health insurance funds that the general concept of common fees can be made to work. The Government has already begun talks with the AMA and it is hopeful of a worthwhile outcome. When the common fee concept is introduced, it will help to bridge the gap between benefit entitlements and actual fees and give health insurance contributors a greater degree of certainty about their costs than exists at present.

page 1565

GREAT BARRIER REEF

(Question No. 1497)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In view of his reported statement, on 26th August 1969, that the Great Barrier Reef should not be endangered in any way, will the Prime Minister comment upon a statement by the Queensland Premier in which he is reported to have expressed his surprise at the Prime Minister’s statement, as offshore oil search leases had been confirmed under joint Commonwealth-State legislation.

Senator ANDERSON- The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer:

I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the answer whichI gave to a question in the House of Representatives on 26th August 1969 (Hansard page 640).

page 1565

PURCHASE OF TELEVISION AND CINEMA FILMS

Question No. 1499)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

How much has been spent by Australia, and in what countries, on the purchase of (a) television films and (b) feature or cinema films, from foreign countries, in each of the years since 1962.

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The following table shows allocations of overseas exchange whichI am informed have been authorised since 1962-63 for the purchase of films for television programme material and for other exhibition purposes. Statistics are not available for payments to individual countries. However, the undermentioned payments to the sterling area and non-sterling area would be predominantly for material of United Kingdom and U.S.A. origin respectively.

page 1565

COMMONWEALTH ADVERTISING

(Question No. 1504)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What advertising agencies have undertaken contracts for Commonwealth Government Departments and Commonwealth instrumentalities in each of the last 10 years.
  2. What percentage of total Commonwealth advertising has been given to each agency in each of the last 10 years.
  3. What amount has been paid to each agency in each of the last 10 years.
  4. What is the extent of foreign ownership and control of, and the percentage of overseas shareholding in each advertising agency which has done work for a Commonwealth Government Department and/or instrumentality in each of the last 10 yea rs.

Senator ANDERSON- The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Advertising for Commonwealth Departments is distributed widely among accredited advertising agencies according to type of service required, capabilities of particular agencies and the resourcesthey are able to make available. The Commonwealth Advertising Council, whose members are principals of leading agencies, provide advice on technical aspects of advertising and facilities through which commissions and fees earned are distributed. Some statutory authorities which are not subject to the Audit Act make their own arrangements direct with agencies.

With the exception of service fees which are minor, the Commonwealth makes no payments to advertising agencies. Proprietors ofthe various media carrying Commonwealth advertising allow to accredited agencies a percentage commission on advertising they have placed. These commissions and service fees are accumulated in a Trust Fund by the Commonwealth Advertising Council and periodically disbursed to agencies in proportion to work done after deductions have been made to cover costs of administering the fund.

The Commonwealth maintains no records of commission earnings by agencies but the following table showing agencies employed on Commonwealth advertising during the year ended 30th June 1968 was made available by the Council for submission to the Joint Select Committee on Public Accounts which recently held an inquiry into Commonwealth advertising:

Details of agency commissions disbursed by the Advertising Council which would also give an approximate indication of the percentage allocation of Commonwealth advertising among the agencies, could only be extracted from the Council’s accounting records. Ifthe Senator wishesI shall ask the Treasurer to have his officers discuss with the Council the question of making the information available.

  1. This information is not recorded by the Commonwealth Advertising Division but the proportion of non-Australian ownership of advertising agencies is believed to be fairly high.

page 1566

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION

(Question No. 1511)

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

Will the Minister call for a feasibility study by the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission on the enlargement of its activities to provide a return air-cushion vessel service from Tasmania via Flinders Island to Victoria with a view to encouraging the shipbuilding industry in Tasmania.

Senator SCOTT - The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

The Government has been approached by the Tasmanian Government to establish a joint committee comprising representatives of the Commonwealth, Victorian and Tasmanian Governments to study the feasibility of establishing an air-cushion link between Tasmania, Flinders Island and Victoria. The matter is currently under examination.

Consideration is also being given to a study which has been undertaken by a Tasmanian firm, Air Cushion Vehicles (Aust.) Pty Ltd of Launceston.

Apart from the question of building air-cushion vessels, the establishment of a shipbuilding industry in Tasmania is a matter for consideration by the Tasmanian Government and whatever appropriate commercial organisations may be interested.

At this stage, therefore, it seems an unnecessary duplication of work for the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission to undertake a similar study.

page 1567

COMMONWEALTH CAR POOL IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 1514)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of hire car agencies which are usedto supplement the activities of the Commonwealth car pool in South Australia.
  2. What arc the terms and conditions of the contracts under which they operate.
  3. Have any agencies had contracts cancelled for reasons other than hiring rates.
  4. Are successful applicants required to meet proper standards of vehicle operations and does the quality of the service or vehicles have any weight in deciding contracts.
  5. In each of the past 2 years, what was the percentage of journeys made by (a) hire cars and (b) Commonwealth cars, and what was the aggregate number of miles involved. (6)Isit a fact that regular departmentaldrivers are not being replaced, and that an increasing number of Commonwealth vehicles are being driven by other than the regular uniformed staff. (7)In each of the past 3 years, what has been the total establishment of regularly employed drivers, including uniformed staff, and the numbers of vehicles driven by supervisors or other administrative personnel.
  6. Is any redundancy of Commonwealth drivers likely during the next 12 months.

Senator ANDERSON - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. There are two contracts at the present lime for the supply of passenger transportto supple ment the service provided by the Commonwealth car pool in South Australia.

The contracts are with:

  1. Yellow Cabs (S.A.) Ltd for services in Adelaide and suburbs; and

  2. Varney’s Taxi Service for service-, in the Salisbury area.

    1. The following summarises the principal provisions of each contract:
  3. The contract with Yellow Cabs (S.A.)L td provides for work to be done uptoan estimated cost of $121,840 for the 12 monthsto 31st July 1970; the contract with Varney’s Taxi Service provides for work to an estimated cost of $16,000 for the 12 months to 31st August 1970.

  4. Orders for requirements arc placed by the Manager. Stores and Transport Branch of the Department of Supply or his representative and the standard of service is covered by the following provisions in contracts:

    1. The Service shall be carried outto the satisfaction of the Ordering Officer and in accordance with the special conditions described hereunder.
    2. The taxi-cabs used and drivers employed for the performance of the contract shall conformwith the requirements of the Taxi-cab regulations, in all relevant respects particularly in regard to the registration and insurance of vehicles and the licensing of drivers. The Service shall operate in full accordance with all appropriate regulations, by-laws, etc. as laid down by local Government or other Statutory Authority.
    3. Notwithstanding anything else herein contained, the Ordering Officer is authorised hereby:
  5. to reject any vehicle which he may consider to be unfit orunsuitable for the performance of the particular service required.
  6. to reject any vehiclethe driver of which he considersto be unsuitably dressed.
  7. (i) Each company is required to insure and keep themselves insured with an insurance company approved by the Commonwealth against all actions, proceedings, claims and demands of any nature or kind whatsoever which any person may have or claim to have in respect of death or bodily injury or damage to property arising out of or in any way incidental to the performance of this contract.
  8. The insurance policy in respect of death or bodily injury shall be for an unlimited sum andthe policy in respect of damage to property shall be for a sum not less than$2,000.
  9. (i) Each company is required to indemnify and keep indemnified the

Commonwealth, its officers, servants and agents against all actions, proceedings, claims and demands of every nature or kind whatsoever which any person may have or claim to have in respect of or arising outof or in any way incidental to the performance of its contract.

  1. Each company shall be liable to the Commonwealth for all damage to property owned by the Commonwealth caused by the company, its servants or agents during the course of the contract.

  2. In the event of failure of a company to provide service in accordance with the contract standard as and when required, the Ordering Officer may obtain the services from any other source whatsoever, and any extra expense together with any loss sustained by the Commonwealth as a result of the company’s failure to provide such service shall be chargeable against the company and recoverable under the contract.

    1. In 1967 a contract was cancelled with the agreement of the Company concerned after it was shown over a period that the Company could not handle the work given to it by the Commonwealth.
    2. Successful applicants are required to meet proper standards of vehicle operation and the quality of the service and vehicles together with quoted rates have weight in deciding contracts.
    3. 1967-68-
    1. Hire Cars -

Adelaide and metropolitan area - 50%

Salisbury area - 46%

  1. Commonwealth cars -

Adelaide and metropolitan area - 50%

Salisbury area - 54%

1968- 69-

  1. Hire Cars -

Adelaide and metropolitan area - 50%

Salisbury area- 45%

  1. Commonwealth cars -

Adelaide and metropolitan area - 50%

Salisbury area - 55%

Actual mileages run on this type of work are not readily available.

  1. Vehicles operating from the car pool are not driven by other than uniformed drivers. It is not a fact that regular departmental drivers are not being replaced. In the past 2 years the number of such drivers in Adelaide has increased from 57 to 60. However, at the same time the number of departmental passenger carrying vehicles on hire without driver has also increased as is indicated by the figures hereunder.
  2. The establishment numbers of regular departmental drivers of passenger carrying vehicles in Adelaide for the past 3 years are:

1967-68-57

1968-69- 59

1969- 70-60

The establishment numbers of departmental passenger carrying vehicles on hire without drivers throughout the whole of South Australia, including Woomera, for the past 3 years are:

1967- 68-329

1968- 69-345

1969- 70-360

  1. No redundancy of departmental drivers is likely in Adelaide over the next 12 months.

page 1568

SHIPBUILDING

(Question No. 1515)

Senator LILLICO:

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

  1. Has the Minister noted the recent statement by Sir John Williams, Chairman of the Australian National Line, in which he said that delays in shipbuilding in Australia are disastrous and that a ship which takes 3½ years to build in Australia can be built in 9 months in Japan, and very often ships built in that time in Japan are larger.
  2. What is the reason for this very great disparity in the time of building, which must obviously be penalising the Australian shipbuilding industry and seriously jeopardising its further expansion.

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

  1. Yes. At the opening of the Australian National Line’s new terminal facilities in Townsville on 15th August 1969, Sir John Williams referred to delays being experienced by the Line with the delivery of its three ‘Searoader’ vessels at present under construction. These delays have been overcome and the delivery dates for these ships are now expected to be early October and mid-December 1969, and April 1970.

While delivery delays have occurred in the Australian industry, recent performances overall have been quite satisfactory. Of the last ten ships completed to the order of the Australian Shipbuilding Board, five were handed over on time or earlier than the contract delivery date, including force majeure extensions; two were only 1 or 2 days late while three were between two and a half weeks and 2 months late.

  1. Japanese construction times are often misleading when compared with Australian delivery times because they are based on the time of construction on the building berth and, generally, do not take into account the time of pre-production preparation.

Nevertheless, Japanese construction times arc consistently shorter. This can be attributed to the greater capacity of the industry and the continuous use made of facilities which enable, amongst other things, the employment of large numbers of planning and purchasing staff and the holding of larger stocks of steel plate and ship engines. The full utilisation of available labour through shiftwork, and the investment in highly mechanised plant are other factors which contribute to the reduction of delays to a minimum.

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister:

  1. Will the Government take immediate steps to lodge a strong protest with the French Government against any more nuclear tests in the Pacific.
  2. Is the fallout rate in North Queensland, more than thirteen times the accumulation rate in Tasmania.
  3. Will the Prime Minister undertake to have extensive medical tests carried out on young children in North Queensland to ascertain whether any long term physical damage has been caused by the high rate of nuclear fallout in that area.

Senator ANDERSON- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Australian Government has consistently opposed French atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific, and will continue to do so. The French Government is aware of this attitude.

As regards the remainder of the honourable senator’s question the National Radiation Advisory Committee has informed me as follows:

  1. No. The fallout rate in North Queensland is very similar to that over most of continental Australia. Tasmania, however, happens to be an area of particularly low fallout from French weapons tests. The factor of 13 which is mentioned by Senator Keeffe refers only to one special radioisotope in fresh fallout - Iodine 131.

However, as radio-iodine has a short half-life of only 8 days it decays very quickly. It therefore contributes very little to total fallout effects.

It happens that, for geographical and climatological reasons this isotope was deposited rather more heavily in Northern Queensland than elsewhere in Australia and there was, in fact, a factor of 13 between the two areas, Northern Queensland and Tasmania, in relation to the estimated thyroid doses for young children due to Iodine 131 in milk consumed following the nuclear weapons tests by France in Polynesia in 1967 and 1968.

Nevertheless, the maximum thyroid dose of Iodine 131 accumulated in any 12-month period in Northern Queensland during 1967 and 1968 was only one-seventh of the limit considered safe by the N.R.A.C.

  1. After assessing the biological aspects of fallout in Australia from the French Nuclear Weapons Explosions in the Pacific, the N.R.A.C. stated that ‘fallout over Australia from the 1968 French weapons tests is of no significance as a hazard to the health of the Australian population’. In reaching this conclusion the N.R.A.C. took particular care to assess the thyroid uptake of Iodine 131 in young children.

In view of these facts it will be seen to be quite unnecessary to undertake any tests on children in Northern Queensland.

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister:

  1. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to a letter in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 10th September 1969 by a Melbourne art consultant, Mr Joseph Brown, pointing out that Australia is one of the few countries in the world where no legislation exists to ensure that works of art of historic or national importance are not sold overseas without approval from an appropriate authority.
  2. Is Mr Brown’s concern shared by the Acting Director of the Victorian National Gallery, who has described the exporting of Australian Art treasures, amounting last year to $2. 3m, as ‘something of a scandal’.
  3. Why has the Government allowed this ‘art drain’ to take place over the years.
  4. Is it not time the Government showed some concern for the quality of life in Australia and for the preservation of irreplaceable and significant items in our cultural heritage.

Senator ANDERSON - The Prime Minister has supplied me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) The question of the need for control over the export of Australian works of art is being considered by an interdepartmental committee. Inquiries are currently being made about existing relevant legislation in the States and overseas.

Consideration of this matter involves the rights of individuals as well as the national interest and I would not expect an easy or an early solution.

page 1569

NUCLEAR TESTS

(Question No. 1524)

page 1569

WORKS OF ART

(QuestionNo. 1526)

page 1569

PAPERBACKS

(Question No. 1540)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Apart from censorship standards, doest he Minister exercise any other control over imported paperback publications.
  2. Will the Minister investigate the recent action of the New English Library, which charged $1.15 for a paperback publication of 224 pages.
  3. Is it a fact that virtually all other paperback publications exceed 300 pages before being defined as ‘Giant’ paperbacks, costing more than 80 cents.

Senator SCOTT- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Apart from censorship and formal entry requirements the only control the Commonwealth has over imported paperback publications is that arising out of the Copyright Act 1968. Action under this legislation can be taken when the owner of a copyright notifies the Comptroller-General of Customs that he objects to the importation of particular books.
  2. There is no Commonwealth control over either the price or size of paperback publications. In the circumstances therefore, an investigation would serve no useful purpose.
  3. This information is not available as no statistics relating to the size of paperbacks are maintained by the Department.

page 1570

COMMONWEALTH ADVERTISING COUNCIL

(Question No. 1545)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Commonwealth Advertising Council and from which advertising companies arc they appointed.
  2. Are any of the advertising companies represented on the Council foreign-owned or subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.
  3. How, and by whom, are departmental budgets for advertising determined.
  4. Who is responsible for initialing and approving government advertising campaigns.
  5. Is any check made of results of advertising to see whether the expenditure involved is warranted.
  6. How is Commonwealth advertising allocated amongst the advertising companies operating in Australia, and who determines such allocation.
  7. Does an agency need to have specific qualifications to obtain Commonwealth advertising contracts; if so, what are the qualifications.

Senator ANDERSON- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Mr W. S. Gilbert (Chairman)

Coudrey Gotham Associates Ply Ltd. New South Wales

Mr W. Currie (Deputy Chairman)

Berry Currie Advertising (NSW) Pty Ltd, New South Wales

Mr W. Carter

Gordon and Gotch (A/asia) Ltd, New South Wales

Mr D. M. Clay

N.A.S. (Sydney)Pty Ltd, New South Wales Mr A. Collett

Arthur Collett Advertising, Western Australia

Mr J. L. Crane

Hayes Advertising Pty Ltd, Victoria

Mr L. W. Farnsworth

George Patterson Pty Ltd. New South Wales

Mr J. P. Goulstone

U. S. P. Benson Pty Ltd, Victoria

Mr L. E. Grace

Jackson Wain & Company Pty Ltd, New South Wales

Mr J. Le Grand

Le Grand Advertising Pty Ltd, Queensland

Mr W. R. McFerran, M.B.E.

Claude Moony Advertising Pty, Ltd, Victoria

Mr J. Newell

Jackson Wain (Tasmania) Pty Ltd, Tasmania

Mr W. R. Taylor

Clem Taylor Advertising Ply Ltd, South Australia

Mr T. B. Wallace

Lintas Pty Ltd, New South Wales

Mr H. Woolf

Masius, Wynne-Williams Goldberg Pty Ltd, New South Wales.

  1. Some of the companies represented on the Council are known to be associated with overseas principals but complete details are not at present available to me.
  2. Departments include in their estimates of expenditure for each financial year provision for the cost of advertising based on forecasts of requirements made by their officers. The departmental estimates are subject to Ministerial approval, Treasury scrutiny and appropriation by Parliament.
  3. Advertising campaigns are initiated by the departments concerned and expenditures are subject to the normal approval by the Minister or his delegate.
  4. It is the responsibility of the initiating department to see that expenditure on advertising is justified by results achieved. In some cases the Commonwealth Advertising Division has been asked to make assessments and give advice.
  5. Creative advertising work is allocated to accredited advertising agencies according to type of service required, capabilities of particular agencies and the resources they are able to make available. Work associated with placing and charging is handled by Placing/ Charging agencies appointed by the Commonwealth.
  6. Commonwealth advertising is allocated only through bona fide advertising agencies accredited by Australian media accreditation authorities.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 22nd May, Senator Webster asked me, as Leader of the Government, the following question without notice:

Does the Leader of the Government feel that Australia, together with world food agencies, is doing all that is possible to achieve an acceptable distribution of food supplies to those people who are said to be living at starvation levels? Can he refer to any report that indicates a decrease in the number of people throughout the world who are said to be suffering from malnutrition? As certain primary industries in Australia feel it is essential that the production of essential foods should be curtailed, is this not an obvious indictment of this country for its inability, together with others, to solve the greatest problem of the world today? Will the Minister alert the Australian Government to the importance of Australia giving urgent consideration to taking a world lead in this matter with a view to bringing about a new deal in the distribution of food supplies throughout the world?

I said that the question deserved a detailed answer to explain Australia’s role in the provision of food aid. I have obtained the following information from the Acting Minister for External Affairs: Since the food crisis period of 1965 and 1966. when the production of major food grains in several less developed countries, and notably India, Pakistan and Ceylon, fell significantly, the situation has improved both through increased production in the developing countries and through the food aid policies of some developed countries.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has estimated that the 5% rise in food production in the developing countries in 1967 was the largest for many years and on a per capita basis made up much of the ground lost in 1965 and 1966. Present estimates by the FAO show a rise of 3% in food production in the developing countries in 1968. No data is available for 1969, but the FAO expects a further rise this year if seasonal conditions remain favourable. The recovery in agricultural production is not only due to more favourable weather conditions. An important factor has been the more systematic and widespread use of agricultural inputs. This has included the application of fertilisers on a large scale and the introduction of improved seed varieties, particularly the new high-yielding varieties of wheat, rice, corn and sorghum.

In many developing countries agricultural investment now takes up a larger share than ever before in national budgets. Aid programmes - multilateral and bilateral, public and private - are supplementing the efforts of developing countries to help themselves in meeting their food requirements. The most important factor is the community efforts which the less developed countries themselves are making. Many experts believe that further increases in agricultural output in the developing countries can be expected in the future, although the uncertainty of weather conditions will, of course, affect the situation from year to year. The Director-General of the FAO, Mr Boerma, has stated recently that improvements in the world food situation ‘gave grounds for cautious optimism’.

The Australian Government’s policy towards food aid is that it should be given to meet genuine requirements in recipient countries, lt should not be seen merely as a means of disposing of surplus production but in response to the needs of developing countries. Also, the Government docs not wish to hinder agricultural development in recipient countries by causing a lowering of price of agricultural products, brought about by the increased supply and hence giving rise to disincentive effects upon local producers and discouraging them from using more fertilisers and new seed varieties. Food aid has to be part of a balanced aid programme which includes funds for agricultural development in the regions concerned, the sending of experts to assist in expanding agricultural production and the offering of scholarships for people to train in agricultural science in Australia.

Australia has provided significant amounts of food aid since the inception of the Colombo Plan in 1950. The most recent and largest gifts have been the four gifts of wheat and other foodstuffs to India valued at $33,224,000 to help alleviate the effects of the droughts in 1965 and 1966. Under the Food Aid Convention, which forms an integral part of the International Grains Arrangement, Australia has a formal obligation to contribute, over the period 1st July 1968, to 30th June 1971, 225,000 metric tons of food grain annually to developing countries. Australia’s contribution represents 5% of the total contribution. A Food Aid Committee, whose membership comprises the food donor countries, supervises the functioning of food aid arrangements, and examines the manner in which obligations under the food aid programme have been fulfilled.

Australia’s contribution is a significant one by comparison with other countries and in relation to our population and national income. Australia not only made this commitment under the Food Aid Convention but has actively implemented it. In .1968-69 Australia contributed 224,080 metric tons of wheat or flour equivalent valued at $A 11.8m to India. Indonesia, Ceylon, Pakistan, Fiji, Korea, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

In addition to the FAO commitment which is administered on a bilateral basis, Australia has contributed to multilateral food aid under the World Food Programme. The objective is to use food aid lo support economic and social development projects in the recipient countries. Commodities can be used as part payment of workers wages in labour intensive projects, to supplement the diet of farmers while land settlement projects are getting under way or as food-stuffs in annual husbandry projects. The WFP’s resources also provide emergency relief to countries and people affected by natural disasters, as well as supplementary feeding programmes for children in developing countries. The Australian pledge for the 2-year period 1969-70 amounted to $US 1,650,000 which represented an increase of 10% over its annual rate of contribution during the preceding period.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 26th August, Senator Webster asked me as Minister representing the Prime Minister, what the Government envisaged in relation to the proposed film and television training school provided for in the 1969-70 Budget. The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I announced in my statement of 13th August that the Government had provided $100,000 in this year’s Budget for the establishment of an Interim Council to investigate and report on the form and location of a National Film and Television Training School. The membership of the Interim Council is to be announced shortly. When the report of the Council is received, further and more detailed consideration will be given to this matter.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 26th August, Senator Buttfield asked me to bring to the Prime Minister’s attention the suitability of setting up the proposed film and television training school in South Australia. The Prime Minister has provided me with the following comment on the honourable senator’s question:

I announced in my statement of 13th August that the Government had provided, in this year’s Budget, an amount of $100,000 for the establishment of an Interim Council to investigate and report on the form and location of a National Film and Television Training School, f have no doubt that, when examining the prospective location for the school, the Interim Council will give the fullest consideration to the respective advantages to be found in each State.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yesterday, Senator Devitt asked me a question concerning possible cuts in Australian exports of beef to the United States of America. The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following reply:

  1. Whilst there are restraints exercised with respect to imports of beef, veal and mutton into the United States, exports of Australian meat to that market this year are at the highest level since 1963 and returns from these sales are expected to be the highest ever realised.
  2. The Government is fully aware of the importance of the United States market lo all meat exporting Stales, including Tasmania. The United States Administration is kept closely informed on the importance of that market to Australia and the problems created if exports have to be suspended for a period.

page 1570

WORLD FOOD SUPPLIES

page 1572

FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

page 1572

FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

page 1572

BEEF EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

page 1572

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

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

– Mr Deputy President, I move:

In speaking to the motion, I simply wish to say that a general election will be held on 25th October which by nature of the Constitution does not affect the personal membership of the Senate. But we have in the Senate two honourable senators who are filling casual Senate vacancies and who will be going to the electors on the same day as the general election for the other place is held. Whilst we are putting politics to one side in these matters, I am sure that, within the limits of our political convictions, we all wish those honourable senators well. Speaking for the Government side, I know that we would hope to see those honourable senators back here again as robust as they usually are.

I know that we all recognise that, while the role of the Senate is somewhat different from that of the other place, nevertheless it is a tremendously stimulating thing to be a member of the Senate. I think that we can all take pride as senators that in this place we represent the people of Australia. I know that this is a situation where politics inevitably must intrude and does intrude in terms of personalities. But, speaking on behalf of the Government, without getting into the area of politics, 1 do wish to say that we express the hope, the wish and the confidence to those honourable senators that they will be returned to us when next we meet in this place.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to join in some of the remarks, but not all of the remarks, made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson).I am sure that we have enjoyed the company of the honourable senators who are occupying casual Senate vacancies. We hope that their experience in the Senate has been a good one for them. As those honourable senators come from the Government side and not from my side of the Senate, I cannot wish that their term be extended any further. I trust that they have enjoyed the experience and that that experience will be continued by two members of my own Party.

It has been a very heavy sitting of the Senate. As a mark of that fact, I might point out that reports have been presented by Committees of this Senate, I think, in unprecedented number. During the current sitting, there have been ten parliamentary committees which have made a total of thirty-one reports to the Senate. Those reports were presented by Committees of the Senate and by Joint Committees. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard a document setting out those reports to the Senate by Committees. It reads:

page 1573

REPORTS TO THE SENATE BY COMMITTEES

During the current Budget sittings, ten parliamentary committees have made a total of thirtyone Reports to the Senate, as follows:

page 1573

SENATE COMMITTEES

Select Committee on Air Pollution: Report on air pollution in Australia and methods of combatting it.

Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs: Report of the Committee.

Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir: Report on the operation and sale of the abattoir.

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances:

Twenty-sixth Report: general report on the Committee’s activities.

Twenty-seventh Report: recommending the disallowance of certain Defence Forces Financial Regulations.

Twenty-eighth Report: 1st to 26th Reports with index and appendices.

Select Committee on Water Pollution: Progress report on the Committee’s activities.

Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources: Progress Report on the Committee’s activities.

Standing Orders Committee: two Reports on amendments to the Standing Orders.

page 1573

JOINT COMMITTEES

Public Accounts Committee: five reports on the finances of various government departments.

Public Works Committee: fourteen reports on various public works schemes.

Printing Committee: two reports on papers to be printed.

I know that we are to return here before Christmas at a time which, I trust, will be fixed by what is now the Opposition and not by the Government.I hope that on the occasion of the Christmas farewell, someone from this side will be speaking in the position from which the Leader of the Government now speaks. Whatever the political fortunes may turn out to be, this Parliament has contributed a great deal. I should like to express my thanks to those who have presided over this House, whether in the Senate, in Committees of the Whole or, for that matter, in the select committees of the Senate. I express my thanks also to the officers and staff but I will not say any more than that because we do not want to have now the valedictories which are delivered at Christmas time.

I am grateful that this has been a full term for me as Leader of the Opposition. I have enjoyed the relationship of cooperation and often tolerance which has existed between the Government and the Opposition generally and between (he Leaders on both sides. I thank my Deputy Leader and my Whips without whose assistnce the work could not be done. We hope to be here again shortly with many new faces in the other place and perhaps several here. Until then I wish all honourable senators well.

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

– I think I have sufficient voice to express a few thoughts with regard to the work that we have done during this sessional period and with regard to the future of the Senate following the election for the House of Representatives on 25th October.

This has been a fairly heavy session and I believe that much of the legislation will be of great value. Mention has been made of co-operation. I think that both the

Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) are indebted to members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party for the co-operation that we have given because, in the position that we occupy, no submission of the Government and nothing that the Opposition advances as an amendment can be carried without our support. So both the Government and the Opposition are dependent on the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

There was reference to the impending election. I point out that we can go into the election knowing that our numbers cannot be decreased. Instead, there is a chance that our numbers will be increased. I am speaking now not only of the Senate but in the overall as well. We have no fears that our numbers will be reduced at this election but we can look forward with some optimism to the possibility that our numbers will be increased. On the other hand, the Government could have an alteration in its personnel because two of its members in the Senate have to face their masters on 25th October. Whether they will be returned is a matter for the people. In the other place both major parties may win some seats but they run the risk of losing some.

We are not in that position. As I have said, we can only increase our numbers. I. have been in political life since 1932 - that is a long time ago - and I have learned that there is never an election, just as there is never a battle, without casualties. I can recall only one election when both the Government and the Opposition were returned without the loss of a seat. There were no defeats on either side. That was in a Queensland election some years ago. In the present circumstances we cannot look forward to that, lt is most unlikely that it will happen. There will be defeats and there will be victories.

No doubt the election will be fought with great vigour. The campaign will not be free of inaccuracies, to put it mildly, or political lies and exaggeration. Of course the most important ingredient in the election will be the great competition in promises. Whether the people will be gullible enough to fall for all the promises that will be made remains to be seen. The ballot box will answer that question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.41 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 September 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690926_senate_26_s42/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant