Senate
18 March 1970

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- CIGARETTE SMOKING
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- GORTON MINISTRY
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES
QUESTION
- ABORIGINALS
QUESTION
- HEALTH
QUESTION
- MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES
QUESTION
- SHIPBUILDING
QUESTION
- GORTON MINISTRY
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT FACTORY
QUESTION
- YUENDUMU RESERVE
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY
QUESTION
- FARMERS UNION CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- HYPNOTISTS
QUESTION
- OIL POLLUTION
QUESTION
- CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- LONG SERVICE LEAVE
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT PARTIES
QUESTION
- DRUGS
QUESTION
- FLATS FOR MIGRANTS
QUESTION
- AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- YUENDUMU RESERVE
QUESTION
- YIRRKALA ABORIGINALS
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES
QUESTION
- CIGARETTE SMOKING
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES
QUESTION
- BOUGAINVILLE
QUESTION
- STANDARD GAUGE RAILWAYS
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH ADVERTISING
QUESTION
- FILMS
QUESTION
- HMAS ‘LEEUWIN
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH CARS
QUESTION
- HARRIER VTOL AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- AIRPORT SECURITY
ABORIGINALS
- Formal Motion for Adjournment
NAVIGATION BILL 1970
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
- Aboriginals - Fire Escape Facilities. Administration Building, Canberra - Butterworth Air Base, Malaysia
- Fire Station, No. 1
- Forrest, Canberra, 25th June 1969
- The Branch Secretary,
- Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association,
- Commonwealth Public Service,
- A.C.O.A. House,
- Cnr. Blackall & Macquarie Streets,
- Barton, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600
- Mr N. H. Butler,
- Dear Sir,
- Rooms 1-20 First Floor Administrative Building, Parkes, A.C.T
CHIEF OFFICER
- Mr P. Nixon,
- Parliament House,
CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600
- Dear Mr Nixon,
- Branch Secretary

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

page 367

QUESTION

CIGARETTE SMOKING

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Does the Minister recall the promises that were made by the Government a number of years ago to introduce laws and to confer with the States to see whether an educational programme could be instituted against the smoking of cigarettes? Does she recall the many occasions when the Government said that it would consider doing something about cigarette advertisements on radio and television? ls the Minister aware that the United States Senate recently passed a Bill to outlaw cigarette advertisements on radio and television? When will the Government do something positive to protect the health of the people of Australia, especially the young people, by entering upon a public health campaign to warn the people against the known dangers and to curb the advertising on radio and television which is promoting the use of goods dangerous to the health of the people?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 recall very well the questions which Senator Murphy has asked previously. Other honourable senators from his Party and from this side of the Senate, Senator Turnbull and members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party also have referred to this problem. In reply to them 1 have said that I know there have been conferences between State and Commonwealth Ministers on this subject. This is a recognition of the problems which it brings about. I have assured honourable senators that any further information which is made available by my colleague the Minister for Health will be given to them immediately.

WAR SERVICE HOMES

page 368

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs. I seek information about a question listed on the notice paper which I asked a long time ago. The question is in this form:

How much of the total allocation for Aboriginal welfare, for the year 1968-69, remained unspent as at 30th June 1969?

I now ask whether it is a fact that the Minister has no proper accounting system within the Department and whether the information cannot be made available because of this fact.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will endeavour to obtain this information for the honourable senator. I have endeavoured so to do already. I shall again take up the matter with the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs.

page 369

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Because Australian doctors have indicated their dissatisfaction with the patched up health scheme produced by the Minister for Health, will the Minister representing that Minister tell the Senate how the Government will meet the doctors’ confrontation threat not to co-operate? As the scheme will cost the taxpayers twice as much as the figure given by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, what will the Government do now to ensure that the scheme will not collapse completely? If both parties persist in their attitude, when will the long suffering people get a scheme which will meet their requirements and which will be within their means?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator, in asking this question of my colleague the Minister for Health, Dr Forbes, rather implied that the scheme will not be successful. I make this point initially: I believe that it is tremendously important for us all to remember that the main thing with which the Government is concerned is the health and care of the people. I believe that 1 speak for the medical people when I say that the Australian Medical Association also is concerned with the health of the people. Yesterday the Minister released a Press statement on his meeting with members of the AMA. I believe that it would be worthwhile to give details of this Press statement. It reads:

He said he would have studies made of matters raised by the AMA on aspects of the lists of most common medical fees previously supplied to the Government by the association.

Dr Forbes said that at a meeting today, representatives of the AMA had asked that changes should be made to some of the most common fees previously agreed for services performed by both general practitioner and specialist doctors.

He said the Government was willing to review any matters of fact raised by the AMA about the list of most common fees. He had therefore agreed to the reconvening this afternoon of a joint AMAdepartmental working party to look at information supplied to him at the meeting this morning.

Dr Forbes said he had made it clear to the AMA representatives that while the Government was quite willing to consider new information on fees charged by general practitioners and specialists, it was firmly committed to the principle that patients should receive medical benefit rebates based on the fees which were in fact most commonly charged by doctors.

He added: ‘This principle stems from the Government’s resolve to provide adequate financial coverage for patients against the cost of all, and not just a section of, medical charges’.

Senator POYSER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and/or the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has either Minister received representations from the Geelong Chamber of Commerce requesting that flats be erected in that city for the housing of newly arriving migrants? If so, has any decision yet been reached on those representations?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– No knowledge of such a suggestion has come to me.

Senator Poyser:

– Will the Minister make inquiries?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I will ascertain whether the Minister for Labour and National Service has received any such representations, and let the honourable senator know.

page 373

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Supply. I refer to his promise to bring before the Senate current information on the state of the Australian aircraft industry and on the achievement of offset orders for the Australian industry in relation to defence procurements overseas. When is it likely that this information on the current position of the industry will be brought before the Senate?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Currently a series of interdepartmental discussions in relation to offset orders is going on. As I indicated in the Senate, last week I think it was, we had a visitation from executives of the Boeing aircraft company during which we were able to set up a situation in which certain Australian industry groups are going to Seattle to study a series of packages for the purpose of bidding. But that answers only part of the question Senator Bishop has asked. I hope to be in a position to make a comprehensive statement when we resume after the Easter recess. While I am on my feet, Mr President, perhaps I should inform honourable senators that I had intended to make today a statement in relation to Australia’s role in outer space and our responsibilities with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America. However, I have elected not to make that statement today because, as honourable senators have been advised, we are under some pressure to pass certain legislation within the next 48 hours. I therefore propose to delay making that statement until the week in which we resume after the Easter recess.

CIGARETTE SMOKING

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

– I have a question for the Minister representing the Minister for Health. How does the Minister correlate her statement in answer to a question about health, that is, that the first consideration ot the Government and the Minister for

Health was the health of Australians, with the complete lack ‘ of activity in regard to the harmful effects of smoking on Australians? Is it true that a member of her Party resigned his seat in the House of Representatives to become a paid lobbyist for one or more of the tobacco companies?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Dealing with the second part of the question, I am sorry that I do not know to whom the honourable senator is referring and therefore cannot answer the question. I just do not know to whom the honourable senator refers. In the first part of the question the honourable senator said that I had commented on the concern that the Minister for Health felt for the health of the people of Australia and he asked why, therefore, the Minister had done nothing more about people who smoke. However much information a government gives out and however much information a doctor gives to his patients about the dangers of smoking, there are people who will still continue to smoke. I do not think it can be said that it is the fault of the Minister for Health if people continue to smoke, nor would I ever blame a medical man if his patients continued to smoke.

– Senator Georges would do well to listen to this because he might have inquiries. As a result of the greater demand for loans it will be necessary to delay the settlement of some applications, notably applications in respect of existing properties, which ordinarily would be settled in May or June. New applicants seeking finance to purchase existing properties are being advised that there will be a waiting time of approximately 6 months from the date of their applications before settlement can be expected. The normal processing time is 4 months so this is an added 2 months only. Loans for building and other purposes are not affected by the change in arrangements. I cannot give the honourable senator any further information regarding the individual case but the information that I have given him and the other 2 honourable senators covers the overall picture.

page 376

QUESTION

BOUGAINVILLE

(Question No. 44)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Why will a royalty of only1½% 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.
Why is the low rate of only 5% 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:

The answer to the honourable senator was provided in Question 1441 which is to be found on page 1507 of Hansard for the 26th September 1969. The position remains the same.

page 376

QUESTION

STANDARD GAUGE RAILWAYS

(Question No. 58)

Senator BISHOP:

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

When will the report by Consultants into South Australian gauge conversion be the subject of discussion and determination by the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments.
Does the Commonwealth accept that substantial conversion to standard gauge, on the South Australian Railway system, is necessary in addition to the Adelaide-Port Pirie link.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The report is almost finalised. A near-final draft, complete except for some final figures, has been given to the Commonwealth and South

Australian Governments to enable work onit to be started. Urgent consideration is now being given to the contents.

This aspect will be considered in the light of the contents of the report

page 376

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 80)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In cases of deportation effected under section 21 (3.) of the Migration Act 1958-1966, during the past 5 years, have there been any instances where an airline or shipping company has refused to meet the cost of the migrant’s return to his homeland; if so, how many people are concerned and which airline or shipping company refused to bear the travel costs.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

Section 21 (3.) of the Migration Act 1958-1966 empowers an authorised officer to require the master, owner, agent or charterer of the vessel in which a deportee arrived in Australia to provide without charge to the Commonwealth a passage for the deportee to the place at which he boarded the vessel when he came to Australia.

This section may be invoked only in those cases where the Minister has ordered the deportation of a person by virtue of, or by reference to, section thirteen, paragraph (b) or (c) of sub-section (1.) of section sixteen or section seventeen of the Act.

Where section 21 (3.) applies in relation to a deportee but the Minister is satisfied that the deportee will not or may not be permitted to re-enterthe place at which he boarded the vessel when he came to Australia, the responsible persons may be exempted from their obligations to provide a passage for the deportee if arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister are made for payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable sum in respect of the cost, or part of the cost, of a passage for the deportee to some other place outside Australia (section 21 (6.)).

The master, owner, agent or charterer of a vessel may not be required to remove a deportee from Australia or to provide passage for the deportee if the latter was admitted as an assisted passage migrant or as the holder of a migrant visa; or in those instances where the deportee is the wife and child of such a person, was included in the latter’s passport, and accompanied him to Australia (section 21 (8.) ).

It is the practice to invoke section 21 (3.) whenever appropriate. The record of these negotiations appears in individual case files and statistics are not available. Officers are unable to recall any instance in which an airline or shipping company has refused to discharge its obligations pursuant to section 21 (3.) of the Migration Act.

page 377

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

(Question No. 18)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

What has been the total amount made available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for operational purposes in each of the last 5 years.
How much has been paid by the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the PostmasterGeneral s Department for use of land lines, etc., in each of the last 5 years
Why has such a charge to be borne by the Australian Broadcasting Commission when it is so urgently in need of the_e funds for the development of Australian dramatic and educational television programmes?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The parliamentary appropriations allocated to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for operational purposes during each of the last S years were:

The net payments for the use of landlines etc. paid to the Postmaster-General’s Department by the Australian Broadcasting Commission for radio and television purposes during each of the last 5 years were:

The payment to the Postmaster-General’s Department for the use of landlines is made in accordance wilh Sections 73 and 74 of the Broadcasting and Television Act.

page 377

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

(Question No. 27)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What would be the anticipated cost to the Commonwealth of providing for 4 weeks annual leave for Commonwealth public servants.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: i refer the honourable senator to the statement made in the House on 4th March 1970 by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, in which he estimated that if the additional work force were recruited to make up the time lost the cost would be $25 m per annum. i understand that this estimate relates to all Commonwealth employees and not only to Commonwealth public servants.

page 377

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ADVERTISING

(Question No. 28)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What action has been taken by the Department of the Treasury on the eleven findings of Ihe Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its 112th Report, relating lo Commonwealth advertising.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

The findings of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its One Hundred and Twelfth Report are still under study in the Treasury.

As soon as this has been completed, the Treasury views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance wilh ihe agreed arrangements and will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament.

page 377

QUESTION

FILMS

(Question No. 29)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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:
LP

– 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 which i 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 United States of America origin respectively.

page 378

QUESTION

HMAS ‘LEEUWIN

(Question No. 51)

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

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

Have there been any recent deaths of naval ratings while confined in Her Majesty’s naval training establishment ‘Leeuwin’ in Western Australia or any other similar establishment in Western Australia.
If there have been any deaths, were they suicides.
If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, what was the age of the ratings, and was there any inquiry into the deaths by way of court of inquiry.
Will the Minister make any transcripts and findings of any inquiries available to the Senate.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

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

No.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.

page 378

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CARS

(Question No. 55)

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Has the Minister inquired as to the circumstances in which a Commonwealth car allegedly failed to arrive for the Premier of Victoria at a

Premiers Conference session on Thursday, 26th February 1970? If so, what have the inquiries revealed.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Three Commonwealth cars with drivers were detailed to stand by at the Hotel Canberra from 8 p.m. on the day in question to provide transport for those Premiers and their staff and State officials who required it between the Hotel and Parliament House for the meeting arranged for 8.30 p.m. One car only was availed of, taking four passengers. The other two cars remained outside the Hotel and the drivers periodically entered the foyer of the Hotel to see if there were any others looking for transport but they were not called upon. The cars remained there until 8.35 p.m. when they returned to the Transport Depot.

page 378

QUESTION

HARRIER VTOL AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 85)

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

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

Can the Minister indicate the stage which has been reached by the Navy in the evaluation of the British Harrier VTOL aircraft.
Is it correct that a Harrier aircraft will be brought to Australia this year for demonstration and further evaluation.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

The RAN is interested in V/STOL (vertical take off and landing and short take off and landing) aspects of aircraft operation, and all developments are kept under study. It has not been necessary to date to undertake a direct RAN evaluation of the Harrier, because the RAN has been kept fully informed by the British Service authorities.
Not to my knowledge, but a team from the British aircraft company concerned was in Australia earlier this year and informed our Services fully on present developments.

page 378

QUESTION

AIRPORT SECURITY

Senator COTTON:
LP

– At yesterday’s question time I answered a question addressed to me by Senator Mulvihill about an incident at Essendon Airport on 28th February concerning the late Mr Pugh, an Australian Broadcasting Commission reporter. In my answer I said I would hope to have further information on this matter later in the day and would make it available to Senator Mulvihill today. Subsequently, Senator Poyser raised the matter in the adjournment debate and I replied by again saying that the matter was being investigated and I would advise the Senate as soon as possible. I have now received a report from the Department of Civil Aviation and am in a position to give the following information in reply to the Senate.

Because of the number of reporters and photographers from the various news media awaiting the arrival at Essendon of the aircraft carrying Mr Burchett, the TransAustralia Airlines assistant airport manager at Essendon Airport addressed the gathering of news men and informed them that photographers only would be allowed to enter the restricted tarmac area and that the reporters were to remain in the holding area adjacent to the terminal building. The reporters were further informed that interviews with Burchett could take place inside the terminal building after all passengers were cleared. These instructions given by the TAA assistant airport manager were acknowledged by the late Mr Pugh in a written statement made by him. TransAustralia Airlines and Department of Civil Aviation traffic staff were given these directions to hold the reporters at the terminal end of the TAA finger and formed a line across this finger to ensure that the plan was implemented. As the Burchett party proceeded along the linger towards the terminal building there was an attempt by the reporters to break through the line formed by the DCA and TAA officers and it was during this attempted breakthrough that the alleged assault on the late Mr Pugh occurred. Statements received from TAA and DCA officers, from reporters and from a member of the Commonwealth Police on duty at the airport on the night in question, present conflicting information and it is obvious that there was a good deal of confusion at the time. The two DCA traffic officers on duty both deny that the late Mr Pugh was struck with intent but both imply that in the confusion he may have been struck inadvertently. If this did happen, 1 believe the act of striking was not premeditated or done deliberately.

I believe it is quite ‘ clearly established that Pugh’s method of attempting to gain access to a prohibited area was the prime cause of the incident and any force used by the traffic staff on duty was the result of strong provocation. I am now satisfied that the letter published in the Melbourne Age’ of 13th March from Mr C. H.

Brennan, referred to by Senator Mulvihill, gives in some important respects an exaggerated account of the incident. I believe the Department of Civil Aviation traffic staff at airports throughout Australia have established a splendid record in the manner in which they have controlled highly emotional crowds during the arrival of international celebrities.

page 379

ABORIGINALS

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from Senator Keeffe an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency, namely:

The need for the Commonwealth to exercise the powers granted to it by the Aboriginal Affairs Referendum of 1967 to uplift the Aboriginal people and to protect their culture and their interests. ls the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places).

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

That the Senate, al its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 10 a.m. 1 do not suppose that any honourable senator has a great deal of pleasure in having to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency, but I believe that, because of the neglect of Aboriginals in many fields, the apparent inability of the Government to implement powers granted by the people in the Aboriginal Affairs Referendum of 1967 in the spirit in which the referendum proposal was supported by the people of Australia and many other reasons, it is necessary that such a matter of extreme urgency be debated now.

The Commonwealth gained certain powers as a result of the carry in <> of the referendum proposal. It is the desire of the Australian Labor Party to uplift the Aboriginal people and to protect their culture and interests. As a result of the carrying of the referendum proposal the Office of Aboriginal Affairs was formally established at Commonwealth level, but it appears to be hamstrung in its activities. Either it does not have a great deal of power or, if it has powers, its powers are apparently not being exercised by the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth). Though the Minister receives publicity for his efforts in this direction it would appear that behind the scenes the Prime Minister (Mr Gor.ors) manipulates the strings of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. I think that assertion is correct.

I believe that most Australians were very happy to know that a number of Aboriginals had been appointed to the administrative staff of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. Most of these Aboriginals are highly capable. However, although they were very vocal representatives of their people before their appointment to these administrative positions, we have heard very little from any of them since their appointment, although some of them are well known in Australia. I know of at least one occasion when a senior member of the Office was told - and witnesses can be produced to confirm this if a royal commission is held - that if he found any fault when carrying out an inspection of the living and working conditions of some of the people of his race he was not to speak about it publicly at any time. Because of the gag which was placed on him by the Office he was unable to make any public utterance as to his findings on his tour of inspection. The Minister has placed the administration of the Office under a vow of silence. In other words, these people are no longer able to act as official spokesmen for their people.

Section 51 of the Australian Constitution states:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for ihe peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to-

And the various subsections are set out in the Constitution. In 1903, subsection (xxvi) was included, which states:

The people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

One would have thought that in the period between 1903 and 1967 a more humane attitude towards the problems of the Aboriginals of Australia would have developed, but that is not so. We had an example of this only a few days ago. The GovernorGeneral said in his Speech:

My Government will continue its policy of fostering Aboriginal initiative, will use the special capital fund which has been set up to assist in this task, and hopes that during the lifetime of the Parliament any remnants of discriminatory legislation against Aboriginals will be eliminated.

In stating these views the Governor-General probably hoped that this Parliament would last its full term of 3 years, though he may not have thought it would do so. Even if the Parliament does last its full term it is a shocking state of affairs when one considers that in 1970 - 200 years after Australia was discovered by the so-called superior white race - we are still discriminating against the original Australians. I ask the Minister for Housing (Dame Annabelle Rankin) who represents the Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) what happened at the conference of CommonwealthState Ministers which was held in Sydney, appropriately enough I suppose if one looks at the shocking conditions imposed on these people, on Black Friday, 13 th March. No official report has been presented to this chamber and I do not think any report has gone to the other place. It is significant that the Press coverage of this conference was particularly small. One can only assume that the Ministers themselves decided that they made no decisions of any great moment and, consequently, they did not feel they had anything worth reporting to the Australian people.

I want to quote from page 1143 of the Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1969, to show what I term - I think justifiably so - the hypocritical attitude adopted by governments in view of statements which have been made over a lengthy period. This is the quotation from that book:

The Commonwealth and State governments have adopted a common policy of assimilation which seeks that all persons of Aboriginal descent will choose to attain a similar manner and standard of living to that of other Australians and live as members of a single Australian community, enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same responsibilities and influenced by the same hopes and loyalties as other Australians.

Legal status

Under the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948-66, all Aborigines are British subjects and Australian citizens. Since the commencement of the Social Welfare Ordinance 1964 in September 1964, Aborigines in the Northern Territory have been equal at law with all other residents, although some special benefits have been retained for them or have been introduced since then. The Ordinance enables assistance to be given to any person who is socially or economically in need.

I submit that, in fact, the spirit of that statement has never been observed and the situation today is exactly the same as it was 50, 60, 70 or 80 years ago.

I want to make particular reference to my own State of Queensland because, as I have said when speaking in debates of this nature before, that is the area with which 1 am most familiar. In Queensland there is an Act known as an Act to Promote the Well-Being and Progressive Development of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the State and the Torres Strait Islanders. It is this little booklet, Mr Deputy President, which contains much of the repressive type legislation that has been applied. But it is even worse in the regulations under the Act, the Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders Regulations of 1966. I want to quote 2 or 3 of the relevant Regulations. It is impossible in the time allocated to a debate of this nature to go into this in detail but I have no doubt we will be able to do that in this place at a later time. Regulation 13 says:

Any person who enters or remains on a Reserve or in a community without authority of the Manager of such Reserve or community shall be guilty of an offence and may be summarily ejected from the Reserve or community by or by order of the District Officer or Manager. 1 might say that other parts of the Regulations and of the Act delegate responsibility to the Manager or whoever may be acting in his place. Regulation 19 says:

An Aboriginal Council established pursuant to these Regulations shall be constituted by four assisted Aborigines who shall be appointed as follows:

Two assisted Aborigines to be elected by the resident assisted Aborigines of the Reserve in respect of which the Council is established;

Two assisted Aborigines to be appointed by the Director:

Provided that if candidates do not offer for election, or if for any reason an election cannot be held, all members of the Council may be appointed by the Director.

I would challenge the Minister to state when the last free elections were held at the 8 or 10 council areas in Queensland. I know that at one time on one reserve an attempt was made by interested people on that reserve to have an election. They were stood over by the manager of the reserve until they obtained the required number and there was no ballot.

But it goes even further than that. Another regulation provides:

Subject to these Regulations an Aboriginal Council shall be responsible to the Manager for the conduct, discipline and well-being of assisted Aboriginals residing within the Reserve or community. The Council shall have the power to make by-laws, resolutions and orders for the well-being and progressive development of assisted Aboriginal residents but-

I emphasise this - every By-law, resolution and order so made by the Council shall receive the approval of the Director before it shall have force or effect.

So even though in theory you can democratically elect a council on the lines I have set out, in practice if the Director or his nominee desires not to implement any recommendations, those recommendations will not be implemented. The Director or his nominee has the last say. This might apply very well if one were running a zoo, a racehorse stud or something like that where you need internal discipline in order to regulate the paddocks in which your animals shall congregate and matters of that nature. But we are dealing with human beings. We are dealing with people who are the same as we are. Their only handicap is that their skin is non-white. However, that is not the attitude that this Government has adopted: that is not the attitude that the Queensland Government has adopted, and it is not the attitude that has been adopted in the Northern Territory or in Western Australia.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Party to which you belong was in power in Queensland for many years.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The fact that things went wrong in past days does not mean that you have to perpetuate the system. The Country Party Government in Queensland is perpetuating a system which was established by its own forebears 100 years ago.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For how long has the Country Party Government been in office?

Senator KEEFFE:

It is of no use to say that the Commonwealth does not have the power. The Commonwealth has the power to allocate finance for particular purposes wherever and whenever it wants to do so. I do not know of any State in Australia except Tasmania that does not have a great need for additional housing, and in many instances for school and health facilities. A Commonwealth allocation could be made direct to local government authorities to provide accommodation for Aboriginals. The Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) has said publicly more than once that he does not want to tread on the toes of the States. He does not seem to be worried by the fact that repressive State legislation remains in force. The Commonwealth Government has a responsibility to do something about it and my colleagues who support me in this debate will outline details of the way in which action is required.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) [4.21] - I wish to say at the outset quite clearly and emphatically that 1 fail to see the real urgency in the matter that has been raised by Senator Keeffe, who will be supported, I believe, by his colleagues. I wish to remind honourable senators that the entry of the Commonwealth as a government into the field of Aboriginal affairs transpired only as a result of the Commonwealth referendum at the end of 1967. That provided some constitutional sanction for the Commonwealth Government to enter the field and to aid the States in the problems presented by the Aboriginal people in Australia. There is a very big problem, but I repudiate as a senator representing Victoria the statement that the States have not been interested since early colonial times in the well-being of the Aboriginal people. Since the time of self-government in Victoria the Aboriginal people there have been citizens of the State of Victoria and have been entitled to vote in Victorian elections.

In the early 1950s I took the trouble to investigate this matter on behalf of my party. I was delighted to discover that the well being of Aboriginals has been a constant preoccupation of the Victorian Parliament for nearly 100 years. There has always been in Victoria the equivalent of a ministry of Aboriginal affairs. As a result of the investigation made by myself and some of my colleagues, notably Senator Greenwood, we were able to have a royal commission established in Victoria to examine the problem of Aboriginal welfare in the context of the 1950s, a time when scientific aid was more readily available.

A system involving a scientific and anthropological background to the study of Aboriginal affairs began to emerge at Commonwealth level in the 1960s and was first established by the present Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth). He set up the Institute of Aboriginal Studies to provide at least a scientific background to the problems presented by Aboriginals all over Australia. Last year the Minister set up the Council for Aboriginal Affairs headed by a very distinguished Australian, an ex-Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Honourable senators should remember that the powers obtained constitutionally by the Commonwealth Government as a result of the 1967 referendum are additional to the powers inherent in a State. In other words, the responsibility for Aboriginals in Australia, except in the Territories of the Commonwealth, is a concurrent power divided between the States and the Commonwealth. I think it is grossly unfair of Senator Keeffe, who has now raised this matter in the Senate, to make the accusations and allegations he has made. One of his remarks, which I noted, was that the Council for Aboriginal Affairs had done nothing. He said that the Council had made no statement. I have here, because I went to the area where it is possible to get these matters, a Press release.

Senator Keeffe:

– I did not say that. Do not start distorting the facts.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKThe honourable senator said, as I recollect it, that the Council for Aboriginal Affairs had never disclosed any activity in which it had involved itself. Only 3 or 4 days ago a Press statement was issued.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to order. I claim to have been misrepresented. Shall I leave my remarks until the end of the debate?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - The honourable senator may not make his remarks at this stage, but he may do so at the end of the debate.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I do not wish to embarrass Senator Keeffe; it is enough for him to say that he did not say that. If he says that I misheard him, I withdraw and apologise. A few days ago a Press statement was issued by the Council for Aboriginal Affairs. As it is of interest I think I should read at least a couple of paragraphs from the statement. It referred to a meeting of State and Commonwealth Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs. The Press statement said:

The Ministers reviewed developments over the past year which affected Aboriginal Australians. They also discussed possible programmes for action for the coming financial year.

In reviewing activities in 1969-70 the Ministers considered that significant progress towards the goal of real Aboriginal equality with other Australians has resulted because of the considerable funds available from the States with increased supporting funds from Commonwealth sources.

So in what might be described as the first full year or 15 months in which the Commonwealth has been in the administration of this area we find that the State Ministers have agreed that with the additional funds established by themselves and the flow of Commonwealth funds there has been a significant advance in the affairs of Australian Aboriginals.

I turn now to a report which was issued for the year 1968-69 relating to the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises. Senator Keeffe has made no reference to this, but there is a document - a blue book of some 20 pages - which sets out the sums of money that have been made available at all levels, in all areas and in all States to enable Australian Aboriginals to set up economic enterprises. The important factor in this is that when the present Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs took over the Office of Aboriginal Affairs in the Commonwealth jurisdiction he laid it down as a fundamental of the Commonwealth’s approach that first the financial security of the Aboriginals should be sought and that when we were able to obtain some degree of economic dependence on behalf of and within the Aboriginal societies in Australia, then and then only would there begin to flow some of the social benefits which would improve their economic status. This is the form and direction that has been taken. This leads me on to analyse - only in part, because I have not time to do this - the sort of economic aid that the Commonwealth Government has been able to give in the 15 months or so in which it has been responsible and able to intervene directly in these affairs. For the benefit of honourable senators I quote from a report which is available to any honourable senator who wishes to look for it.

Senator Cant:

– What is the report?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– It is called 41/ ……….. ……..’ and is issued by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, Canberra. At page 2 the report states:

Much has happened since the establishment of the Council and Office of Aboriginal Affairs at the end of 1967 and early in 1968.

Then it goes on to illustrate for the year 1968-69 the financial aid that has been provided directly by the Commonwealth to the States in the context of the economic advancement of Aboriginal people and the social progress that should be able to flow from the availability of money in this area of social management and progress in Australia.

Because Senator Keeffe, who is from Queensland, has been tending to concentrate on his own State, perhaps instead of dealing with this in the order of seniority in which these matters are normally tabulated I should go straight to the State of Queensland. In that year there was allocated to Queensland from Commonwealth resources §800,000 for housing, $325,000 for health and. $325,000 for education, a total of $1,450,000. The allocation by the

Commonwealth to New South Wales for housing, health and education was $775,000. Under the same headings Victoria received a total of $225,000, South Australia received $350,000 and Western Australia, in respect of which Senator Cant will intrude in the debate, received $825,000. For Tasmania, because there are Aboriginal descendants on some of the islands off the north coast of Tasmania, the allocation was $25,000.

In addition to these grants there have been the problems of education. So there has been instituted the Aboriginal study grants scheme. The applications and grants and awards that have been made are of this order: In Queensland, 43 awards out of 49 applications; and in New South Wales 24 awards out of 29 applications. In addition grants were made in the following fields: For university education, 11; for secretarial and business college courses, 64; for matriculation studies, 12; for teacher training, 5; and for others, mainly at technical colleges, 23. In addition to this, as honourable senators will recollect, in the Bill which was passed through the Senate the Commonwealth provided subsidies to the wage structure of Aboriginals to allow them to be employed in areas where their study, education and skills did not put them on a parity with European-descended labour. I have no intention of citing statistics endlessly, although I could do so, as I believe I have quoted enough to illustrate to the Senate that the Commonwealth Government has taken great strides in the 18 months in which it has had the administrative component by which it could move into this field of Aboriginal advancement. The Commonwealth entry to this field has had a fertilising effect inside the States because the States have increased their flow of money and social measures of one sort and another for the Aboriginals.

Before I sit down I think I should make a personal observation on what we are attempting to do. It was thought in Victoria that it was proper to provide in the 1950s a method to enable the people of Aboriginal descent in that State to move directly into the area of normal citizenship activities. But what was also discovered when they attempted to do this was that the Aboriginal people wished to retain their own reservations; in other words, when the Government of Victoria sought to dispense with one reservation known as the Lake Tyers settlement where attempts had been made over the past 120 or 130 years to establish a farming community, the Aboriginal descended people demanded the reestablishment of this reservation system. So although reservation systems such as the one at Palm Island out from Townsville off the Queensland coast, a settlement which Senator Keeffe denounced, are condemned out of hand by many people Aboriginal people feel to a major degree that they must have some place of retirement from the friction points which they tend to find as they try to enter the basically European oriented society of Australia.

When we come to northern Australia where attempts are being made - in the Northern Territory some fairly successful attempts are being made - to set up Aboriginal industries of one sort or another, the records of which, if searched or looked at, will disclose that at least a beginning has been made, it seems to me that we have to be extraordinarily careful that in the emotional approach that we tend to make to this problem - it is a problem - we do not start to create 2 nations in Australia.

Senator Georges:

– That is what you are trying to do at Bamaga.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– [ am just saying that the Aboriginal people want a reservation system. The intellectual and scientific drive in Australia is to try to create a society in which Aboriginals will fully merge with Australians of European descent. There may be a danger of finally reaching the point where we will not have a fully integrated society. We could have in Australia the emergence of 2 nations.

Senator Cant:

– We have had 2 nations in Australia over the last 200 years.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I am not dealing with what has happened in the last 200 years. I am just saying that in our drive to bring Aboriginals to a point of advancement which is cO-equal at least in terms of skills and education with that of the migrant population in Australia, that is, the European descendant population, we may do the very thing that we are seeking to avoid - the creation of 2 nations in Australia, which may have untold consequences for the people.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I rise to speak in this debate because of my concern about what is happening with respect to the Aboriginals in Australia. I do not doubt for one moment the assistance figures which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack gave to the Senate today. 1 would like to know a little more about how the money is being disbursed; perhaps in a debate at a later time I will try to expose some of that. The honourable senator in making apologies for what had not been done said that the power granted in 1967 was a concurrent power with the power of the States. He completely overlooked the provisions of section 109 of the Constitution which allows the laws of the Commonwealth to supersede the laws of a State where there is inconsistency. Therefore the Commonwealth can pass laws for the benefit of Aboriginal people irrespective of the fact that this is a concurrent power, and the Commonwealth laws will be supreme.

The honourable senator also said that the Aboriginals wanted to retain their own reservations. I take it that he was speaking about the Aboriginals in Victoria because 1 do not think that this is the position throughout Australia. The subjects that I want to talk about in this debate are the reservations and the culture and the protection of Aboriginals on reservations. This year we celebrate 200 years of white supremacy in Australia. As I said by way of interjection to the honourable senator a little while ago, we have had in Australia 2 nations for 200 years. There has been white intrusion into a land peopled by those whom we have been pleased of late to call Aboriginals. In the past we have called them all sorts of things but today these have been refined to the term Aboriginals.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is not true of me. I grew up with them.

Senator CANT:

– The honourable senator may not be the only one. I do not think he can claim any privilege on that score. We may well ask what rights these people have in the land of their origin. This is important when one speaks about reservations. Those Aboriginals whom we did not kill directly were pushed out into the less hospitable parts of this country to exist as best they could. They were pushed on to reservations. The white people took the best of the land, the land that provided for the Aboriginals their food and all sorts of things. We pushed them on to reservations and we took the best of the land where the game and water were. We went further than that. We prostituted their women and introduced all manner of diseases amongst them. We degraded the dignity of the Aboriginal males. We destroyed their tribal lands, their myths and their sacred sites. We are continuing to destroy their sacred sites. We herded them on to reservations, areas of land set aside for the exclusive use of the Aboriginal people. I say ‘for the exclusive use of the Aboriginal people’ because under the law in Western Australia no-one is permitted to go on to an Aboriginal reserve without the permission of the Western Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator Little:

– But that is to prevent some of the things you have just described - the degradation of their civilisation.

Senator CANT:

– It may have been for that reason. We pushed them on to these places and we forbade anyone else to go there. I will illustrate shortly the way in which we did not keep this up. We having created these reservations for them and forbidden anyone else to go on to them, I suggest that the natives were then entitled to consider at least that part of Australia as their land. Events of the past few years have exposed the fact that these areas can be invaded at will. The wealth that exists in those areas is immediately taken by the white people. I refer to the mining companies that invade Aboriginal reserves and take all the wealth of those reserves. There is no Aboriginal participation in the wealth that is on the reserves. The Aboriginals are not invited to take part in any mining venture. In Bougainville we set aside 20% of the copper shares to be purchased by the Administration of Papua and New Guinea at par, not at a premium, for the benefit of the indigenes of Papua and New Guinea. But we cannot do the same thing in respect of our own Aboriginals whom we pushed on to reservations, telling them that the reservations were theirs. In many cases not only were white people not permitted to go on to the reserves but the Aboriginals were not allowed to leave the reserves.

One slight deviation from this has occurred in the case of the Yirrkala tribe at Gove where massive bauxite deposits have been discovered. The mining company concerned was eventually persuaded to pay the Aboriginals a royalty for the extraction of the bauxite, but what a miserable royalty it is. It is spread out over all the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and it amounts to about $3 per annum for each Aboriginal. This is the sort of royalty that we get for these people for the immense riches that will be taken from their land, and in the process we have of course destroyed many of their sacred sites. We have heard squeals about this in the past but no-one has done anything about it. The Minister will stand in this place and describe it as vandalism, but once a site is destroyed nothing more can be done about it. Yet these mining companies are permitted to destroy the sacred sites of the Aboriginal people.

I want to refer to the nickel ventures and in particular to the nickel areas at Wingellina on the border of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) in another place the other day made the amazing statement that he would do everything he could within the limited constitutional power that he had to see that the interests of Aboriginals were properly preserved. What has been done to preserve the interests of Aboriginals? It is some years now since parts of the Aboriginal reserve in this area were excised for mining exploration. Nothing has been done by the Minister. Ever since Mr Wentworth became the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs the interests of the Aboriginals have not been protected. The hue and cry arose out of a Press report, which states:

A Melbourne anthropologist said today that one of Australia’s last mie Aboriginal tribes had asked him to get protection for its sacred sites from nickel seekers in the Western Desert area of W.A.

I do not want to read all the report, lt continues:

It was an Aboriginal reserve but a few years ago part containing the sacred sites was excised from the reserve by the W.A. Government to allow mineral exploration. One site had been bulldozed.

That site can never be restored. The report continues:

The tribe is most upset and if we are not careful it. will be the Gove Peninsula all over again, only this lime a lot bigger

Any damage to places of worship is sacrilege and is regarded as a crime. Desecration of sacred sites in Jerusalem would cause horror round the world.

Yet we can destroy the tribal people’s sites and religion without giving the matter a second thought.

Our National Trust gives an ‘A’ classification to places of few hundred years old but the places I am talking about are perhaps 30,000 years old. Yet we want to destroy them at all costs to get at the nickel.

The area could have large nickel deposits. lt is on an Aboriginal reserve, part of which has been excised. The Government has not attempted to ensure that the Aboriginals get some equity in the wealth to be derived from the mining on the reserve, lt is time the Government gave thought to awarding compensation to the Aboriginals. They have been pui on these reserves. The reserve is the last bastion of the land that they have; it belongs to them. At present in the Northern Territory a case as to ownership of land is proceeding. The actions of the Government have brought about the excision of part of the reserve. If the land is to be exploited for the wealth that is in it, the people should be given some recompense.

The Minister went further when he was making his statement about the Wingellina nickel site and said: lt was difficult to delineate the areas to satisfy the requirements of the Aborigines and the mining company.

Who comes first? Of course, under a free enterprise government, we know who will come first; it will not be the Aboriginals. I move on to what 1 suppose has been the greatest scandal on the stock exchange in the history of Australia. I refer to the Tasminex scandal. The Tasminex people entered a native reserve at Mount Venn and either made millions or robbed hundreds of people of large sums by exploiting the stock market in the interests of profit. What did the Aboriginals at Mount Venn get out of this venture? They got nothing. Yet these people were allowed to enter the reserve. Mining companies are allowed to enter any land in Australia. Thev can enter even freehold land and peg it. In Western Australia, apart from the metropolitan area, they can peg all land. Even parts of the metropolitan area have been pegged for mineral exploration.

Senator Little:

– What about university students exercising mining rights on university grounds? That proves the honourable senator’s point.

Senator CANT:

– Yes, but when someone wanted to peg out the Australian War Memorial that person was not allowed to do so. When will the Government take some action to protect the interests of the Aboriginals? Another case which I cite relates to a request for permission to remove building stone from a place called Weebo which is near Leonora. The stone was to be removed from an Aboriginal sacred site. No-one took notice of that fact. The exploiters wanted to remove the building stone and to sell it for profit. A committee was set up to examine the request for permission to remove the stone and to see whether the site was a sacred one and whether it should be protected in the interests of the Aboriginals. The final conclusion of the Committee was:

Accordingly, the Committee recommends the total protection of the whole of the area enclosed in the boundaries shown on the accompanying map from all mining, except the removal of small amounts of stone by traditionally oriented Aborigines for sacred purposes.

That is an amazing statement. I think I should acquaint the Senate of the preliminary remarks leading up to that statement.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

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

[4.51] - This afternoon we have listened to two very interesting points of view put by Senators Keeffe and Cant. All of us recognise the need to interest ourselves in the welfare of our Aboriginal people. Many honourable senators, as I did, grew up among Aboriginals, knew them, had them as friends, saw them develop and wished them well in the future that lay ahead of them. I must reply to some of the points made by the honourable senators. Senator Keeffe spoke of assimilation. He mentioned the definition of assimilation at page 1143 of the Commonwealth Year Book. I do not know the Year Book to which he referred, as the definition he quoted was superseded in 1965.

Senator Cant:

– He referred to the 1969 Year Book.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– What I said was based on information that I was given by my advisers. I am interested in the point made by Senator Cant. I am glad that he mentioned that. I thank him. I will make some further inquiries concerning that. Senator Keeffe also raised matters concerning the Queensland Act and regulations. I think that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack partially answered Senator Keeffe when he referred to the recent conference of State Ministers and the Commonwealth Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) in Sydney last Friday, I think, when assimilation was discussed. The conference resolved that unilateral discussions between the Commonwealth and any State regarding its legislation may be held. Further discussions are to be held in the near future. I think that the point raised by Senator Keeffe is covered by the comments of the Ministers who conferred and, more importantly, by the statement that the Ministers have decided that further discussions will be held in the future.

I strongly reject Senator Keeffe’s assertion that Aboriginals over 50 years of age are beyond help. I do not think that this assertion can be accepted. The Government is doing a great deal to improve the health of Aboriginals. I shall refer to this later if time permits. These older people are being given a great deal of assistance. They are being cared for in a variety of ways. To say that people over 50 years of age are beyond help is quite an unjust statement.

Senator Keeffe:

– The Minister has misconstrued my statement.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am sorry if I have misconstrued what the honourable senator said. I did not do so intentionally. I apologise to Senator Keeffe if I have misconstrued his statement. I am pleased that he did not say what I thought he said. Most of us in this chamber are around 50 years of age. I do not think that any of us would be pleased with the thought that we will be beyond help at this age.

Happily I turn to another aspect which I know Senator Keeffe and other honourable senators will recognise as being of great assistance to Aboriginals. I refer to the assistance which was brought to our notice only last week when, on behalf of the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs,

I announced the Government’s intention to set up the Aboriginal Aged Persons Homes Trust. I believe that the establishment of such a body is another step forward. I hope that the homes built under this scheme will be built in the areas in which the Aboriginals live and have their friends, so that in their later years of life they will have the companionship of their close associates. Of course, the biggest task facing the Government is in relation to the group below the age to which I understood Senator Keeffe to be referring. Included in this area are the very important fields of health, housing, education and employment. Over $9m has been spent in this area in the last 2 years.

I would like to refer to one or two points that have been made in relation to this area of assistance. Honourable senators will recall that when the Senate debated the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1969 I incorporated in Hansard a brief statement setting out details of the expenditure by the States of the funds made available in 1968-69. I think it is good to look back at the details of some of this expenditure. Although Senator Sir Magnus Cormack referred to the amounts of money which were allocated to particular areas I think it is worthwhile to repeat some of the details. Grants totalling $5,410,000 will be made to the States in 1969-70 to support State activities in the fields of housing, education, health, employment and vocational training. This figure compares more than favourably with the grant of $3,650,000 in 1968-69. I should remind the Senate of some of the items on which expenditure was incurred. It was incurred in the education field on such items as the grants-in-aid scheme for secondary school students and payment for the mentally handicapped Aboriginal children in existing special schools; the construction of an additional wing at Kirinari hostel, which is run by the Aboriginal Children’s Advancement Society; adult education courses, renovations to Tranby hostel, which is run by the Co-operative for Aborigines Ltd; assistance with the cost of school buses; work in the pre-school area; renovations to preschool buildings; assistance to church and charitable bodies, including the construction of a hall for the Daughters of Charity primarily for follow-up work on former preschool children; and a grant to the Save the Children Fund for pre-schools. That is a very excellent fund which does so much work in this field. The expenditure I am mentioning on these items occurred only in one State, but if one looks at the statement to which I have referred one will see that the same areas of assistance occur in the various States.

In the field of health, subsidies were given to the Far West Children’s Health Scheme. I am sure that my colleagues from Queensland have often seen pictures of children coming down from the far west on holidays and have particularly noticed the happy faces of the Aboriginal children among them. These children are provided with the best dental and health care. The document to which I am referring shows that a subsidy of $7,000 was provided to the Far West Childrens Health Scheme in New South Wales. Assistance is given also in other areas of health, such as to the Bush Nursing Association and the Western Shires Dental Scheme. I have extracted only one or two of the items of expenditure in one State, but it is the pattern throughout every State.

Lel us examine the programme for 1969-70. On 11th September 1969 the Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs submitted details to the Parliament of grants to the States for 1969-70. An amount of $5.4m is being made available for housing, health, education and employment. In relation to the employment programme a number of new projects have been organised to supplement the work of the Department of Labour and National Service in regard to increasing the employment opportunities for the Aboriginal work force. This is another step forward. I believe that if Aboriginals are assisted in obtaining the type of work which they enjoy doing it will be of benefit to them.

I have some details in front of me concerning the Secondary Grants Scheme for Aboriginals. I think this scheme will be of great assistance to the young people of today, who will be the leaders of tomorrow. Secondary level students of Aboriginal descent will be eligible to apply for a secondary grant, which will be tenable from the beginning of the school year in which the student reaches the school leaving age and will continue for the remainder of the secondary schooling, subject to satisfactory conduct, progress and attendance. The secondary grants, which will be available from the beginning of the 1970 school year, will be awarded by the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Science who, in considering the applications to him, will take into account the extent to which the applicants are regarded as capable of benefiting from further secondary school studies.

Honourable senators are no doubt appreciative of some of the benefits which will be offered under this scheme. An amount of S200 per annum will be paid to the parents for the purchase of school clothing, books and other essentials where the child lives at home. An amount of S240 to $300 per annum will be paid as a living allowance to the families of children living away from home, lt is designed to cover the full boarding costs and the payment of tuition and other compulsory fees to the school. I think all honourable senators will agree with me that it is the most practical way to assist these young people to gain an education. I am sure all honourable senators will agree that education is the real answer to so many of the problems of our Aboriginal people. Although it is still early in the year, 1,000 applications have already been received and it is expected that a considerable number will be received later.

– There is nothing secret about this. In reviewing the activities in 1969-70 the Ministers considered that significant progress towards a goal of real Aboriginal equality with other Australians had resulted because of the considerable funds made available by the States with increased supporting funds from the Commonwealth. After discussing these matters they continued their planning for the future in the field of housing, in the field of education and in the field of health, all of which I believe are tremendously important for the future of the Aboriginal people.

Because of the limitation of time one can touch only on a few of the things that are being done, but as you go round the community, as you see these young people attending school, as you see them taking part in sports, as you see them taking part in the life of the community, as you see them growing and developing and as you see them planning their future in a variety of ways you must recognise that the work which is being done by the State governments with the assistance of the Commonwealth is doing a tremendous amount for them and for the future of the Aboriginal people of this country.

There is only one other matter to which I feel I must refer. Senator Cant mentioned the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund, which has some $480,000 in hand. He wanted to know whether any of the money had been used to assist Aboriginals in any project in which they were interested. The information that 1 was able to receive is to the effect that a loan has been made to construct a kiosk and restaurant to the west of Alice Springs. The money already has been made available from the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund which I understand is the Fund to which the honourable senator referred when he asked whether the money which was paid in was being used to assist Aboriginals. This kiosk and restaurant will make available to Aboriginals a very pleasant and interesting occupation. In addition it provides evidence of the new areas in which things like this can be done.

Senator Cant referred also to sacred tribal lands, as did other honourable senators. 1 direct their attention to the comments of the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs in trie House of Representatives because sufficient time is not available to me to read them. There is a real appreciation by the Government of these problems and everything that can be done to assist them to keep these sacred areas is being done. The Minister has assured the Parliament that he will give whatever help he can. His statement in the House last week - it would take longer to read than the half minute remaining to me - answers the questions raised by the honourable senator.

Today we have touched on only a few points. We stand at a point in time where a great deal has been achieved. We look to the future when we will continue to give an increasing degree of assistance to these our Aboriginal people.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– In order to complete for the record Senator Cant’s contribution to this debate I intend to read the paragraph of the report which he had commenced to read when his time expired. That portion of the report of the Committee of the Western Australian Museum is as follows:

While the Committee has considerable sympathy for Mr Hoffman in the problems he has unwittingly stirred up in Leonora, it has none for the subsequent applicants for permission to mine the Weebo stone. Both prospecting areas were pegged after it was well known that there was considerable unrest among Aboriginals in the area and the Committee found it particularly difficult to understand why Constable Pense did not attempt to ascertain for himself the feelings of a part of the community over which he had authority before he proceeded to take actions which were directed towards his personal self advancement

I will now proceed with my own views on this debate. I should like to take up the issue of the Mona Mona Co-operative because to me it is evidence that the endeavours of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, and the amount of money and effort which have been expended, are not having the effect that was intended. In other words, the expenditure is not percolating to the area of need. In the case of the Mona Mona Co-operative, some 18 months ago the first application was made for an amount of $25,000. In consultation with the group at Mona Mona Senator Keeffe and I suggested that the amount sought was overambitious and that in the interests of the Co-operative and to assist the Office it would be wise to cut it down to a more reasonable sum. So many months ago they applied for $8,000. They needed the money desperately at that time because they had undertaken considerable improvements of a property which incidentally was a lease of their own mission ground.

I do not want to go into the story of how they were dispossessed by the State Government’s manoeuvre and by the failure of the Church to supervise properly their welfare. At a later stage when the estimates for this Office are under discussion and scrutiny we will raise the matter again. In any case, members of the Mona Mona Cooperative, which consists of people who belong to the Mona Mona Mission but who had a desire to go back to the Mission ground, had carried out a tremendous amount of work on the property. In effect the work that they carried out was valued at $1,650. It included fencing, clearing the land and repairing the dips. Some $1,200, which was the cost involved, was raised from various members of the Co-operative. Not only that sum of money but also physical effort was expended in the area.

The application was the subject of discussions with the Office. I took part in the discussions. We did our utmost to assist and to expedite this application. Admittedly there was a change in personnel in the Office but that is no excuse for the final decision. This arose out of an undertaking given by myself and other persons concerned with the Mona Mona Co-operative that we would help these people to meet their commitments if the loan were made. What was the result? The application was granted to the extent of only $5,000 subject to these people raising $1,800. That put them completely out of court. How can a group of poor Aboriginals isolated near Kuranda in north Queensland be expected to raise another $1,800 after raising $1,600 for improvements to their property?

I wrote back to the Office complaining that this was not intended to be its attitude. I objected strongly to the provision that demanded the raising of $1,800. I finished my letter by stating clearly that it was up to the Office to decide whether to grant the loan or not. 1 am pleased to see that it has granted the loan, but it should have been granted many months ago when this Co-operative could have taken advantage of the availability of cheap breeding cattle in the area. Had this loan been granted when it should have been granted it would have been possible for the Co-operative to obtain breeding cattle at one-third of the cost it now has to pay. So, in effect, the delay by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs has imposed an extra expense upon the people.

Let us look at the problem of delay. Let us try to find out why the Office of Aboriginal Affairs is failing and why we should have before us this letter, which 1 intend to read. The letter was written in answer to an application by a Mr Nawia, one of the councillors on Banks Island or Moa Island, as it is more commonly called. It is over the signature of Dr Coombs and it reads:

Dear Mr Nawia

Thank you for your letter of 12 October 1969 in which you requested a loan from the Capital Fund to establish yourself in the crayfishing industry. 1 am very interested in projects which can be shown to have sufficient potential to enable your people to become part of sound business enterprises. Accordingly I am having officers of the Capital Fund examine the ideas outlined in your letter and they will be writing to you within a few days detailing the information required and advising you on the best method of formulating your proposal.

Please be assured that when all required information is known to the Capital Fund your application will be promptly assessed.

That letter was written on 23rd October 1969. Mr Nawia informed me in Brisbane only a fortnight ago that since October he had received no further reply. In spite of the undertaking given by Dr Coombs, he has heard nothing further. To me, that is an indication of the delays that are occurring within the Office.

The referendum clearly placed responsibility for Aboriginal welfare in the hands of the Federal Government. I believe that that was the intention of the people. There are good and sound reasons for the Federal Government accepting the full responsibility for the Aboriginal people and taking this responsibility away from the States because in effect initiatives which should be undertaken more urgently are passed from the Federal Government to the State Government and back again. In other words, the buck is being passed backwards and forwards.

But if the Federal Government is to assume this responsibility it had better do a little better than it did in relation to the Mona Mona Co-operative and Mr Nawia. I met Mr Nawia under these circumstances: He came down all the way from Banks Island in Torres Strait to seek assistance from the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs so that the people could mine wolfram on the island. They were given the greatest run-around which has ever been given to half a dozen Torres Strait Islanders and which 1 have ever witnessed. The Department immediately thought: ‘If there is wolfram on Banks Island there is great wealth here and the Department can gain from it’. So immediately obstacles were placed in front of these people.

I have before me a letter that I intended to take up with the Office of Aboriginal Affairs in due course. 1 will take it up right now and we wil i see just how quickly the Office will act on behalf of half a dozen Torres Strait Islanders who at a considerable expenditure of time came from right up in the north down to Brisbane and sought accommodation with friends in order to put a case before the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Brisbane. They formed their own co-operative. The registration of the co-operative was held up for 6 months on the advice of the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland. It deliberately held up the legal process for 6 months until we questioned the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Queensland.

We asked what was the holdup and were advised in an indirect fashion that the holdup was at the request of the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. The Registrar felt that there was no reason for holding up the registration, and within 7 days the co-operative was registered. The co-operative intends to take up, on behalf of all the people of Banks Island, the exploitation of mineral wealth. I suggested to these people that it would be useless to proceed further unless they had some assessment of the worth and depth of the mineral resources of Banks Island. So we have an application from the Torres Strait

Mining Co-operative Ltd which will be passed on to the Office of Aboriginal Affairs today and which reads as follows: 1 wish, on behalf of the above Co-operative, to apply for assistance to assess the mineral potential of Banks Island (Moa Island). This Co-operative was registered as a Community Advancement Society at the Office of the Registrar in Brisbane on the 17th instant.

The people of Banks Island, using primitive methods of pick and shovel, have been mining wolfram since 1914, but the production has necessarily been low. Our experience leads us to believe that a sufficient quantity of wolfram, and probably other minerals, exists on the Island to warrant commercial exploitation. However, before we can proceed to organise this, we need to have the advantage of a scientific survey. We require the assistance of the Commonwealth Bureau of Mineral Resources to assess the area, since it is our intention to approach the Department for Aboriginal Affairs for a loan from the Capital Fund to establish a mining industry on Banks Island under the control of the Co-operative.

In other words, under the control of the people themselves. The letter, which was written to me, continues:

We would be very grateful if you would use your good services with the Departments concerned to assist our project.

– I must say that the arrangements made by the Commonwealth Government in respect of Groote Eylandt are much more to the advantage of the people there than are the conditions laid down by the State governments in respect of Aboriginal people under their control. The Queensland Government is not even concerned about the Queensland people when it comes to the exploitation of coal or other mineral resources. I think it receives about 5c a ton royalty on the good coking coal that is sent to Japan. The royalty will be the responsibility of the State Government. All I am suggesting is that the royalty conditions should be at least as good as the conditions of the royalty paid in respect of the exploitation of minerals on Groote Eylandt. Obviously the honourable senator has missed the point. On the one hand the responsibility at Groote Eylandt, in a Commonwealth Territory, lies with the Federal Government; on the other hand, in Queensland it lies with the State Government. I point out to the Minister that the estimates of this Office and the expenditures made from both the established funds will be subjected to the closest scrutiny. No longer can the argument validly be used that the funds have been established for only 12 months and that they take some time to get under way.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I think we should deal with the reasons for raising this matter of urgency and the extent of the urgency. I do not see a great deal of value in pursuing the history of Aboriginals in Australia. I think honourable senators on both sides of the chamber would generally agree that in our history we have gone through some very distinct periods. To recount that 200 years ago at the beginning of our history certain excesses took place may make us feel ashamed, but 1 remind honourable senators of much more modern times in which occurred much more shameful circumstances, not involving Australian Aboriginals. I refer honourable senators to Hansard reports of the House of Commons of only 100 years ago. At that time legislation was passed by the House of Commons to protect 6 and 7-year-olds working in the mines and the spinning mills of England in circumstances and conditions that Australian Aboriginals would have considered to be terrible.

I do not see the value in going into history to create a case with all the goodies on one side and all the baddies on the other side. The last generation or two of Australians have realised that the Aboriginals were becoming a vanishing race and that we should do more to protect them. A rather general attitude developed, just as it did to the emancipation of young people in the developing commercial world. One hundred years ago often the parents of the children employed in mines and spinning mills argued that legislation could not prevent the employment of children because if their employment was prohibited their families would be short of sufficient finance to sustain themselves. I do not think a debate of this nature is well served by going back to the days when Aboriginals were slaughtered and by implying that perhaps the responsibility for that lies all on one side of politics or another.

J do not suggest that that was the intention of Senator Cant or Senator Keeffe. When the slaughter of our Aboriginals was taking place many women were being brought out here from England under atrocious conditions. Conditions on ships were almost as bad as those obtaining on the slave ships carrying slaves from Africa to North America. But that is all in the past. The treatment of those women when they arrived in this country was almost as bad as anything done to the Aboriginals. To evaluate those circumstances it is necessary to turn everything back to those times.

I believe that all Australians today, irrespective of their political philosophies, are trying to do more for our Aboriginals and have a greater social conscience towards them. I think it is completely wrong when speaking of the excesses of the past to assert, for instance, that only wealthy squatters were responsible for the degradation and prostitution of Aboriginal women, lt is probable that the responsibility lay more with people with whom as a trade unionist I would have had a greater affinity. I refer to the people who had to work in Western Australia and, unlike the squatters, were not sufficiently wealthy to have their wives and families with them. I think they contributed greatly to the degradation of the Aboriginal women at that time. But that is all in the past.

I believe that today we have gone beyond the intentions of the people who first became aware of the Aboriginal problem. Our generation was not the first to take to heart the problems of Aboriginals. In retrospect it can be seen how unfortunate, because of undue enthusiasm and too great a haste, were the first attempts to find a solution to the problem of Aboriginals by developing a system of handouts. I think we would all agree today that that method did not fulfil the excellent intentions of the people who wanted to help the Aboriginals. In many instances the opposite effect was achieved.

We have come to realise that there was a tendency merely to hand to people who were untrained in our way of life an obligation to be completely assimilated. We could ask why the assimilation should be all one way. Surely the Aboriginals would wish to retain some aspects of their own code and culture. I think Senator Cormack put a rather extreme point. It is true that many Aboriginals in an endeavour to obtain the things with which they felt more comfortable favoured the idea of reservations. We have moved beyond all that and now for the first time we are tackling the problem in the proper manner.

When the referendum was conducted in 1967 I was one of the people who felt that the Commonwealth would have made a quicker beginning than it did. However, on more mature reflection I have decided that if Aboriginals were to be headed in the correct and wise direction no great advantage was to be gained by undue haste. Senator Keeffe referred to developments over 200 years. Surely we cannot expect to solve all the problems in 2, 5 or even 10 years. To attempt to do so would only aggravate those problems. A long range programme is necessary.

Although the Government seemed a little tardy in beginning I must pay it the compliment that when it began to operate it seemed to be moving along the right lines. It endeavoured to establish amongst the Aboriginals a sense of responsibility and participation. It endeavoured to involve as many responsible Aboriginals as possible - and, in considering the difficulties, 1 believe that the responsible people in the Aboriginal community must have been absolute geniuses to emerge at all from the pack in the manner in which they did, in view of the opportunities available to them. I have a tremendous admiration for some of the leading Aboriginals who, in spite of the conditions they had to contend with, are now looked up to in our society. These people have been involved in the programme as much as possible. I think it is unfair to them to suggest that they are in any way silenced or divided from their own people. I do not support the suggestion that giving them responsibilities as committee members is turning them into an entity separate from the rest of the Aboriginal people. I do not think they are likely to be affected in that way. They may not be proceeding with the haste that some of us think is required to solve the Aboriginal problem, but perhaps they are proceeding with wisdom and a realisation of the immensity of the psychological problems that have to be overcome.

Some anomalies may have been correctly stated by Senator Keeffe and Senator Georges, but such anomalies occur in every walk of life in our community today. It cannot be suggested that the whole thing is wrong, that it is failing or has to be scrapped because we can point to some anomaly where perhaps a public servant has exhibited over-caution. I have been aware of many problems that have developed because public servants have not exercised enough caution. I could recount just as many of those incidents as there are anomalies which could be cited by members of the Australian Labor Party.

I am prepared to accept that all honourable senators who have spoken to this motion are sincere in their intent, but I do not know that they are completely wise. I do not think the Government can be charged with wanting to smash all Aboriginal organisations. The evidence adduced to substantiate a charge such as that has been very flimsy. In fact the evidence which was adduced in this debate could have supported the view that the Government had the opposite intention. Even if it can be shown that a complete mistake had been made or that there had been an error of judgment, that would not necessarily prove that the Government, which is composed of Australian people and which is elected by Australians, is out to smash the Aboriginal organisation. I can see nothing to substantiate that proposition.

I feel that the Government is trying sincerely to tackle the Aboriginal problem. Although I, as one interested in reform and in trying to restore some measure of justice to the Aboriginal people of this country, to give them opportunities to share in the affluence of our society, might differ to some extent with the methods that have been adopted by the Government, I would never go so far as to say that its intentions were not sincere. I do not think that suggestion comes within the general Australian philosophy. I admit that I am puzzled to know precisely what is right and good as a solution to this problem. Perhaps as an example I could refer to a situation in Darwin, a place which I visited and to which Senator Georges has been recently. I am one of those who approve of the idea that we must extend to the Aboriginals as much responsibility for themselves as is humanly possible if they are ultimately to develop and become assimilated in the general community. As a result of the circumstances and conditions in which I have seen young Aboriginal children in a hotel bar in Darwin I could very well be disposed to make a retrogressive step.

Would the answer to the problem of those Aboriginal children be found in the introduction of prohibition for all Aboriginals, irrespective of whether it can be shown that they have not the tolerance to alcohol that some other people more used to drinking would have? Would it be right to suggest that it would be a progressive step to save the young girls whom I saw in the hotel bar if we were to reimpose on Aboriginals the restrictions that applied for many years? This is a classic example to show that one’s enthusiasm to protect an individual might lead one to make a mistake and retard progress.I suppose we would have to admit that in anything we do in the interests of progress for any people anywhere we will find that some people will fall by the wayside. We can point to many people in our community who do not quite make the grade. In some cases it is due to alcoholism or illnesses of that kind. But because of those individuals should we alter our whole system? We know that we cannot do so. Yet most of the attacks on the Government over the question of Aboriginals have been attacks of this nature. The incidents which have been mentioned are, to a degree, isolated.

Senator Keeffe:

– They are not isolated.

Senator LITTLE:

– The honourable senator says that they are not isolated incidents, but he has mentioned about 3 or 4 incidents which must be considered against the whole history of Australia and the tremendous magnitude of the Aboriginal problem in a country so widely dispersed as Australia. I suggest that they are isolated incidents of the type that we must expect in any great reform programme if we are to progress. It is for these reasons that we do not propose to support the motion. We feel there are anomalies and that there is much to do, but we are impressed with the sincerity of the Government, if not with its speed, and the manner in which it is trying to get to the heart of the problem. We do not support the motion.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

page 399

NAVIGATION BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This urgent Bill is for the purpose of providing the legislative power necessary to deal with vessels and their cargoes in cases where there is pollution or threat of pollution to the Australian coast or coastal waters by oil. During the last 2 weeks, there have been various references in the Senate to the tanker ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ which struck a submerged object in the eastern end of Torres Strait on 3rd March 1970. The vessel was extensively damaged and in the initial stages a considerable quantity of oil was lost. Under the influence of the north westerly monsoon this oil moved out to sea and apparently has dispersed through the action of wind and waves. Further minor oil spills have occurred since, particularly during the transfer of oil from the tanker. These have been treated in the vicinity of the ship with detergents which have been flown into the area by Royal Australian Air Force aircraft at the request of the Department of Shipping and Transport or by commercial means.

The tanker ‘Leslie J. Thompson’ was in the immediate area and in ballast, but the transfer of oil from the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ did not commence for several days. Eventually the ‘Leslie J. Thompson’ obtained a full cargo from the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ and sailed for Brisbane on 11th March. Since then there has been a period of some 7 days during which time no transfer operations have taken place. It does not appear that another relief tanker will be in the area for several days. As a result ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ still has 30,000 tons of oil on board and unless early action is taken to provide further tankers to take oil from the vessel it may remain in the area as a potential danger to the islands of the Great Barrier Reef and the fishing and pearl beds in the area for some time.

This incident has highlighted the fact that under existing legislation the Commonwealth lacks the necessary power which would enable it to deal effectively with such an incident. It has demonstrated the need to provide the Minister with powers to take urgent and effective action to ensure there is no delay in the removal of a potential hazard. It has also indicated that the Commonwealth lacks any authority to recover under its own right costs which it has incurred in taking action to prevent the discharge of oil or mitigate the effects of a spillage.

The Bill which honourable senators have before them provides the Minister for Shipping and Transport with the necessary legislative power to do these things. It allows the Minister to direct a shipowner or other interests to take specific action, such as charter a ship or remove his vessel, and provides a penalty where a direction is not complied with. It permits the Minister to take action in the event that a direction to a shipowner or other interest is not complied with and to recover the cost of such action.

The risk of permitting the vessel ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ to remain in the area of the Barrier Reef without real endeavours being made to have her discharged as quickly as possible will be immediately apparent to honourable senators. Accordingly, I would wish the present Bill to be passed without delay so that its provisions may be applied in the case of this vessel if necessary. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– We of the Opposition recognise the urgency of this matter and we accept what has been said by the Government. It desires that the legislation be passed expeditiously and we are willing to assist the Government to do this. This is in the nature of an emergency and I do not think that any obstacle should be placed in the path of the Government. However, I want to make some observations. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) said:

This incident has highlighted the fact that under existing legislation the Commonwealth lacks the necessary power which would enable it to deal effectively with such an incident.

Of course, he means that the Government of the Commonwealth lacks the power because the legislation has been defective and that is really the fault of no-one but the Commonwealth. The Government was aware that incidents such as the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ spillage might occur from the experiences of other countries and it ought to have taken steps long before this to anticipate such an incident and provide itself with the necessary powers to cope with the situation.

This is not an unprecedented situation. In a brilliant speech made without preparation in the other place the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) indicated the occasions on which this sort of incident had occurred and the Government should have been prepared. I should indicate to honourable senators that the honourable member for Newcastle said that an opportunity ought to be provided within 6 months for the introduction of a private member’s motion to propose any amendments that might be desired to this Bill. The Government should be assisted by the Parliament to have this Bill passed. Honourable senators should permit its passage. However, we have not had an opportunity to examine the Bill to see what the provisions are, whether there would be any objection to them, whether they go far enough or whether they go too far. We are in the position where we have to say that we are prepared to trust the Government and agree to this Bill. Because we have not had the opportunity to discuss the Bill amongst ourselves - let alone consider it - it is my view that a tag ought to be attached to the Bill, that is, a time tag.

The Bill appears to seek a permanent amendment to the Navigation Act and I think that that goes too far. I suggest that a fair approach would be to say that the

Bil) should be amended in the way that the Government has sought without worrying at all about what it has done. The Government says that it needs these powers. The Government has rushed in. It is not too sure whether the Bill will amend the Act in the way that it wants, in the same way that we are not too sure and cannot be too sure about the Bill. At the Committee stage we will move an amendment to provide that the amendments to the Act will cease to operate after 6 months. That will give the Government 6 months to do all that it needs to do. It will give the Government ample opportunity to introduce another Bill, if it thinks fit, and we can then consider the matter again.

The Government says that an emergency has occured. In those circumstances I think a fair approach to the matter would be to not oppose the second reading of the Bill. We will not and cannot trouble ourselves with an appropriate consideration of the Bill. We have noted what was said. If my suggested amendment is carried, it will mean that at the end of 6 months we can reconsider the matter. If necessary, during those 6 months, opportunity could be afforded, in accordance with the assurance that was given to the honourable member for Newcastle, to allow the introduction of a private member’s Bill to deal with any suggested amendments that were thought to be appropriate. With those remarks I indicate that I think that the Bill ought to pass the second reading stage.

It is important to observe that in cases such as this the Parliament can operate most expeditiously. The Bill was introduced at 8 p.m. It has not been the subject of any determination by the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. It has not been the subject of any determination by the Executive of the Party. Nevertheless, we are prepared to agree that the Bill be read a second time. Members of our Party are free to do what they like. Let it not be thought that on all occasions we will act in the same way and agree to the passage of similar legislation. My advice would be that we should agree to the passage of the Bill without delaying it in any way. I indicate my support for its second reading.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party realises that we have no alternative but to vote for the Bill. We have been informed that Australia is faced with an emergency and that urgent legislation must be passed if we are even to begin to deal with that emergency. Therefore, we are placed in the position that we must trust the Government and must support the speedy passage of the Bill. I merely comment that I do not think we Australians realise how fortunate we have been over the years in that we have not had a similar disaster of considerable magnitude. Most of our oil must come from abroad in tankers. When one realises the immense quantity of oil that has been imported over the years, one marvels that we have not been faced with a very serious disaster. The Government has said that it does not have adequate powers to deal with a situation such as that existing at present in waters adjacent to our shores. Therefore, I think we should respond to the appeal of the Government and we should pass this Bill.

Senator Murphy said that the Bill appears to be a permanent amendment to the Navigation Act. I do not think any Act is a permanent one. It is always subject to being eliminated from the statute book. I presume that what he meant was that unless there were some guarantee such as he sought the Bill could become a permanent amendment to the Act even though the parties have not had an opportunity to examine its provisions. Normally my Party is not particularly keen to put on tags such as that suggested by Senator Murphy, but we think we ought to hear what Senator Murphy has to say at the Committee stage as he has forecast his intention of putting certain arguments. We will make our decision in the light of the arguments that are put forward.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I want to make one or two comments about the Bill. I think the basic comment which ought to be made is that the legislation is being introduced for the purpose of enabling a basically good intention to be carried out. I have no objection to acceding to what the Government is intending to do. Proposed section 329f proves that, where the Minister is satisfied the oil is escaping from or is likely to escape from a ship, and the oil is polluting or is likely to pollute any Australian coastal waters, any part of the Australian coast or any Australian reef, the Minister may act to reduce the pollution. Oil pollution has been discussed in the Senate for some considerable rime. Pollution of our waters has been the subject of investigation of a particular committee of the Senate. Many honourable senators have asked questions about the particular vessel which is now in trouble within the Great Barrier Reef. I am rather concerned that the legislation was introduced hurriedly, because this does not allow the Senate to concern itself with clauses which might impinge upon the rights of individuals.

We have to agree to a general proposition which provides for the amendment of an Act to allow the Government to take some action against the master of a ship who ought to be compelled to discharge his cargo under reasonable conditions so as to avoid pollution of the Barrier Reef or parts of the coast. All honourable senators would agree that such action would be appropriate. My main concern is about the lack of advice to honourable senators. Nobody knew anything about this legislation until about 12.45 p.m. today. No honourable senator, either on the Government side or on the Opposition side, had any opportunity to consider the particulars of the Bill. 1 am the secretary of the Transport Committee of the Australian Labor Party. At lunch time we were told that the Bill had to be passed some time during the course of the evening. 1 think it is most unreasonable for the Government to put before the Opposition a proposition that it has to pass a Bill because there is an emergency. That does not allow us to vet clauses which might impinge upon the rights of individuals. That is my main objection. I do not intend to impede the passage of the Bill.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is not that being a little inconsistent, in the light of what the honourable senator said?

Senator BISHOP:

– No, it is not. I think I should repeat what our Transport Committee decided. The Committee consists of representatives from most of the States, including honourable senators from Queensland who have been concerned about a Queensland situation which is also an Australian situation. We said that we would not impede the passage of the legislation but that we thought we should have been given more time to consider what requirements might obtain in a given situation which might imperil the nation and the Barrier Reef. The Government has had ample time to introduce this legislation. Honourable senators on this side of the House has’e asked questions about the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ and about the possibility of discharging the cargo from the vessel. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) could have commissioned a vessel to discharge the cargo. The Government could have ascertained that (he circumstances were such that the vessel’s cargo did not imperil the Australian continent, but it has not done that. What it has done has been to introduce legislation at 8 p.m. and tell us that we have to pass it because it is good legislation.

While we accept the general proposition and while we accept that there might be advantages in the legislation, we are concerned that in dealing hurriedly with it we might impinge upon the rights of u shipping company or of individuals. Those honourable senators who are lawyers should bc the first ones to say that legislation of this nature should be properly considered. I think I have made my point on this aspect. The Opposition does not oppose the speedy passage of this legislation because it is of the opinion that the general objectives of the Bill are in accordance with the policy of the Australian Labor Party. But the Opposition is of the opinion that the legislation should be reconsidered within the next 6 months so that the Opposition will be able to move amendments to certain aspects of the Bill if they are deemed necessary. The Opposition has not had time to consider fully the proposals outlined in the Bill; all it has had is a general outline of the proposals. I agree with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) on this aspect. In fact, the Government has not supplied the Opposition with a copy of the general statement which was made in the other place by the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

Senator Greenwood:

– The honourable senator is elevating inconsistency and uncertainty into a virtue.

Senator BISHOP:

– The honourable senator probably has not heard the explanation which was given in the other place by the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In addition to his second reading speech the Minister explained in the other place the scope of the Bill. He referred also to a convention which was carried in 1963. The Senate has not been supplied with this information, yet we find that an honourable senator opposite who is a lawyer and therefore knows the problems involved in the legality and the significance of a Bill saying that we should pass a Bill which we know nothing about.

Senator Greenwood:

– I never said anything about that. I am only commenting on the honourable senator’s attitude.

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask honourable senators to judge the situation for themselves. The Opposition accepts that there is an urgent need for such legislation in order to preserve the coastline of Australia. But the Opposition is also concerned about why vessels of this nature should use a route which involves their going between the mainland of Australia and the Great Barrier Reef. Why should they not go out into international waters? The Opposition is also concerned about a matter which the Minister for Shipping and Transport mentioned in passing in the other place concerning the obligations which a convention passed in 1963 imposed upon ship owners and others. I summarise the Government’s attitude by saying that it says: ‘We are doing something good. We want you to trust us because we have to pass the legislation in a hurry.’ I object to such an attitude. I think the Parliament should be afforded the opportunity to consider the legislation properly. Do honourable senators opposite agree with me?

Senator Greenwood:

– I understand the honourable senator is still going to vote for the measure he is castigating.

Senator BISHOP:

– The honourable senator confuses me. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. He is a legal man. During debates on Bills he frequently raises the subject of the rights of individuals. It seems to me that Senator Greenwood is now proposing that the Opposition should vote against the Bill. All he is doing is taking the opportunity to criticise the Opposition because it is trying to be reasonable. Although the Opposition will vote for the Bill it is not satisfied with the methods which are being used by the Government to enable urgent legislation to be passed. Although the Opposition will vote for the legislation it will insist that the legislation be reintroduced to the Parliament within 6 months so that the Parliament can assess what should be done in the light of Australian requirements and international standards.

The Minister has pointed out that what should be done to accord with international standards cannot be done in a short time and therefore this legislation is introduced as an emergency measure. At 1 o’clock this afternoon the Opposition was supplied with one copy of the Minister’s second reading speech and one copy of the Bill and asked to co-operate in the speedy passage of the Bill through the Parliament. It is only reasonable to expect that every honourable senator should be supplied with a copy of the Government’s proposals as well as the remarks of the Minister in the other place. [ have risen to make these complaints because I feel that the Senate should be allowed the opportunity of considering the Government’s proposals in a serious manner. For that reason I believe that the legislation should be reintroduced in the Parliament within 6 months.

During lengthy debates in 1968 and 1969 concerning amendments to the Navigation Act the Government stated that it would introduce comprehensive measures which would bring the Australian Navigation Act up to international standards, but it has never done so. This should have been done. The Opposition wants to know why these comprehensive measures have not been introduced. They concern not only the question of oil pollution but also the general provisions of the Act in regard to lifesaving equipment and the other things which go to make up safety at sea. The Opposition wants to know what progress has been made in this direction. In this regard one has only to be reminded that the evidence at the Court of Marine Inquiry into the ‘Noongah’ disaster indicated that there was great dereliction of duty by certain sections of the Services. In the closing stages of my speech I shall refer to the errors which were made by the Royal Australian Air Force. The Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) is looking at me. The fact of the matter is that there was not the sort of organisation which one would expect from the RAAF in an air rescue. For example, great delays occurred. A more comprehensive examination of the provisions of the Navigation Act is needed. The Opposition wants to know when it wil be given an opportunity to make that examination.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– 1 support the .Bill. In view of the risk of damage to the Australian coastline and our coastal industries I. have been advocating legislation of this nature for a long time. The ‘Oceanic Grandeur is aground inside the 3-mile limit. There is no question at all that it is within Australia’s territorial waters. The vessel is aground 21 miles from Wednesday Island. We have been told that a large quantity of oil is still in its tanks. Apparently no attempt is being made to remove the oil in a hurry. We have been told that no action has been taken during the last 7 or 8 days to remove the remaining oil. lt so happens that there was a tanker in the vicinity of the “Oceanic Grandeur’ when it ran aground and it removed a large quantity of the oil and transported it to Brisbane, but nothing has been done since then.

It is the season of bad weather in that, part of the Australian coastline at present. A cyclone or bad weather could blow up any time which could result in a large quantity of oil being spilled. We might not be so fortunate if there is another spillage in that the currents could take the oil in a direction in which it could do a lot of harm. The Bill gives the Minister for Shipping and Transport the discretionary power to take suitable action in the event of further spillages and early action to have the remainder of the oil cargo transferred to another tanker or removed in some other fashion. Bur someone should be liable for the cleaning up operations and so on. I believe that someone must be made to pay the bill for such operations. As I said at the commencement of my speech, the vessel ran aground within 3 miles of the Australian coast.

It has been pointed out that the number of tankers plying our coastline is increasing. The tankers are also getting larger and larger. As a result, the risk of damage to our coastal industries and resorts as well as many of the other things on the coast is becoming greater and greater. From the information 1 have been able to gather I believe that the draft of this ship is almost too great for it to go through Torres Strait. 1 understand that the maximum depth of water in Torres Strait is around 40 to 42 feet. If a ship from Sumatra or from wherever it is bringing the oil does not go through Torres Strait it has to go right around the top of New Guinea or around the southern coast of Australia. There is a limit to the size of ships which can use Torres Strait. I understand there are only two steamer passages through Torres Strait. One is down close to Thursday Island and the other one is about half way up through the Strait. The presence of this ship wilh its cargo of oil constitutes a big risk to coral reefs, to part of the Great Barrier Reef, to the cultured pearl industry which has developed into a very big industry in that part of Australia, to the fishing industry, to bird life and to the coastal resorts. The other day the Senate was told thai the shipping companies of the world had got together and decided on voluntary insurance to cover the possibility of this type of damage.

During my speech on the debute on the Address-in-Reply 1 said:

But the main hope is that shipowners will police themselves.

The big owners have increased insurance against claims For pollution and guaranteed big compensatory payments to governments.

This insurance scheme is only just getting under way. 1 was told by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) in answer to a question I asked last week that it will take some time for the scheme to become fully organised. This Navigation Bill will have one result in the sense that it will control a ship which is in territorial waters. Unfortunately, the Oceanic Grandeur’ is stuck in the Strait and it cannot get away. The Government wants the insurance scheme tidied up as soon as possible because there is noi only the risk of ships going aground in Torres Strait, hut there is the risk of ships being wrecked in a cyclone, and the risk of a collision. I put it to the Senate that if there was a collision off some part of Australia near big seaside resorts, such as the Gold Coast of Queensland or some other resort in the southern part of Australia, during the week before Christmas nothing could be claimed against a ship involved if it was beyond the 3-mile limit because, as the legislation stands at present, it is on the high seas. The only remedy available to the business people in those seaside resorts w ho would stand to lose - the operators of hotels, motels, guest houses and flats, and the people who provide meals and those who run the other businesses which cater for the large number of people at those resorts - would be to sue individually the owner of the ship at the International Court of Justice at The Hague. As honourable senators oan imagine that would take a long time; it would be almost impossible for those people to pursue that course. I realise that the provisions of this Bill will not alter that situation, as the honourable senator opposite has stated. The Government is establishing the principle of the Australian Commonwealth having a claim against these people by international treaty. The voluntary insurance scheme of the shipowners will overcome the problem provided all the shipping owners are in this insurance scheme. But I do think that this Bill should be part of a permanent scheme. I know it has been introduced in a hurry. We must take heed of the fact that Parliament will not be sitting for 2i weeks and anything could go wrong in that period. Without this legislation power would not be available to deal with any emergency oil spillage. Possibly there would not be enough detergent. We do not know whether detergent is having any proper effect in cleaning up oil spillages. This is a start in legislation which I believe is necessary to protect the Australian coast and protect the seaside resorts. For that reason I support the Bill and I hope it has a speedy passage.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

Senator Young:

– You want to make it 30 days.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I want to make it so that the Commonwealth has no doubt about its responsibilities. That is why we want to give the Commonwealth this temporary authority, but we want it written irrevocably into the constitutional responsibilities of the Commonwealth that we can take action when an emergency such as this arises. The Minister went on:

This incident has highlighted the fact that under existing legislation the Commonwealth lacks the necessary power which would enable it to deal effectively with such an incident.

Why was not this matter taken up between the Commonwealth and the States when they were carving up the areas for the granting of off-shore and similar concessions? I will deal with that aspect on some other day. The Minister then said:

It has demonstrated the need to provide the Minister with powers to take urgent and effective action to ensure there is no delay in the removal of a potential hazard.

I agree entirely. I am prepared and anxious to support this measure so that it will get a speedy passage to deal with this specific situation. But giving an all-embracing authority under the guise of an emergency Bill such as this is something which should have the very close attention of the Senate.

As the Minister has said, the Bill provides the Minister with the necessary legislative power to do these things. What things? The Bill allows the Minister quite a wide power. It defines Australian coastal waters and the Australian reef. These are things that are new. In emergency legislation we find the Department of Shipping and Transport prepared to make definitions that we have not seen. The Bill refers to oil that is polluting, or is likely to pollute, any part of the Australian coast. This Bill gives the Minister authority in relation to likely pollution. That opens the door very widely because the oil industry is a likely cause of pollution of the Australian coast. Even in our harbours our local authorities and marine boards arc having difficulties. They are finding slicks floating in the harbour. They cannot find the persons responsible because bilges are opened, the slick is released and the ships sail off into the night. The local people - the ratepayers and the taxpayers of Australia - are left carrying the slick - a very slick trick.

Finally, the powers of the Minister in the case of non-compliance with the notice are set out in the Bill. I believe that they may serve the purpose here but that penalties should be provided for careless people if, in the pursuit of profits, they are going to destroy our inheritance - the adjacent areas of sea and their marine life, reefs and islands. These people should have to carry sufficient insurance to be able to make good any damage they cause. So, I support the Bill and I hope that during the Committee stage we will bc able to continue to express our belief that this should be a temporary measure; that it should have a limit of 6 months on it; and that it should be reviewed after that time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) - Order! Before I call Senator Davidson I point out to the Senate that there is far too much audible conversation. The proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast, and the speakers who are addressing the Senate are finding difficulty in commanding the attention of the Senate.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I wish to lend my support to the Bill but at the same time to say one or two things about it. In the first instance I express a measure of disappointment that this matter has come through with such a degree of urgency. Everybody realises that the situation confronting the nation, particularly the coastal areas, at the moment is a matter of considerable emergency and considerable danger. Therefore the Government needs to take this sort of measure in order that the Minister for Shipping and Transport may have the power to deal with what is becoming an all too frequent occurrence not only in our coastal waters but in coastal waters everywhere.

As a result of the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ incident, Australia has come into the area of this kind of happening which has been prevalent in other parts of the world. We have seen before us in recent days what I will call the Australian content of a worldwide problem. It is a reminder to us that the Australian Government and the Australian authorities generally must take far reaching steps in order to preserve the quality of our coastal waters. The Bill sets out not only in its title but also in its early stages just what is meant by ‘Australian coastal waters’ and ‘Australian reef as well as oil and mixtures of oil. I have taken some interest in this incident in recent days. Honourable senators may remember that I have addressed a few questions to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) as the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In those questions 1. have asked for information in relation, to the construction of vessels, particularly tankers, in this part of the world. I also believe that we should receive some information relating to the qualifications of the masters of vessels and other authorities concerned with the movement of vessels that are heavily laden, as the ‘Oceanic Grandeur and others are, with a cargo of oil.

J should like the Minister to give a further explanation of proposed section 329f in relation to the powers of the Minister for Shipping and Transport in taking ‘such action in relation to the ship or ils cargo, or the ship and its cargo, as is specified in the notice’. In the Minister’s second reading speech there is reference to the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force has visited the area of the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ disaster and has treated the water there with detergents. We have had some questions asked in the Senate in relation to this matter. I would like to have a further assurance that, whilst on the one hand the action the Minister may take in the case of a problem of this kind may have the effect of dispersing the oil pollution, the detergent, dispersant or treatment - whatever the case may be - will not have an ultimate effect on the marine life, including the fish life, as well as on the aesthetic and economic aspects. These are matters that are of continuous concern to us.

I hope that whilst the Bill will receive a speedy passage attention will be given to providing the Senate from time to time with information on the matter of retaining the quality of our coastal environment. This matter has received a considerable amount of attention from a group of senators who, with the authority of the Senate, are members of a Senate committee dealing with water pollution. We have received a considerable amount of evidence relating to the pollution of the coast by oil and other causes. It is true that (his Bill and the Minister’s second reading speech refer more particularly to the Queensland coast. But this danger exists in other parts of the Australian coast including the southern coast and the western coast. I hope that when the Senate has given the Bill a speedy passage the Minister for Shipping and Transport will be able to exercise his powers so as to prevent the pollution of the coast; but at the same time there are some questions relating to the Bill and the Minister’s second reading speech on which I would like further information. I have referred to them. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will see fit to give us that information.

Senator BYRNE (Queensland) 1 8.561- The Senate must regret the circumstances that make the presentation of legislation of this character necessary, and more particularly the circumstances that make it necessary to introduce it as an urgent measure. During the past few weeks the sad spectacle of this great tanker going aground on a reef to the north of Queensland, with the consequences of that and the threat to the natural environment of Queensland, has been canvassed. Great concern as to the consequences has been expressed in this place. The Australian Democratic Labor Party, of course, has a point of view on this matter and on the Bill.

We believe that the Parliament has already shown a very keen consciousness of the necessity to take adequate steps to protect the natural environment. As a result of the appointment over a period of time of select committees on the great matters of oil drilling, oil exploration on the Australian coastal perimeter and the protection of the environment- whether the environment of the air or the environment of the water as referred to by Senator Davidson - these matters have received the close and continuous attention of the Senate. These committees are not merely exploratory committees designed to discover facts which will nol bc availed of for the purpose of Executive action. All these committees would hope that as a result of the gathering of these facts the Government would be persuaded to take courses of action by legislation or regulation which would bring into operation circumstances that might avert the dangers that now threaten us.

It would seem to be premature, therefore, for us to commit ourselves to a statute in anticipation of the findings of those committees. Seldom has a chamber had the opportunity to make such a close and continuous scrutiny of circumstances on which legislation might be based. Therefore, to bring in this legislation at this stage and in these circumstances and to give it perennial existence or existence until repeal would appear not to be taking advantage of the mass of information that we hope will come from the reports of those committees, which may make recommendations as to specific legislative action that should be taken as a consequence of their investigations and deliberations. For that reason we believe that to give this Bill a limited life might have much virtue.

Actually, in proposed section 329g there appears to be a situation that would warrant the particular course of action that the amendment seems to contemplate. Proposed section 329f (1.) states:

Where ihe Minister is satisfied that -

oil is escaping from, or is likely to escape from, a ship; and

the oil is polluting, or is likely to pollute, any Australian coastal waters . . .

In other words, two situations are contemplated: One where there is in fact oil pollution and the other where there is a likelihood of oil pollution by virtue of the jeopardy in which an oil tanker may find itself even (hough no actual oil pollution has occurred.

Senator Devitt:

– Would the honourable senator say that it was open to the interpretation that the escape of oil does not constitute an offence?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– No: I think it constitutes an offence. The question that I come to is: What are the consequences of such an offence? I believe that the escape of oil constitutes an offence. If the ship is in peril and is not removed, that contemplates a threat which may attract the provisions of the legislation. Then proposed section 329g sets out the consequential penalties. There is an initial penalty of $2,000. That proposed section is in these terms: 329o. - (1.) A person who fails to comply with a notice served on him under the lust preceding section is guilty of an offence against this Hart punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding Two thousand dollars and, in re -peel of each day on which oil escapes from the ship to which the notice relates by reason of his not having so complied or escapes to a greater extent than it would have escaped if he hud complied with l lie notice, an additional line nol exceeding Two thousand dollars.

Conditions precedent to the imposition of the daily penalty will be that a notice has been given and that oil is escaping from the ship. Yet obviously another position is contemplated in the statute - that the ship is in jeopardy and no oil is escaping but there is a possibility of pollution in the event of a cyclone or something of that nature. That situation does not attract the daily penally, lt is attracted only when oil is actually escaping, if it were not leaking oil, 1 do not know what the position would be. If the notice had been served and not complied with there would be an initial fine of $2,000 for non-compliance, but there would be no daily penalty from that time on because oil was not actually leaking.

Senator Devitt:

– But it has to do more than escape. It has also to threaten pollution.

Senator BYRNE:

– That is it exactly. But the number 1 condition precedent is that oil must be leaking. So in those circumstances it would appear that the master of a vessel, having received an order and assessed the balance of advantages could fail to comply. He could take a chance on salvage or other circumstances and just go on until the Government stepped in under the other powers of the legislation and took remedial steps to remove the danger or to discharge the oil. 1 suggest that in that respect the provisions of the Bill could be rather weak. That indicates the necessity for the further consideration that in my view should be given to this legislation.

It is obvious that if the Bill were further examined, time permitting, quite real circumstances could be discovered in which there would be weaknesses not covered by the proposed legislation. My friends of the Opposition laid emphasis on an attack on the measure as a threat to the rights of individuals. I prefer to point to the weaknesses of the Bill as a disciplinary measure. That is another reason why 1 feel that prudence dictates that this Bill in the circumstances of emergency should be given operation, but should be given a limited life.

I understand that an assurance has been given in another place that the Government is prepared to allow the legislation to operate with the right of a private member to bring back proposed amendments. But if the Government feels that this amendment is warranted, the measure should have only limited life. I have no doubt that an examination of the operations of the statute in the intervening period would prove most fruitful in the final drafting of a statute in the light of the investigations and recommendations of select committees, ft could be a permanent legislative record, able to be relied on with confidence in the unfortunate circumstances which we hope will not occur but cannot be dismissed from our contemplation. For those reasons the Democratic Labor Party proposes to support the amendment.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and other

Opposition senators in giving the Bill my blessing up to a point. However, I wonder what the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) would have done had the disaster to the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ not occurred. I do not indict directly the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), who represents the Minister for Shipping and Transport in this chamber, but it is of no use begging the question. Senator Lawrie claimed that this legislation will fill the gap until the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement on Liability for Oil Pollution becomes an established fact or the effect of the Brussels Convention is felt. We feel that the Minister for Shipping and Transport is culpable because during the last session I asked a series of questions about what 1 call prevention rather than cure. I suggested, in effect, that the 1923 Convention dealing with port facilities be qualified and that if a particular tanker did not carry adequate insurance cover it should be banned from using port facilities, lt is of no use beating our breasts and saying that this legislation is to be the be-all and end-all because it deals only with ships in Australian waters. There will be no major protection until either TOVALOP is an established fact or the full terms of the Brussels Convention are ratified by major nations.

My criticism of the Minister arises from the fact that this week in response to a scries of questions asked by Senator Keeffe, Senator Georges and myself we received a series of contradictions. I quoted a letter written last year by the Minister for Shipping and Transport on the subject of membership of TOVALOP by the Australian oil tanker operators. The information in that letter had to be corrected the other day. I say in fairness to Senator Cotton that Ampol’s membership of TOVALOP was revealed as a fact. I will not transgress any more than did Senator Davidson or other senators in referring to committees. It was pointed out very clearly when the Australian delegation returned from Brussels that Cabinet was considering the situation. The information was given in a Press statement. I wonder what would have happened if the Torres Strait disaster had not occurred. I believe that the Government would still be stalling because Government supporters in their heart of hearts were very diffident about taking independent action. That is the very thing we have argued about.

In far too many fields the Australian Government wants to know what Britain and the United States of America, or some other major maritime powers, are doing. Had the oil spill not occurred in Torres Strait the Government would have done nothing. Senator Cotton and Senator Wright have had to qualify the answers they have given to questions. I do not envy them their jobs. They were not briefed effectively by the Minister in the other place. I asked a question about Ampol and the Minister said: We know that Ampol will do the right thing.’ If the oil companies were doing the right thing the Government would not have produced this legislation. It believes everything would be all right, but it was not. That is the situation. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation a number of things are set out which the Minister can direct a shipping company to do. I am seeking an assurance not merely in respect of that list.

Senator Keeffe has been trying to get information about detergents or dispersants. So far nobody has been able to tell us which product has been used to disperse the oil in Torres Strait. Representatives of the tanker companies flew up there. The oil companies, irrespective of their home countries, are the czars of modern day industry. They are the counterparts of the old-time buccaneers like Morgan and other pirates of that era. In the board rooms of the oil companies they do not think about parliaments. They consider what is good for the particular oil company concerned.

Government supporters know in their hearts that the Government has no power to direct an oil company as to the particular detergent it should use. We are prepared to give to the Government for 6 months the powers set out in this legislation. But do not run away with the idea that at the end of that period everything in the garden will be lovely. It may be necessary to continue unilateral action. If so, I ask the Government to study the proposal which emanated from United States Senator Muske. Even the TOVALOP and Brussels Convention provisions are not the be-all and end-all. They are based on present oil tanker tonnages, but bigger and bigger tankers are coming out of the Japanese shipyards. Unless penalties are geared to higher rates there will be extreme difficulty.

Had the Torres Strait disaster not occurred the Government would still be pussyfooting about whether to support the private enterprise TOVALOP project or to wait for finality of the Brussels Convention. Do not forget that the terms of the Brussels Convention have to run the gauntlet of ratification by various parliaments. This interim legislation is a vindication of our criticism. I hope it will be a lesson to the Government not to act in namby pamby fashion when dealing with the big capitalist enterprises who do not recognise the national aspirations of any country, particularly of Australia.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I would like first to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) who represents the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) in this chamber whether the States were consulted before this legislation was introduced. I believe in conciliation. Honourable senators will recall that at the time of the Governor-General’s Speech the States were up in arms over some of the points mentioned in it. I believe it is far better to consult with the States than to introduce legislation which will cause dissatisfaction. In those circumstances I ask that the Minister answer that question.

I refer next to proposed section 329a Like other honourable senators I find this to be a most cumbersome provision which I believe would be a lawyer’s picnic if it were ever tested in court. I shall address myself no further to that, other than to say that I believe that the Opposition’s objection on the score that this measure should have a limited life is reasonable in view of the fact that the proposed section is cumbersome and could cause untold difficulties in future. While referring to that 1 draw the attention of the Senate to ihe fact that a most serious situation could arise if we ever found a vessel contravening the provisions of the Bill. I shall not endeavour to relate what the consequences would be, but it is proposed that the penalty to be imposed on a shipping company shall be $2,000. I suggest that a situation of this nature should attract a far greater penalty than $2,000. 1 invite honourable senators to consider bow much the workers are fined for a crime not nearly as severe as polluting Australian waters. When the situation of the workers is borne in mind it will be seen that a great degree of mercy is being shown to the operators of vessels. Like my colleagues I believe that the Opposition has been quite reasonable in suggesting that it will not appose the legislation but at the same time expresses the reservation that the legislation should be reviewed after 6 months.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Senate has before it a Bill which is designed to amend the Navigation Act for the purpose of preventing the pollution of the coast, coastal waters and Australian reefs by oil. That is all that the Bill is proposing to do. Some of the comments which I have heard from honourable senators opposite suggest to me that they have an impression that the Bill either covers a much wider area or ought to cover a much wider area. I fail to see where, when Senator Mulvihill says that ships should be insured in some way, that is a comment relevant to this measure. I think I would agree with him when he says that if there is a deficiency in legislative provisions whereby tankers which ply on the high seas are not adequately covered by insurance there should be steps to ensure that they are, but I do not think that is the purport of this Bill.

Senator Little:

– There may be 50,000 tons of oil sitting there for a month and the vessel can go down in 1 hour in a cyclone.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I appreciate that I may have invited this sort of comment by the way in which I have tackled this problem. If the order of the Minister is designed to ensure that oil should not escape from a ship and in fact the oil is stopped from escaping, why should a person be liable to any penalty thereafter? That is the issue with which we are concerned. If after that situation - which is one situation - there is still a risk that the oil which is within the tanker might at some later stage escape, then the Minister can take appropriate action at that stage. But why should a ship owner be liable to a fine if he tries to stop oil from escaping and in fact oil is not escaping? I appreciate that one is in an area of semantics in regard to this but I am concerned merely to answer what I conceive to be the point raised by Senator

Byrne and as I see it once the owner has stopped the oil from escaping he has discharged the obligation cast upon him by the Minister, and if at a later stage the oil is contained within the tanker and there is some risk because of some element of disturbance which is likely to arise, the Minister can make another direction to the owner. At that stage it is obligatory upon the owner to take that action. This is a Bill which is quite clear in purport. It is an emergency piece of legislation to meet an emergency situation. I feel that it should have the support of the Senate. I think it reflects credit on the Government that it has been prepared to act in an area where there has been legal uncertainty to resolve a situation and, as I said earlier, the fact that the Opposition is prepared to accept this measure is an indication that the Opposition recognises not only the needs of the situation but also the merits of the legislation.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not propose to delay this Bill for a lengthy period but because of the manner in which it has been introduced I feel there are some things that must go on record. One can almost describe the Bill as a disastrous piece of legislation to deal with a disastrous situation and brought down by a disastrous Government. We were supplied only a short time ago with the explanatory note on this Bill put out by the Department of Shipping and Transport and the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair). This explanatory note is probably one of the briefest that has ever come into this Senate in all the years that I have been here.

Senator Toohey:

– They have to keep the paper up.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It will be good to use as scrap paper and some people will probably use it in other places. I want to refer briefly to some of the things that Senator Greenwood said on behalf of the Government. The only thing that surprises me is that the Minister did not call the honourable senator in to draft the Bill because the suggestions he put up were merely a sickly defence of the Government and he made no real contribution to this debate. First of all, he accused members of the Australian Labor Party of being in doubt. We are not in doubt. Every time that a Bill is rushed through the Senate there is a nigger in the woodpile which has to be watched carefully. The Opposition is the watchdog of the Australian public and that is exactly how we propose to act. Even though we do not oppose this Bill the Government will not get away with a clean sheet. On 3rd March the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ ran aground in Torres Strait and for 3 weeks the Government has not taken one iota of interest in what happened.

Senator Greenwood:

– You cannot count. It is only 2 weeks ago.

Senator KEEFFE:

– lt is near enough to 3 weeks as far as 1 am concerned. This is the third sitting week of this Parliament and this incident occurred early on the morning of the day on which the GovernorGeneral sat in this place and said that everything in the garden was lovely. Another stupid accusation made by Senator Greenwood was that the Opposition has never before worried about this type of thing. All I can say is that he is used to reading Ginger Meggs comics and he has never studied the Hansard record. If he were to go through the Hansard over the last 10 years when this sort of possibility emerged, he would find plenty of evidence of the things which he denies we have tried to do.

Let us look at the other aspects of this. The Torres Strait is traversed by 350 to 400 tankers every year. In years gone by small tankers were able to negotiate these channels without a great deal of difficulty but today vessels are much bigger and the channels need to be much deeper than they are. I propose to say something about this in a moment or two because there are allegations about the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ and the depth of the channel as charted. If one wanted to sum up very quickly one would say that our friend in the Liberal Party, Senator Greenwood, has become the official spokesman and official lobbyist not only of the oil companies but also of the major shipping companies. I have no doubt that Mr Onassis will find a nice little spot on his staff for the honourable senator.

In 1967 this House passed legislation dealing with off-shore petroleum developments. Parallel legislation was passed by the State parliaments. The Commonwealth and States were in complete collaboration. The Navigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act and all other relevant Acts should have been amended at the same time. The Government has had 2-1 years to do something about amending those Acts. Now, because disaster strikes in a particular area and because the Government knows that it will be unpopular politically if it does not take some positive action to protect the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounding areas, it rushes through legislation without giving the Opposition an opportunity to study it. The Government could have had draft legislation prepared earlier.

Senator Young:

– How was the Government to know that this disaster would happen?

Senator KEEFFE:

– This legislation has nothing to do with wheat organisations or with wheat farmers. The Government could have produced draft legislation much earlier in the session because the potential disaster was there on the day on which the Parliament was opened. The Parliamentary Draftsman should have been asked to prepare something then so that Parliament could have studied the legislation in an orderly fashion instead of having it rushed through tonight, as the Government is doing. Allegations have been made that the Oceanic Grandeur’ had a draught of 37 feet and that it was trying to force its way through a channel that was 34 feci deep. We have asked questions consistently about this for 3 weeks and the Government has not replied to those questions. Why cannot the Government reply? Is it because the respective Ministers are incompetent or is it because the Government no longer cares what goes on? Earlier today I mentioned the problems associated with obtaining replies to questions on the notice paper. The Government has not yet told us what type of detergent is being used to disperse past and present leakages from this tanker. The Government has not been able to answer any of the other questions on the notice paper.

If the Minister for Shipping and Transport is so incompetent, why is he not taken back to the Liberal Party stable and sacked? Senator Greenwood could replace him, if he wished. The honourable senator certainly could not do a worse job than the present Minister has done, but I have grave doubts whether he would do a better job than the present Minister has done. These things must disgust any thinking Australian.

The Government is a government of expediency. It rushes in because it is faced with a disaster. This is the only time that it can think of taking action. We certainly do not intend to vote against the Bill but we insist that we be given the right to study all the features of the legislation when this moment of crisis has passed.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– My decision to enter the debate was prompted by the fact, which was highlighted during the course of the debate, that we were informed of the intended introduction of the Bill only this afternoon. I do not decry the fact that the legislation was introduced. I think it is very necessary to introduce this legislation, but that when legislation is introduced in this manner those of us who have some doubts and some reservations about certain aspects of it have a right and a responsibility to rise and highlight the imperfections that we see in the legislation. Naturally legislation introduced in this manner is bound to have weaknesses, imperfections and limitations. In all the circumstances surrounding the legislation, I wonder why it is necessary to introduce it at this late hour so long after the event which gave rise to it and so long after every publicity organ in the nation has been highlighting the pollution of the waters and of the atmosphere for so long. Not a day passes when one does not read in the daily Press references to the growing problem of pollution and to the possibility of further pollution of our waters and our air.

The legislation is very interesting in that it is the first, to my knowledge, placed before Parliament to deal with pollution. I hope somebody will correct me if I am wrong in that statement. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that when I commenced to speak I said that some of my observations on the legislation would arise from my ignorance of some of its provisions. If I did not say that, I meant to imply it by my words. The legislation highlights an event in the parliamentary affairs of this nation. For the first time, to my knowledge, the Commonwealth has involved itself in this very vexed and very important matter of pollution. The legislation has limitations in that it deals with only one aspect of pollution; it is introduced as an emergency measure to meet an emergency situation. The Commonwealth has set a precedent, quite properly, by becoming involved in trying to combat pollution. In due course and when subsequent legislation on pollution is introduced, I hope we will be aware that the Commonwealth has involved itself in trying to combat pollution by oil and has established a precedent for Commonwealth involvement in trying to combat the many other forms of pollution.

Earlier the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) showed his generosity by indicating my Party’s concession to legislation of this nature remaining on the statute book for a period of 6 months. I think that is a most generous concession. I believe that in all the circumstances - because of the background of pollution generally, because of the possibility of oil polluting our waters at all times, because of the increasing transportation of oil by ships in this new era and because of the finding of oil in waters adjacent to the Australian coast and on the Australian mainland - there is a likelihood of pollution by oil, through ships running aground off the coast or through some other mishap, becoming a matter of very grave concern. In the circumstances, the Government has a right and an obligation to become involved. The legislation has been introduced in great haste. Honourable senators on this side of the House have indicated that we will give passage to this legislation. An undertaking should be given that within a specified period of time - within the period of 6 months, as has been suggested - adequate legislation should be introduced to cover contingencies of a like nature. In the light of reports and of investigations by parliamentary committees, the Parliament should have placed before it comprehensive legislation dealing with all aspects of the matter.

I make this point: While we are dealing with an emergency situation confronting the oil industry, I hope that organisations other than those involved in the oil industry will be assisted. I am talking about marine boards, municipal councils, local authorities and similar organisations. They could be assisted to overcome any difficulties or problems arising in an emergency or in any other way as a consequence of pollution. I wish to make two or three other points. The first one relates to section 329f. Again

I draw attention to the fact that 1 have not had an opportunity to study this matter at great length, lt seems to me that two ingredients are involved in clause 329f (1.) in relation to the commission of an offence. It states:

Where the Minister is satisfied that -

oil is escaping from, or is likely to escape from, a ship; and

the oil is polluting, or is likely to pollute, any Australian coastal waters, any part of the Australian coast or any Australian reef . . .

I would suggest that the clause means that there must be the two ingredients before clause 329g(1.) applies. I think the operative word is the word ‘and’. If oil is escaping from a ship and there is no threat or likelihood of pollution of the coastal waters and the other things which have been mentioned it would seem to me that no offence has been committed. This is my understanding of the legislation. I am a layman and therefore I am not familiar with legal terminology and interpretations. But it would seem to me as a layman that both conditions must apply before it can be said that an offence is committed under the provisions of the legislation. Is that the intention of the Bill? Is that the accepted opinion in the minds of honourable senators of the intention of the legislation? Is it believed that there are two separate ingredients which can both be regarded as leading to the commission of the offence?

Senator Bishop:

– Senator Greenwood is not in the chamber to answer the honourable senator.

Senator DEVITT:

– I am sorry that I do not have the valued knowledge of the honourable senator.

Senator Little:

– If it occurs in the vicinity of our coastline it would be difiicult to say that it is not likely to pollute.

Senator DEVITT:

– I do not know what interpretation should be placed on this aspect of the legislation. I am in some doubt also in relation to the application of some of the terms used in clause 329d, which relates to definitions. For example, it states that Australian coastal waters means Australian territorial waters. I am in some dilemma as to an interpretation of that definition. I believe that some of the great legal minds in this country have either expressed some doubts on this aspect or have ruled in certain ways which give rise to doubt. In clause 329e reference is made to ships in Australian coastal waters. Again 1 am in some difficulty in regard interpreting this term. To my knowledge nobody has attempted to interpret what constitutes pollution. So one can readily see that there are many difficulties in relation to the interpretation of this legislation. If my view as to the joining of the two ingredients in clause 329f(1.) is correct I would suggest that no offence can be committed under clause 329g(1.) because it merely provides that $2,000 shall be the fine in respect of each day on which oil escapes from a ship. It is my understanding that it is not an offence anyway if oil escapes from a ship. Therefore, how can one impose a penalty of $2,000 in relation to oil which is escaping from a ship unless it is shown that the oil which is escaping is polluting or likely to pollute Australian coastal waters and so on.

The Bill before the Senate is an example of the imperfections we have commonly come to expect from the Government. Although the legislation has been drawn up in such a hasty manner and presented to us with all its imperfections and limitations the Opposition is asked to go along with the Government and say: ‘We will accept it because we know from out own knowledge and our own readings on the subject that a very serious situation exists as a result of a ship unfortunately going aground’. Any one of us who has any sense of responsibility - and surely we all have - - must be concerned to ensure that proper legislative provisions are passed by the Parliament. The Bill is virutally an authorisation to the Government to meet a particular situation. It is remarkable to think that in this instance because a ship with 30,000 tons of oil is aground on a reef the Government is forced to introduce legislation which is designed to require the owners of the oil and the people responsible for its transportation to do something which will ensure that there is no possibility of pollution of the Australian coastline.

It is not good enough for the Government to commence to initiate legislation at 1 o’clock this afternoon and request the Opposition to give it speedy passage through this chamber. So far as I am concerned it is asking too much of the Opposition to expect it to do so. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber have not had an opportunity to go deeply into the legislation nor even to peruse it. No explanation has been given as to the meaning of some terms. For the life of me I cannot see how a penalty of $2,000 a day or any other amount can be imposed under clause 329c (I.) if oil escapes from a ship. A penalty cannot be imposed unless one can be assured that the oil is polluting or is likely to pollute something. I suppose it is a reasonable assumption that it is likely to pollute, but it could pollute the coastline of this country from thousands of miles out. I would hope that before the Bill is passed by the Parliament somebody will spell out to me the meaning of the expressions territorial waters and coastal waters as well as explain some of the matters which are concerning me. I believe my view of the legislation accords with the views of the other honourable senators who, knowing of the urgency of the matter and having a sense of responsibility to ensure that appropriate action is taken to deal with the present situation and any other situation which could arise in the future, are prepared to vote in favour of the legislation.

Senator Davidson, who is the occupant of the chair at present, raised a very interesting point indeed. He said that on many occasions it has been found that the measures which have been taken to cure a situation result in the situation being worse than it would have been if such measures were not taken. In trying to break up the oil which is threatening to pollute our coastline detergents and various other materials are being used. The use of these materials could result in the building up of a situation which would be a lot worse than would be the case if the oil were allowed to wash up on the shore.

Senator Young:

– Does the honourable senator suggest that we should just allow the oil to go everywhere and not do anything?

Senator DEVITT:

– Who wants to do that?

Senator Young:

– The honourable senator is suggesting it.

Senator DEVITT:

– I am not suggesting it. I said that Senator Davidson raised the point that measures taken to meet this sort of situation - the detergents and so on which are used to break up the oil - could result in the problem being worse than it would otherwise be. Nobody has referred to what happened some years ago in relation to fish being killed in the Rhine. It was suspected that some chemical escaped into the waters of the Rhine from a factory and killed the marine life. If a chemical can kill marine life it could have the same effect on human beings. Therefore, we should carefully examine each case of pollution. But the point I wish to make is that there is no use introducing legislation to meet an emergency situation if it is not well prepared and unless an opportunity is given at a later stage to reconsider it. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, a period of 6 months is a reasonable time to allow this legislation to remain on the statute book. 1 would seriously urge the Government not to take it that the Opposition is content with the legislation in its present form. Further action is needed to meet the overall pollution problem which has been bedevilling Australia. As I indicated earlier, 1 shall not object to this Bill.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– 1 rise to speak in support of the Bill. I am very conscious of the unfortunate circumstances which have made it necessary to give the Bill rapid passage through the Parliament. At present the Senate is sitting in a state of emergency. Having listened to the debate tonight, I must say that in some ways I was rather amused with the attitude which the Opposition took. Honourable senators opposite criticised the manner in which this Bill was introduced into the Senate. I would have thought that they were conscious of the fact that we are sitting in state of emergency. Senator Devitt, who has just resumed his seat, questioned whether the Bill would be effective because it is being rushed through the Parliament. Senator Keeffe, in his usual fashion, said that he is very suspicious of there being niggers in the woodpile.

The point I wish to make is that it is necessary for the Parliament to provide the utmost protection it can to counter any pollution or risk of pollution which will damage our coastal areas, reefs and the ecology of the sea. I do commend the Government for the rapidity with which it has introduced this Bill. All honourable senators are conscious of the dangerous and unfortunate circumstances of the holing of the

Oceanic Grandeur’ and the great amount of oil that has been spilt. We are fortunate that the initial spillage of this oil has drifted away from the Australian coastline and not on to it. We are also conscious of the fact that something like 30,000 tons of oil is left in this tanker. We know that Ampol Petroleum Ltd quickly despatched a tanker, the ‘Leslie J. Thompson’, to the scene and that it took on a full cargo of oil. We also know it will be some time before another tanker can go to the scene and remove some of the 30,000 tons of oil which is left. The point I want to make is that it is necessary to give powers to the Minister so that he can act very effectively and quickly, if necessary, because this ship is not sitting in an area of safety. It is sitting on a reef. It is sitting in an area which is a cyclonic area, and who knows what could happen in a few days? Another 30,000 tons of oil could seep out into the sea.

Senator Little:

– You have given the Minister a gun but it is not loaded.

Senator YOUNG:

– I will deal with that in a moment, Senator. I think the gun is definitely loaded for the Minister. That is the very reason why this Bill is introduced into the Parliament tonight. The Minister did not have the powers to do these things before, hence the legislation was passed in the other place today and it is here for us to pass tonight. I hope that the Senate will carry this Bill tonight. Earlier Senator Mulvihill questioned whether or not the shipping companies were doing the right thing. He mentioned the fact that other ships were going by. I want to say that I am not going to argue with Senator Mulvihill whether or not the ship owners are doing the right thing. I think any captain is a responsible man with a lot of value under his control. He will do his best to give protection to his ship, crew, and cargo. But I do support Senator Mulvihill, who is one honourable senator who has taken a very keen interest in the protection of wild life, flora and fauna, in his remarks regarding the big tankers which are plying up and down the coast and the potential dangers of these big tankers. Tonight this legislation is giving protection to our coastal areas as far as we are capable and able to go in giving protection because within this Bill the Minister has powers to do these things which some honourable senators have suggested this Bill does not empower him to do.

I listened with interest to Senator Byrne tonight. Of course, he has a legal background.

Senator Little:

– He has a very sound one too.

Senator YOUNG:

– I agree. Paragraph 329g deals with the escape of oil. If honourable senators look at paragraph 329f they will see it states: (1.) Where the Minister is satisfied that -

oil is escaping from or likely to escape from a ship.

Under this provision the Minister can act, if there is any risk at all, as promptly as he likes. If the oil is either escaping or if he considers there is any risk of it escaping, the Minister has power to act. If one goes on further one sees the further powers the Minister has. If he considers there is even a risk of oil leaking he may act. Paragraph 329f (2.) states:

action to prevent the escape of oil from the ship;
the removal of oil from the ship, or a specified part of the ship, in such manner, if any, as is specified by the Minister to such place, if any, as is so specified.

Under this provision the Minister has power to call in some other tanker to the damaged tanker and to discharge oil from it. If the captain does not agree to this action the Minister has power to charge the master of that damaged tanker with all the costs.

Senator Bishop:

– No, he does not.

Senator YOUNG:

– If you read the Bill, senator, you will find he does. If one reads on further (c) states:

The removal of the ship to a place specified by the Minister.

Here the Minister has full control to do what he likes with the ship or the cargo of that ship if oil is leaking or if he thinks there is any likelihood of oil leaking.

Senator Devitt:

– It does not say that.

Senator YOUNG:

– Yes, it does. If the honourable senator reads paragraph 329f (a) he will see that even if the Minister considers there is a likelihood of any oil escaping he can act. As far as I am concerned, if one reads this one will see that the Minister has full power. This Bill gives him complete and utter power. Senator Byrne questioned the matter of penalties, but he did not question the power of the Minister. I want to make this clear.

He questioned the penalties but he did not question the powers of the Minister. This is the effective part of this Bill. The effectiveness conies in with the powers which the Minister has to do the things in his capacity as Minister to give the utmost protection in the event of a leak or the possibility of a leak. I have spoken for only a short time but I wanted to point these things out.

Senator Fitzgerald:

– Hear, hear!

Senator YOUNG:

– One does not have to waffle on. One can make one’s point in a few moments. On this occasion 1 have made the point that this Bill gives the Minister full powers to act. I support this Bill and I am pleased to see that other honourable senators are going to do the same.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

This has been an interesting debate. Much of it has been of great interest to me because I was actively concerned for some time wilh some of these matters. I am sure we all share some of the concerns which have been expressed. I have a great number of notes which 1 hope will help me to answer most of the queries that have been raised. 1 will go through them as quickly as I can. This is an interim measure in itself. The whole matter will become subject to review when Parliament is asked in due course to consider giving effect to the two Conventions negotiated at the Brussels legal conference last year. I hasten to add that I am in no position to tell honourable senators when that will be, but there are international conventions dealing with this.

The legislation ls supplementary to State legislation and is designed to strengthen the overall position. I am informed that the Premier of Queensland has been consulted and is completely happy with the substance of the Bill. Proposed section 329k ensures ensures that there will be no adverse effect on State law. In passing let me mention that an honourable senator said that it was rather odd, or perhaps not right, that the Commonwealth should have flown the detergent or dispersant to the site to help in breaking up the oil. I would hope that that is what the Commonwealth would always do in times of difficulty and trouble of this character. I would hope that the Commonwealth would use every art it has in trying to help. The Commonwealth should assist in every way it can. These are practical things that we have to do. We should not necessarily wait for fine points of law to be determined. We have to take action if there is an emergency. The people of Australia expect us to do whatever we can do to try to help. The purpose of the Bill fundamentally is to enable action to be taken, and to be taken expeditiously and efficiently.

Senator Davidson made certain comments. I am advised that the new conventions will cover the points he made, such as refusing tankers without insurance entry into ports. The construction standards of tankers are laid down in international conventions. The Intergovernmental Maritime Organisation is continually reviewing these standards. Masters and some of the crew have certificates for commanding ships throughout the world. Work is proceeding internationally to achieve uniformity of standards. 1 may not have caught all the points Senator Mulvihill made. I think we can cover them on another day. Both Senator Mulvihill and Senator Davidson referred to the detergents used. The use of these detergents has been overseen and controlled by government officials, and only when agreed with scientific experts in the area were they used or will they be used. I have mentioned that proposed section 329k ensures that there is no effect on the State law. This legislation is complementary, lt strengthens the situation.

Senator Keeffe ls concerned about the Great Barrier Reef, as we all are. I am advised that at the present time there does not appear to be any prospect of the whole of the Barrier Reef being threatened, as he suggests. Nonetheless, I believe that all of us share his concern that the Barrier Reef will not come to any harm. The Minister for Shipping and Transport has asked for an inquiry into the accident. No doubt that inquiry will refer to draughts of vessels using Torres Strait. As I said, the detergents have been used under close government control. Advice as to the quantities used is now available. I am told that replies to the questions Senator Keeffe has asked will be given very shortly.

Many honourable senators referred to proposed section 329f. f do not think there is any point in reading it out again, but these comments can be offered on it: Both paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed section 329f (1.) need to apply. If, in the rare case, the second paragraph could not be said to apply there would be no need for the Minister to take any action. The sequence of events, as I have tried to set it om in replying to the honourable senators who have participated in this debate, is that under proposed section 329f the Minister may give directions to persons as to what is to be done; proposed section 329g provides for the offences if they do not comply; and under proposed section 329h the Minister can step in and do what is necessary and charge the cost to the ship.

Honourable senators will understand that my view on this legislation is that one should be looking at what is the practical, commonsense way of going about getting a result. Reading through the legislation, that seems to me to be what would happen. I am prepared to agree that we could argue for quite a long time about the meaning of words in law, but I am quite sure (hat the intent is expressed in the Bill. Senator Devitt asked a question as to the meaning of ‘territorial waters’ and ‘Australian coastal waters’. The best I can say to him is that the usual definitions are the ones used and that in order to obtain further information he would need to have sat on some of the Senate select committees that have sat over the last 18 months or so and heard the legal opinions offered on the meaning of territorial waters’ and ‘coastal waters’. The term ‘territorial waters’ generally means waters within 3 miles of the Australian coast or the coast of an island forming part of Australia.

Senator Cavanagh mentioned the need to consolidate the Act. It is pointed out to me for his information that an Act of this size cannot be consolidated every time it is amended. In any case, this Bill does not affect any of the other parts of the Act. The Government considered carefully other possible methods of attacking the problem, and this was regarded as the most appropriate one. I am informed that the major spillage that took place has been dispersed adequately and that there is no leak at the present time. In replying further to Senator Cavanagh I point out that the definition of ‘oil’ is taken from the Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act 1960, and so far has been found to be adequate. I also point out to Senator Cavanagh that some control over foreign tankers outside as well as inside territorial waters was originally envisaged, but the Convention on the High Seas and general international law prevent any wider application of our powers than as now drafted.

I do not think I need to take much more time. This has been a very widely canvassed and hotly argued measure. The debate began with a reasonably calm statement by Senator Murphy which seemed to me to have set the general tone for the debate, but it became increasingly warm as people became increasingly interested. This is a subject that involves people in thinking quite seriously. There are people who are concerned about this matter. I, for my part, accept that concern. This measure is designed to make sure that the Commonwealth has adequate legal power to act. As such,I am glad that all honourable senators welcome it.

I am informed that in the other place the Minister for Shipping and Transport said that a member could introduce a private members motion to review the Bill and that he would be prepared to debate and vote on that motion. So the Government at this stage is prepared to say that it is disposed to accept the amendment which has been circulated by Senator Murphy and which would have the effect of limiting the operation of the Bill to 6 months. I have some comments which I might as well make now as at the Committee stage, since we have had quite a lengthy second reading debate. It is pointed out to me that the amendment would put us in the situation of dealing with the matter in about mid-September, which is a particularly busy time for the Parliamentary Draftsman. Be that as it may, the amendment circulated by Senator Murphy makes mention of 18th September. The acceptance of that amendment will ensure that the Government will bring this measure or a fuller measure before the Parliament within the next 6 months. This will give the Parliament the opportunity to examine with greater care the measure proposed.

The Government is grateful - I personally express my gratitude - to all sections of the Parliament for co-operating with it in giving a speedy passage to this legislation in order to deal with a situation which today or in the next few weeks may require instant action. This makes certain that we will have that capacity and that power. The acceptance of the proposed amendment acknowledges that co-operation and guarantees that the Opposition parties will be given an appropriate opportunity to look to a more permanent solution within the next 6 months.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

-I refer to clause 4, and move:

After proposed new section 329k add the following new section: “‘329l. This Part shall cease to have effect on the eighteenth day of September, One thousandnine hundred and seventy, and shall be deemed to have been repealed on that day.’.”.

The reasons for this amendment were canvassed very widely in the second reading debate.I do not want to traverse them in any detail. I simply say this: We have not had the opportunity to consider the Bill fully. If this amendment were carried it would mean that the amendments made by the Bill to the principal Act would operate for 6 months. That would cover the period for which the emergency would seem likely to prevail. If it prevailed for longer than that - we certainly hope that it would not - there would be ample time for the Government to introduce legislation, if thought fit, whether in these terms or in somewhat different terms. After listening to the discussion tonight it seems to me that the Government might well in its wisdom take some of the advice that has been tendered by the land lawyers and sea lawyers and extend the operation of this legislation a little further.

Some quite good sense has been spoken about the restriction to pollution by particular kinds of oil and also in the suggestions made that the penalties are quite inadequate. I refer to the imposition of a primary penalty of $2,000 and the continued penalty of $2,000, dependent upon the actual escape of oil. One would think that the real offence would be to continue to fail to comply with the direction that had been given, rather than having the penalty depend upon the actual escape of oil. That does not seem to be the real point of the matter, as has been pointed out. There could be no escape of oil but such a situation that a cyclone or a similar event could cause the oil to escape all at once. It is quite insufficient to have the penalties dependent upon this condition.

We ought to have a chance to study this legislation.I have no doubt that the Government has introduced it in good faith. It is not necessary to repeat now that the Government has been tardy and ought to have anticipated this situation. It has obviously been introduced in a rush. In the interests of the Government, the Opposition and the nation there should be an opportunity for proper consideration. That will be available during the next 6 months. I commend the proposed amendment to the Senate. In answer to what was said by the Minister I would like to indicate that senators of the Labor Party are acting entirely in accordance with their individual conscience. If they support the proposed amendment it is because they choose to do so.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I fully understand the position of honourable senators opposite outlined by Senator Murphy.I believe that the comments made this evening will be extremely useful to those people who will be studying this legislation at a later clay.

Senator DEVITT (Tasmania) [10.231 - I wish to refer to a specific point because I am in rather a deep dilemma. That dilemma has been increased by the observations of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) on the points I raised as to the need for two ingredients for the commission of an offence. 1 refer to the proposed section 329f which provides, in part: (1.) Where the Minister is satisfied that -

oil is escaping from, or is likelyto escape from, a ship;and
the oil is polluting, or is likelyto pollute, any Australian coastal waters, any part of the Australian coast or any Australian reef . . .

The two requirements arc joined as ingredients. The judgment of the Minister is exercised as to whether oil is polluting or is likely to pollute Australian coastal waters, any part of the Australian coast or any Australian reef. In that event he shall have a notice served on the party concerned. I turn now to the proposed section 329g, which refers to a person who fails to comply with a notice. A notice cannot be a notice within the terms of the law unless the two ingredients comprising an offence are joined. So that unless the notice specifies those two ingredients, the mere fact that a ship within 3 miles of the Australian coast has oil escaping from it does not constitute an offence. A ship can come within 3 miles of the coast and have oil escaping from it and there would be absolutely no offence committed at all. That is the point I am making.

Senator Bishop:

– Outside the 3-mile limit?

Senator DEVITT:

– The Minister said within territorial waters’, or within 3 miles of the Australian coast. A notice cannot legally be served unless the two conditions are operating at the time.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Are you saying that a vessel outside the 3-mile limit would not pollute the Australian coast?

Senator DEVITT:

– I am referring to a ship within territorial waters. If oil is escaping or is likely to be escaping from a ship it is not an offence within the provision 1 have quoted unless the oil is polluting. The two ingredients have to be present to constitute an offence. If the two things are not present at the time a notice cannot legally be served on anybody. 1 hope that somebody will help me on this point. As a notice cannot legally be served there is no offence and no penalty is applicable. Any ship can come within 3 miles of the Australian coastline and by misadventure or misfortune have oil leaking from it- - oil may be escaping from the ship by some means - and there is absolutely no offence under the provisions of this Bill. Therefore no penalty is attracted. Would somebody please clear up this point? This is the third time I have raised it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– If Senator Devitt will turn to the proposed section 329f he will see that two elements are required to exist before the Minister is authorised to serve a notice. The first is that the oil is escaping or is likely to escape: the second is that the oil is polluting or is likely to pollute.

Senator Devitt:

– You said two; it is not two.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Two conditions must found the notice, but once the notice is given it is a notice by which the Minister by virtue of the authority under this legislation can require the owner, agent or master of a ship or all or any of them, to take such action in relation to the ship or its cargo as is specified in the notice. The required action may be to remove the vessel, to stop the leak, or to apply detergents or something else. It is necessary to lake such action as is specified under the notice. The proposed section 329g provides that if a person fails to comply with a notice, fails to take the action specified in the notice, he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of $2,000. The continuance of the penalty for failure to comply with the notice does not depend upon the double condition.

Senator Bishop:

– No. only if the oil discharges.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, but continuance of the penalty does not depend on the duration of the double condition but only upon the condition that the oil escapes from the ship by reason of failure to comply with the notice; or escapes to a greater extent than it would have escaped had there been compliance with the notice. So that for the continuance of the original penalty of $2,000. invocation of the daily penalty does not depend upon the double condition prescribed in proposed section 329f, but on the single condition which I have read carefully for the particular attention of Senator Devitt. If is not simply a continuance of escaping oil. If the oil escapes from the ship by reason of non-compliance with the notice or escapes to a greater extent than it would have escaped if there had been compliance with the notice, the additional daily penalty is attracted.

Senator BISHOP (South Australia) 1 10.30 - I propose to follow up the point raised by Senator Devitt. Although the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) has explained the situation, ( want to consolidate the point made by Senator Devitt. As I read proposed sub-section 329f (2.) it means, as has been explained in relation to the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’, which is the vessel that has caused most of the immediate complaint although there have been many international incidents which should have occasioned the Government’s attention earlier, that if the Minister requires that the vessel shall be shifted immediately and the owner, agent or master does not comply with that requirement, the owner, agent or master would attract a penalty of $2,000 only. As Senator Byrne has said, this is despite the fact that the ship might present a hazard because of weather conditions such as cyclones, that it might create much damage to the Australian coastline or to the Great Barrier Reef. But the fact is that the only penalty which the owners of the ship would suffer would be $2,000.

Senator Young:

– But the Minister has the power under proposed sub-section 2 (c) to remove the ship.

Senator BISHOP:

– The explanation given by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) in another place - we did not hear so much by way of explanation here - was that the Government could not instruct the master to shift the vessel, lt was suggested in the other place that this situation could arise and in explanation the Minister said that he could not tell the master to remove the vessel and in the event of the Department taking action to remove the ship it would not be able to recover costs. I am suggesting that the only penalty that the owners of the vessel would have to face under this legislation is $2,000 for not removing the vessel, despite the fact that the vessel might present a great danger while it remains at that spot.

I come next to the point that the Minister may serve a notice on the owner, agent or master of a ship requiring the removal of oil from the vessel. That provision is qualified by proposed section 329o which provides the owner with a qualifying argument. The owner might be able to prove that although he did not take action to remove oil from the ship, his failure to do so did not matter very much because the oil might not have escaped to any greater extent than it would have escaped if he had complied with the notice. The owner would attract the continuing penalty only if it could be proved that he failed to do what the Minister had instructed him to do. These are some of the matters which it might be possible for the Minister to clear up now.

Docs the provision mean what we think it means? If the Minister requires the owner to shift the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ or requires him to remove the oil from the ship and he fails to do so, will he be liable for a penalty? It seems to us that this legislation has been introduced because the Government cannot get an assurance from the owner of the vessel that it will be shifted or unloaded. That is what the Minister has said in his second reading speech. If that is the situation, is $2,000 the only penalty that can be applied against the owner or master of the vessel? As Senator O’Byrne has said, for as long as the vessel remains in its present position it will present a hazard which might cost Australia millions of dollars. If the Minister serves a notice requiring the owner, agent or master of a ship to take action to prevent the discharge of oil, is there open to the owner, agent or master a qualitative argument which would limit the power to apply a continuing penalty?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I did not hear the Minister say in his summing up whether the powers entrusted to the Minister include power to stipulate the type of detergent to be used in the dispersal of oil spillages?

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I can only say that it is my assumption that it does indeed do that.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 429

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

– I. move: “that the Senate at its rising adjourn until 10 it.m.. tomorrow

In speaking to the motion 1 make the point that tomorrow the motions for the second reading of the Social Services Bill and the Repatriation Bill will we hope be debated currently, and then the Bills will be dealt with separately at the Committee stage. For reasons which are known, we wish that legislation to be passed tomorrow. We also seek passage of the Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill. At 4.45 p.m. we are due to go to Government House to present the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General. After 8 p.m. tomorrow General Business will be called on. We have a fairly tight schedule for tomorrow. I am grateful to the Opposition, the Democratic Labor Party and Senator Turnbull for their co-operation in the matter. The point 1 make is that there will be a need for a high degree of co-operation tomorrow. I know that honourable senators opposite will give us that co-operation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 429

ADJOURNMENT

Aboriginals - Fire Escape Facilities. Administration Building, Canberra - Butterworth Air Base, Malaysia

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

Thai the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia) I.I0.52J - I want to raise a matter about which I am most concerned. I am much concerned that a Minister in this House, in his capacity as Minister representing another Minister, is withholding from me information that was given to him for my benefit. Last night when I spoke in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, I spoke about the Yuendumu Aboriginal reserve. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), as the representative of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon), said:

On 5lh and 10th March Senator Cavanagh made some extremely serious allegations. On those occasions I listened to his comments and com municated the full text of them to the Minister for the Interior.

One would expect that of a Minister representing another Minister. The Minister continued:

A couple of days ago I received a full and detailed answer to the comments which were made at that time.

I made accusations which, the Minister said, were serious accusations. The replies to my accusations were replies to me. The Minister is only the go-between between the Minister to whom 1 made the representations andmyself. He should have delivered the replies to me. For 2 days he had those answers, which are my answers. He will not disclose those answers to me. That was revealed when the Minister said last night that I introduced some additional material and that he had decided to withhold the answers delivered by the Minister for the Interior until he can reply to all my allegations. That is only an afterthought. For 2 days he held my replies before I raised any additional matters. The replies that belong to mc ure held by the go-between - not the Minister of whom 1 asked the questions but the Minister who should have delivered the replies to me. As I was concerned about this I rang the Minister for the Interior this afternoon. I was informed that the Minister was at a Cabinet meeting. 1 spoke to his secretary and informed him that the Minister s agent in this House had replies for me from the

Minister for the Interior and was somewhat holding the Minister up to ridicule because he would not make the replies available to me. Obviously the secretary could not give an answer to the matter I raised, but he promised to look into it.

I take a serious view of this. If the Minister for Civil Aviation has answers to the questions I raised, I should have the replies. I would expect the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) to take some action with the Minister who will not convey the replies from the responsible Minister of whom I asked the questions. Tomorrow we will go into recess for a fortnight. I am in the position of having to say that, having raised these points during discussion in the House, the Minister has failed to reply when in fact he has not failed to reply. The responsible Minister has discharged his obligation and has replied, but there is some lesser person in this building who has decided that the replies will not be given to me. The excuse about extra material did not apply for 2 days because no extra material was raised. Therefore, my reply was held for 2 days. The Minister for Civil Aviation further stated: . . I must say that, it seemed to me that many of the accusations he had made - most of them extremely serious - were not supported.

The Hansard report states:

. were not unsupported.

This afternoon the Minister assured me that he said:

. were not supported.

That is my interpretation of what the Minister said. This afternoon he also said he had arranged to have the record corrected.

Those answers should be made known to me so that I can desist from making wrong accusations, as it is extremely difficult for me to know which of the accusations that I repeated on5th and 10th March cannot be supported. On 5th and 10th March I did not make accusations; I repeated accusations that were made previously. I relied upon documents presented to the Minister - they were from 13 councillors at Yuendumu and from Revered Flemming of Yuendumu - to support my contention that the accusations were true. If the Minister’s answers do not support the accusations I repeated on5th and 10th March, all the Minister is saying is that there were untruths in the documents that he collected from the 13 councillors and from Reverend Flemming at Yuendumu. I want to know before repeating them which statements are untrue accusations. I want to know how the Minister sought this information from his welfare officer - I gave the details of how he sought statements from the 13 councillors - and produced back here a document which is not true and which does not support the allegationsI made.

The additional matter thatI raised is of grave concern to certain people in South Australia. Mr Townsend established a precedent when he instituted prosecutions against those whom he considered were guilty of offences under the Crimes Act when the Federal Government would not carry out its own laws. Certain people in South Australia think that a private individual should make charges alleging mass rape against certain people at Yuendumu. BecauseI thought it would be disastrous if it were found that the Government knew such mass rape occurred and was not prepared to prevent further incidents by prosecuting, I asked the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Attorney-General in this chamber, to inquire into the allegations and examine the documents now held by the Department of the Interior. Having more confidence in the Attorney-General’s Department than I have in the Department of the Interior I am hopeful that the Attorney-General will take the appropriate action to bring the offenders to trial. But I do not know how long 1 shall have to wait. Although 1 asked the simple question, whether the AttorneyGeneral’s Department would inquire into these allegations and examine the document, I have not received a reply to my question. Despite the desire to have the authority which is policing the Government laws examine the matter and despite my confidence that the Attorney-General’s Department will act properly, I am in doubt as to whether it is delaying its reply to protect another Commonwealth department.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I appreciate the Minister’s assurance. But I fail to understand why the Attorney-General is unable to answer whether he will examine certain documents which are now in the possession of the Minister for the Interior. The Department of the Interior has refused to supply the information. It has been caught and is seeking ways out. 1 have made certain allegations. The Minister has apparently made a reply to clarify his position as best he can. J want to examine his statement and possibly reply to it. But the Minister for Civil Aviation, who represents the Minister for the Interior in this chamber, is withholding information which should have been given to me in answer to a question I asked. That information is my properly and it is being withheld by him. I think some action should be taken to ensure that I am provided with the answer which has been provided to the Minister in this chamber so that it may be passed on to me.

Senator COTTON (New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation) 1.11.3] - 1 do nol propose to whip myself into a frenzy about this matter, as Senator Cavanagh has done. 1 would like to recite the facts. I am glad that Senator Cavanagh acknowledged the fact that I am only the representative of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) in this chamber. 1 am nol the principal; 1 am only endeavouring to be the agent. I asked for some information to be supplied to me in relation to the comments which Senator Cavanagh made. The information was supplied in the form of a speech to be delivered in the Address-in-Reply debate, but it arrived too late last Thursday for me to provide it in that way because the Senate rose earlier than I thought it would. Therefore, it was not an after thought; it was a prepared speech. I thought the AddressinReply debate would give me the best opportunity to try to answer some of his comments, but as the debate concluded on Thursday 1 had to watt until Tuesday to raise the matter. I thought that the next best opportunity to raise the matter would be on Tuesday night in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. But on Tuesday night Senator Cavanagh again spoke. Upon listening to him 1 thought to myself that he was introducing new material and that I had better send my information back and have it augmented, otherwise he would accuse me of making a fragmentary reply. I did not want him to accuse me of that. I said to the Department of the Interior: ‘Could you please let me have the full information in order that I can deliver it to the Senate before it rises this week?’ It is still my intention to do so.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I regret the fact that I have to rise at this late stage. I appreciate that we have had a long day today and we will have another one tomorrow, but I promised that I would raise a certain matter. I shall be as brief as I can. I can understand why the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), who represents the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) in this chamber, will not whip himself into a frenzy. It seems to me that the Department is unlikely to whip itself into a frenzy about even more serious matters. The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association has asked me to draw the attention of the Senate to its concern about a situation which exists in the first floor of the Administrative Building in Parkes, which is a suburb of the Australian Capital Territory. On 25th June 1969 the Chief Officer of the Department of the Interior, who is, I think, concerned about the fire hazard in the building, wrote a letter to the Association concerning complaints about the building. He said:

This officer does agree that in the event of a lire within the Administrative Building it is highly probable that members employed within the building would have extreme difficulties in reaching avenues of escape, indeed they may find this impossible. This opinion is supported by the open stair construction, inadequacy of escape facilities and the further prejudicing of these means of escape by the security requirements of the building. lt should be noted that the inadequacy and inefficiency pertaining to means of escape from this particular building is not confined only to the rooms mentioned in the reference correspondence but to the building as a whole.

The Chief Fire Officer has reported to the authorities previously re the situation concerning means of escape in case of fire from the Administration Building Parkes and therefore it seems proper that any further correspondence on the matter should bc addressed to such authorities.

It would appear to be a serious situation. Apparently a lot of people are working in the building. I think I saw somewhere in the documents I have in front of me that there are 1,500 Commonwealth employees working in the building. Apparently this situation was known before 25th June 1969. Certainly there was correspondence from the Chief Officer of the Facilities Branch of the Department of the Interior confirming the complaints of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate the letter dated 25th June 1969 in Hansard.

Fire Station, No. 1

Forrest, Canberra, 25th June 1969

The Branch Secretary,

Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association,

Commonwealth Public Service,

A.C.O.A. House,

Cnr. Blackall & Macquarie Streets,

Barton, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Mr N. H. Butler,

Dear Sir,

RE: Means of escape in case of fire (Department of Trade & Industry)

Rooms 1-20 First Floor Administrative Building, Parkes, A.C.T

Reference: Correspondence N.H.B/H.B. dated 17th June ‘69

In reply to your correspondence (NHB/HB) dated the 17th June 1969 relative to complaints from members working in the Department of Trade and Industry, Rooms 1-20, first floor of the Administrative Building, Parkes, Canberra, A.C.T., the following comments are submitted.

Upon receipt of the correspondence the Chief Fire Officer, in the company of two members of the Department of Trade, did on Friday the 20th Inst. inspect the area of the building referred to in the reference correspondence.

This Officer does agree that in the event of a fire within the Administrative Building it is highly probable that members employed within the building would have extreme difficulties in reaching avenues of escape, indeed they may find this impossible. This opinion is supported by the open stair construction, inadequancy of escape facilities, and the further prejudicing of these means of escape by the security requirements of the building.

It should be noted that the inadequacy and inefficiency pertaining to means of escape from this particular building is not confined only to the rooms mentioned in the reference correspondence but to the building as a whole.

The Chief Fire Officer has reported to the Authorities previously, re the situation concerning means of escape in case of fire from the Administration Building Parkes and therefore it seems proper that any further correspondence on the matter should be addressed to such Authorities.

Yours faithfully,

(J.K. MUNDY)

page 432

CHIEF OFFICER

There was further correspondence after that date. I think I have most of the correspondence in my possession. I shall provide it to the Senate. On 12th August 1969 a letter was written to the Minister for the Interior by Mr Butler, who is the Branch Secretary of the Association, concerning this matter. On 9th October 1969 the Minister replied to Mr Butler to the effect that some consideration had been given to the matter and the item would be included in the major works programme and so on. But the situation remained the same. On 21st January 1970 a further letter in terms a little more terse was written by the Federal Secretary of the Association to the Minister. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate these letters in Hansard. 12 August 1969

Mr P. Nixon,

Minister for the Interior,

Parliament House,

page 432

CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Mr Nixon,

I am enclosing a copy of a report made by the Chief Officer of the Fire Station, Forrest, to my Association, concerning the fire risk in the Administrative Building, Parkes, A.C.T.

The report makes disturbing reading and we view the risk to our members as being very serious.

In the last paragraph of his report the Chief Officer draws attention to a previous report about which apparently nothing has been done by your Department.

When the Department of Trade and Industry transferred to the Administrative Building a few years ago, renovations were made and a number of partitions were erected, the chief wall material used being plywood, a highly combustible material.

Officers working in various sections of the building feel that, in the event of an extensive fire (there are no sprinklers), smoke would soon replace the air. The only exit (the main stairs) might be too crowded, a trap in itself, or there might be difficulty in reaching it.

These matters have been presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, which in turn has made representations to your Department. Improvements are now under way which will increase the number of escape routes from sections of the building to the interior stairways.

However there is still a pressing need for outside fire escape ladders. This does raise a security problem (e.g. in External Affairs Section of the building), but surely it would not be impossible to install suitable alarm systems. Also, I would suggest that the proposal for outside fire escapes should not be rejected on the grounds that it would detract from the appearance of the building - surely the safety of the people in the building would come first.

Pending the installation of external fire escapes, a fire drill could be prepared for the officers working in the building.

I look forward to your reply and trust that action will be taken immediately to install adequate fire escapes and introduce fire drill. It would not give me any satisfaction to be able to say at a coroner’s inquest, ‘I told you so.’

Yours sincerely,

H. BUTLER,

Branch Secretary

Minister for the Interior

Parliament House,

CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

9th October 1969

Dear Mr Butler,

I referto your letter of 12th August 1969 concerning the fire escape facilities in the Administrative Building, Parkes, A.C.T.

For some time consideration has been given by my Department in consultation with the National Capital Development Commission and the Chief hire Officer to ways of overcoming any deficiences in the means of escape in case of fire in the building. However, one of the major problems is the special requirements of the occupying departments in maintaining security of the areas occupied.

Investigation into the provision of fire security locks to all fire and steel grille doors separating Block B2 and Block C has reached a stage where cost estimates are being prepared and it is proposed to have the installation carried out during the current financial year. The fire security doors will automatically unlock when the fire alarm system is activated.

Ways of providing a separate additional fire escape route for the building have also been investigated and the construction of eight new internal enclosed fire escape stairways has been accepted as the best alternative. This, however, involves a major expenditure and also the loss of considerable office space within the building. Office layouts which have been prepared for the various wings in the building over the last few years have recognised that the stairways would be constructed when the necessary finance could be made available for the work.

The item has been included in the Departmental Major Works Programme proposals in each of the past three years but has not achieved programme status. Efforts will continue in conjunction with the National Capital Development Commission to have the item included in the Major New Works Programme as early as practicable.

My Department is aware of the need for fire drills and is taking steps to seek additional staff to introduce drills in conjunction with the Chief Fire Officer as early as possible.

Yours sincerely,

(P. J. NIXON)

H. Butler, Esq.,

Branch Secretary,

Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association,

O. Box 166,

MANUKA, A.C.T. 2603

21st January 1970

The Hon. P. J. Nixon

Minister of State for the Interior

House of Representatives

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Sir, re: Administrative Building, Parkes:

Industrial Safety

My Council, a Division of which will be established in the A.C.T. in May this year, has been asked to lend its support to efforts being made by the A.C.T. branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association to have adequate fire escape facilities at the Administrative Building, Parkes, provided.

In your letter of 9th October 1969 to the Branch Secretary of A.C.O.A. you state:

I understand that prior to giving that response you had been provided with a copy of the Chief Fire Officer’s certification dated 25th June 1969, that:

. in the event of a fire within the Administrative Building it is highly probably that members employed within the building would have extreme difficulties in reaching avenues of escape, indeed they may find this impossible. This opinion is supported by the open stair construction, inadequacy of escape facilities, and the further prejudicing of these means of escape by the security requirements of the building.

Having regard to that certification, your reply to the Branch Secretary reveals an amazing indifference to a matter of industrial safety. The question of the safety of the building has responsibly been raised with you for action. The extraordinary diffidence shown in your letter to taking decisive action on what is a simple (albeit perhaps expensive) matter of industrial safety suggests that reasoned and authoritatively supported argument is not an adequate stimulus in industrial matters where the public service is involved. One would have hoped that the possible responsibility for the consequences of a serious fire would have been sufficient to prevent the deferment of the installation of adequate escape facilities for four years.

On behalf of my Council, I should like to make clear that your letter of 9th October 1969 leads to the conclusion that the delay in making the necessary alterations is not the responsibility of any other body or person than yourself. Your ambiguous, imprecise and almost meaningless response that’efforts will continue in conjunction with the National Capital Development Commission to have the item included in the Major New Works Programme as early as practicable’ does not indicate that you are prepared to take steps to ensure that necessary priority is given to the provision of escape facilities.

I would stress that in the view of my Council a matter of industrial safety is involved transcending questions of competing priorities for public works. I should be pleased if you would reconsider the view implicit in your letter and advise me in due course as to what action my Council can expect to be taken as a matter of urgency to render the building a safe place to work.

I am forwarding copies of this letter to a number of affiliates involved, to the Public Service Board and to the National Capital Development Commission.

Yours faithfully,

PAUL MUNRO

Federal Secretary

There was also a letter on 17th December 1969 from Mr Taylor, who is the Branch Secretary, to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) regarding the same matter. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate that letter in Hansard. 17 December 1969

The Prime Minister,

Parliament House,

CANBERRA. A.C.T. 2600

Dear Sir.

As the attachments show, the Chief Fire Officer of the A.C.T. has reported very adversely on the fire escape facilities at the Administrative Building, and the Minister for the Interior accepts that the construction of special internal fire escape stairways is required. The Minister says, however, that this item has failed for three years to reach ‘programme status - apparently they could be constructed next year, in twenty years’ time, or never, if left to the N.C.D.C. and the Minister.

A scale of values that places works that would remove a threat to the lives of some 1,500 people below the many decorative projects being undertaken around this town defies comment.

The Association has already approached the Public Service Board seeking its support, but in view of the attitude adopted by the N.C.D.C. and the Minister, and because the very lives of officers are imperilled, we have decided not to wait to see whether success can be achieved by other means before requesting you to use your authority and influence to have the situation speedily remedied. This I now do on behalf of our Association. If a special grant would be needed to enable the work to be done as soon as is technically possible we contend that it should be made.

We would ask you to receive a deputation from the Branch to discuss the case if it would assist in reaching a satisfactory solution.

Yours faithfully,

W. TAYLOR

Branch Secretary

Some acknowledgements have been made concerning these letters. Apparently the Association was unsuccessful in its endeavour to have a deputation interview the Prime Minister. Today the building is still in the same situation. I think we can agree with the Minister for Civil Aviation that regardless of what isdone the Department of the Interior will not get itself into a state of frenzy about a simple matter like hundreds of Commonwealth employees working in a building which is a fire hazard so as to be exposed to the unnecessary risk of injury. If private employers were involved they would be prosecuted to the hilt and, no doubt, daily penalties would be imposed upon them for what they were doing to their employees.

Senator MURPHY:

-Whatever else is the position, apparently his colleagues are not afraid of any over-heating. I think it is time something was done about this. I know the honourable senator has spoken before and I do not expect him to have an answer but I thought it at least proper to get this material on the record so that something could be done without any further delay.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales · LP

– by leave - I was not referring to any frenzy in the Department of the Interior, but only in this chamber. 1 was concerned to hear the things Senator Murphy said about the fire risk in the Administrative Building. All his comments have been noted. I will do what I can to find out more for the honourable senator. I will see if I can obtain a more satisfactory answer than he appears so far to have received.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) [1 1.12] -I had no intention of speaking on the adjournment debate because 1 understood that Opposition senators were tired after the length of today’s proceedings. But I discovered it was permissible to speak on the adjournment debate and therefore I want to raise a matter of some substantial importance, or what I consider to be a matter of substantial importance. Some reference has been made to the need for Australia to establish an area of defence, and this brings me to the problem which I see existing in terms of what is known as the Butterworth air base in northern Malaysia. What interests me about this is that under South East Asian Treaty Organisation arrangements in earlier days the Commonwealth of Australia in obedience to its treaty obligations spent about $20m building this base. Australia was operating under no other arrangement than an exchange of letters between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of Malaysia. We adhered to treaty arrangements made between the Government of Malaysia and the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom feels it proper to pull out from east of Suez, it appears - I have heard nothing to the contrary - that the Butterworth air base has been handed over to the Government of Malaysia by the United Kingdom. I do not have any objection to that because I assume that the United Kingdom informed the Government of Australia that that was its intention, andI presume this is in the process of negotiation at the present moment. But as an Australian senator I am disturbed by this situation.

It has been stated in the international Press that it is the intention of the Government of Malaysia to take control of Butterworth and appoint a commander of it. In normal peacetime circumstances, under which we operate at the present moment, I do not suppose this seems important to everybody, but it seems important to me because there is an administrative responsibility springing from the occupation of this Base by the Royal Australian Air Force. Honourable senators who sit in their places here will recall if they have been in that area that we have a responsibility not only in terms of having built this base and built the supporting services around it, but also because of our billeting arrangements on the island of Penang involving about 600 or 700 houses. We have a school manned by Australian teachers who are responsible for the education of about 1,000 Australian school children. In addition to this we have a great number of private civil contracts for the feeding of base personnel. The present plan is that the base will be taken over by the Malaysian Government which will appoint a commander to control the base. There are circumstances in the administrative arrangements by which the ability of the Royal Australian Air Forceto service itself inside this base would be subject to the overriding instructions of a Malaysian commander appointed by the Malaysian Government.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Would we be paying the rent?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I do not know, but some millions of dollars a month are going out in Australian taxpayers’ money for the maintenance of this base and to provide the administrative support and facilities to maintain it. In the event of tension, when this base is to become operational it may be necessary for the Australian Government, because of matters which are properly its concern, and because it has forces on this base, to do certain things. Therefore, the unfortunate situation could exist where a person of another nationality would be commanding this base. The commander could, in circumstances which I envisage, because this is not novel, interpose his authority above that of the commander of the Australian forces in the area seeking to carry out obligations and responsibilities reposed in him by his Government.

I am only sketching this in outline because to me it is a disturbing matter. I illustrate how disturbing it is by pointing out to honourable senators that a similar situation confronted the United States of America in its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in north western Europe. In much the same sort of pattern ex-President de Gaulle of the Republic of France stated that all American bases in France were to come under the control of the French Government. The United States Government considered this an intolerable situation and, at enormous expense, moved all its bases out of France into West Germany, Belgium and other areas. On the surface it seems to me that pressure tactics are being used. But in the final analysis it seems to me insupportable and insufferable that Australia should disperse its defence forces forward to an area where those forces are not under the control of the Australian Government or of responsible officers appointed to control the area.

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

-I will seek to obtain the facts of the matter for the honourable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.18 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 March 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700318_senate_27_s43/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate18 March 1970

QUESTION

CIGARETTE SMOKING

Senator MURPHY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator BULL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

GORTON MINISTRY

Senator DEVITT:TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator SIM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

Senator Douglas McClelland:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

Senator Douglas McClelland:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

Senator Douglas McClelland:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Senator KEEFFE:QUEENSLAND

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Douglas McClelland:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

GORTON MINISTRY

Senator WHEELDON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT FACTORY

Senator POYSER:VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

YUENDUMU RESERVE

Senator CAVANAGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY

Senator LAUCKE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

FARMERS UNION CONFERENCE

Senator WILKINSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

HYPNOTISTS

Senator WHEELDON:

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator KEEFFE:

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT

Senator McMANUS:VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

Senate
18 March 1970

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

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

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator COTTON:
LP