Senate
19 August 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

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

page 19

PETITIONS

Social Services

Senator MURPHY presented from 138 citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that due to the higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way. The petitioners call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of the average weekly male earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with Australian Council of Trades Unions policy and adopted as a policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

The petitioners pray that the Senate will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in the petition.

Petition received and read.

Television

Senator MCCLELLAND presented from 1,514 citizens of the Commonwealth a petition showing that commercial television licensees are not complying with section 114(1) of the Broadcasting and Television Act in that they are not using as far as possible the services of Australians in the production and presentation of television programmes; that because of the almost total lack and neglect of Australian dramatic, variety and documentary programmes presented on Australian commercial television, Australian writers, artists, musicians, producers and technicians are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain continuity of employment in their professions and trades; and that because overseas second-rate television programmes and ancient films are being bulk-purchased and imported at dumped prices under package deal arrangements, Australia’s overseas balance of payments is being detrimentally affected and the provisions of the broadcasting and television legislation designed to protect Australian involvement in the television industry are being cynically and cleverly ignored.

The petitioners pray that the Senate request the Government to amend section 114(1) of the Broadcasting and Television Act to provide for specific quotas for Australian dramatic, variety and documentary programmes to be shown on Australian commercial television stations, the quotas to be reviewed and gradually increased every 2 years; request the tariff Special Advisory Authority to immediately investigate whether tariff protection should be afforded to Australian television production companies against the dumping of low-grade overseas programmes in Australia; and request the Government to impose a quota on the amount of programmes imported into Australia for presentation on Australian commercial television.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Senator WRIEDT presented from 88 citizens of the State of Tasmania a petition showing that due to the higher living costs, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way. The petitioners call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of the average weekly male earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with Australian Council of Trades Unions policy and adopted as a policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

The petitioners pray that the Senate will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in the petition.

Petition received.

Social Services

Senator POYSER presented from 126 citizens of the State of Victoria a petition showing that due to the higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way. The petitioners call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of the average weekly male earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with Australian Council of Trades Unions policy and adopted as a policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

The petitioners pray that the Senate will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in the petition.

Petition received.

Education

Senator MURPHY presented from 22 citizens of the Commonwealth a petition showing (a) that the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education; (b) that these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids; (c) that the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next 5 years by the States for these needs; (d) that without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate; and (e) that the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

The petitioners pray that the Senate will take immediate steps to ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for 78% of Australia’s children.

Petition received and read.

page 20

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention ot honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Japan led by Mr Asao Mihara, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Defence. On behalf of honourable senators I extend to them a warm welcome.

Honourable senators - Hear, Hear!

page 20

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– ] ask for leave to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister dealing with ministerial arrangements.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) will be leaving Australia tomorrow for Venice .to lead the Australian delegation to the United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organisation intergovernmental conference of Ministers on cultural policies to be held from 24th August to 2nd September. The Minister for Education and Science is expected to return to Australia on 13th September and during his absence the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) will be Acting Minister for Education and Science. I also wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) is ill and will be unable to attend the Parliament for a week or 10 days. During the Minister’s absence the Prime Minister will represent him in the House of Representatives.

page 20

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government recognise the overwhelming disappointment and bitterness of Australian pensioners on learning of their 50c a week pension increase? How will this miserable handout compensate them for higher indirect taxation and a soaring c03t of living?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI really believe it is questionable whether this question is in order as the debate on the Budget has been adjourned, f suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that when we come fo debate the Budget he will be able to put his case again and the Government will be able to demonstrate to him that what is contained in the Budget is in the best interest of the people of Australia. Within the Budget there has been a dramatic continuation of assistance given in the field of social services.

page 20

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution which was tabled in the Senate at the close of the autumn session which, 1 suppose, may be described as being only a few weeks ago. I ask whether the Minister’s attention has been drawn to the Press comments and reviews which this report has received. Has the Minister noted the various responses in the States since the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution? In view of the comments, both complimentary and critical, and because of the importance of the Senate considering one of its Committee’s reports within a reasonable period after its conclusion I ask whether the Minister will give consideration to making arrangements for the continuation at an early date of the debate noting the report of the Water Pollution Committee?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– lt is true that the report from the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution was tabled in the Senate on 10th June. There was a debate and. as I recall it, that was on a broadcasting day. The debate was limited because of the pressure of business at that time and it stands adjourned on the Notice Paper as Order of the Day No. 9 under General Business. The question put to me is whether I will bring the item on again for further debate. That is a matter that is in the responsibility of the Senate. It is in the order of general business which normally is debated on one night of the week after 8 o’clock during each week the Senate sits. I will give consideration to negotiating with the parties possibly to bring that item on during one of the occasions when we deal with general business during the coming sittings.

page 21

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will the Government give consideration to making pension increases payable retrospectively to the date of the bringing down of the Budget?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

This is not a new proposal. In the many years I have been here it has been canvassed as a matter of policy. Down through the years succeeding governments have never responded to the proposal. In the nature of things I do not believe that it is likely to be responded to now. Normally a time is fixed for the application of any variations in pension rates and the Government tries to gear its parliamentary programme to ensure ‘hat the legislation is passed before that date. The honourable senator suggests that having passed the legislation we should make it retrospective to a certain time. That is a matter of government policy. It has certainly never been the practice to do this. I believe it has been considered not an appropriate thing to do.

page 21

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, by pointing out that it is stated in the last available report of the Australian National Line that only 40,219 tons of cargo were carried to Darwin, at a loss of $740,000. Can the Minister state approximately how many shiploads are involved in those figures? Can he also inform the Senate whether ways and means of transporting overland that comparatively small amount of cargo have been considered in order to avoid the extraordinary loss which, in the ultimate, must be borne by other ANL shipping services which in the aggregate accrued a profit of over Sim?

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

– I have some information on this matter that may be of assistance to the honourable senator. I am informed that the 40,219 tons of cargo in the shipping trade referred to represent approximately 8 shiploads. I understand that ways and means of transporting this cargo overland have not been considered. However, the Australian National Line has given considerable thought to the peculiar problems posed by this trade. As a result, the ‘Darwin Trader’ has just been introduced into service. This vessel is capable of carrying general cargo in containers northbound and/or in bulk southbound. The efficiency and economy of this combination is expected to be such as to permit the service to be operated without loss.

page 21

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport: In view of the fact that substantial rises in the freight rates applicable to Australian National Line ships were introduced at the beginning of August because of the Line’s alleged declining profitability, how can the ANL continue to afford the luxury of paying commission and agency fees to its competitors for business secured by itself and not by its competitors and which, for the past 5 years, have amounted to $4,087,558? Further, how can freight rises be justified so soon after the introduction of greatly increased modern tonnage to the service, the savings from which cannot possibly yet have been determined but which must ultimately be found to be quite substantial?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I do not have with me any information that would allow me to answer at all accurately the honourable senator’s question. I therefore ask him to put it on the notice paper and 1 will endeavour to get an answer for him as soon as I can.

page 22

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. If drought conditions continue to affect adversely so many rural areas of South Australia, will the Minister consider giving drought assistance to farmers in those areas who are seriously affected?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 would like to intercede in order to answer this question because it comes within the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Department. The normal procedure in cases of calamity, drought or any extraordinary circumstances within the States is that representations are made at the Prime Minister and Premier level. The Prime Minister’s Department then processes those representations, no doubt in collaboration with the Treasury, and replies to the Premier concerned. If the Premier of South Australia believes that because of drought there is a serious situation in his State which is believed to be beyond the resources and capability of the State, the normal and proper procedure is for him to make representations to the Prime Minister.

page 22

QUESTION

PHANTOM AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Air able to state definitely the expected date of delivery in Australia of the first Phantom F4E aircraft, and the date by which it is expected that all 24 Phantom aircraft will be delivered to the Royal Australian Air

Force? ls it a fact that the Government has decided to purchase an additional 6 reconnaissance versions of the Phantom aircraft?

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

– Unless adverse weather conditions or technical problems cause delays, the first 6 Phantom aircraft should arrive in Australia on 14th September. The remaining 18 of the total of 24 Phantoms leased from the United States of America will arrive in Australia in batches of 6 on 19th September, 26th September and 3rd October. They will be brought out by Royal Australian Air Force crews, which have been trained in America, and by experienced United States of America Air Force crews. I recently saw a newspaper article in which Australia was reported to be buying another 6 Phantoms. I presume that the writer of this article based his statement on the fact that Australia may order from America 6 RF11I reconnaisance aircraft. As, at this stage, we are not taking the Fill, he has presumed that we will be taking 6 Phantoms. This is not so.

page 22

QUESTION

RURAL TELEPHONES

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Does the Government intend to give wide publicity to its announced Budget policy of further meeting the cost of provision of lines for country telephone subscribers? Does the Government acknowledge the substantially increased benefit to rural telephone subscribers which is offered by the PostmasterGeneral’s intention to meet total line costs up to a 15 mile radius from the appropriate exchange and for subscribers beyond the 15 mile radius to pay at a rate of $40 per quarter mile? Will the Minister give consideration to a suggestion that such information should be distributed to all rural post offices for exhibition on public notice boards and that rural newspapers should be informed quickly and officially of ‘his scheme?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I support entirely the comments made by the honourable senator about the benefit that this scheme will give. I certainly will pass on to the Postmaster-General the honourable senator’s comments concerning still wider publicity. I am sure that the Minister has given already a great deal of thought to the matter, but I agree with the honourable senator that the greatest publicity that can be given must be given.

page 23

QUESTION

MR ANTONIOS VRETTOS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs aware that an Australian citizen, Mr Antony Vrettos, has been detained by Greek authorities in Athens? Can the Minister explain why the official version of this matter given by the Department of External Affairs conflicts sharply with the truth? Why is it that as recently as this morning the Department advised Mrs Vrettos that her husband had his passport returned and that he had freedom of movement when, in fact, he was still under close arrest and is to be subjected to investigation and questioning at 6 p.m. today?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I will give the honourable senator the information that has been provided to me about Mr Antony Vrettos. I would suggest that, if Senator Georges, in his own right, has some information which he thinks has superseded the information I have, he might give me the source of his information. If he gives me the information he has, I will give it to the Department of External Affairs. The information, as I have it at the moment, is that early on the morning of 14th August the Department received inquiries from the Press asking whether it knew anything of Mr Antonios Vrettos, known as Antony or Tony Vrettos, who, it was claimed, had been detained temporarily in Athens. Inquiries were made immediately. It was learned from the Department of Immigration office in Darwin that this gentleman had telephoned from Athens to his wife in Darwin and had said that he had been detained for 24 hours, that his room had been ransacked and that his passport was missing. He had asked his wife to get in touch with the Immigration office and fix everything up. I understand that this gentleman called upon the Embassy in Athens on 12th August and protested that he had been unnecessarily detained and questioned by police, and that the police had searched his hotel room and taken his passport.

On checking with the police the Embassy was told that Mr Vrettos had been removed from an international basketball match between Greece and Poland following an argument with other spectators. The police said that he was taken to the police station for 2 hours to cool off. The police claimed that they did not have his passport and would help him to find it. Mr Vrettos again contacted the Embassy on the morning of 17th August and stated that he had recovered his passport on Friday, 14th August. He stated that he had moved to the Odeon Hotel and intended to leave Greece on Friday, 21st August to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He said that he had telephoned his wife over the weekend - that is, 15th and 16th August - to say that he was all tight. He thanked the Embassy for its efforts on his behalf. However, the Embassy received a cable from Mrs Vrettos August. He stated that he had moved to the on 18th August inquiring about her husband’s safety. 1 point out to the honourable senator that that is not very long ago.

Senator Georges:

– That is correct.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– lt is understood that she has denied receiving the phone call. That is the current situation according to the information I have. If Senator Georges has more up to date information, I think he has an obligation to let us know of it.

page 23

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator LILLICO:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport aware that the last report of the Australian National Line shows losses aggregating approximately $2.5m, yet overall the profit of the Line was more than Sim after income tax had been paid? Will the Minister arrange to have these figures broken down in more detail so that it may be apparent how these losses were recouped and changed into a profit of more than Sim?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– In the circumstances, not having with me a copy of the report or the time to look at the figures mentioned, all 1 can do is direct the question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport in the other place and ask him whether he will get his department to produce an analysis of the figures as requested by the honourable senator.

page 24

QUESTION

SYDNEY AIRPORT

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the

Minister for Civil Aviation: Is there any truth in the articles in the Sydney Press stating that civil aviation authorities have accused Service chiefs of meddling in the choice of a site for a new Sydney international airport. Is this the reason for the lack of information on the proposed second airport for Sydney? If not, when will the Minister be in a position to make a statement on this important matter?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– lt certainly is not true that the Department of Civil Aviation officials have accused any Department of Air people of meddling in any airport plans. The matter of investigations into a second airport site for Sydney has been referred to on many occasions, as is well known. A committee has been at work on this matter for some time. I expect the report of that committee to be in my hands within a month.

page 24

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question, addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, follows on from that asked by Senator Lillico. Will the Minister also seek to obtain a profit and loss account showing the profitability or otherwise of the Australian National Line’s shipping operations to and from Tasmania?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I will do that. 1 take it that what the honourable senator requires is a profit and loss account subdivided into the various operating sectors of the Australian National Line and the various facets of its business. I will seek this from the responsible Minister.

page 24

QUESTION

F11IC AIRCRAFT

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– 1 ask the Minister for Air whether the Government is aware that Australia’s 24 FI 1 1 C aircraft have been parked in the open on the tarmac at the General Dynamics Corporation’s space centre, Fort Worth, Texas, since September last year. Has the Government been informed that General Dynamics officials now believe it is essential to get the jets into hangars in order to combat deterioration, signs of which, they say, are apparent in some aircraft due to exposure to the weather for too long? Has this type of storage been costing the Australian taxpayers some $1,500 a day for approximately 12 months?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– It is true that the Australian Fills have been parked outside on the tarmac. This is because ail Fill aircraft were grounded following the crash in late December. We have an understanding with the works that our aircraft will have all the technical equipment and perishable equipment removed from them if necessary and then, when Australia is in a position to take them, the technical equipment will be put back and all the perishable equipment around the aircraft will be renewed so that they will come out of the hangar in a new condition. In regard to the cost of parking, the figure referred to is pure newspaper speculation. Over the years there has been a protracted discussion on the cost of parking. This is something that will have to be sorted out when we take delivery of the aircraft.

page 24

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. ls it not a fact that under Government policy Trans-Australia Airlines is supposed to work on a profit making basis but when u is required to operate a noneconomic run it is subsidised by the Government? If the answer to thai question is yes, will he, as Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, ask his colleague whether that policy could be applied to the Australian National Line so that the increased freight rates being charged on the Bass Strait run could be taken away and Tasmania would not have to subsidise the losses made on the run to Darwin?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– lt is a fact that both the Australian National Airlines Commission and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd are given subsidies in respect of certain routes which they have and which are not payable. This is done on the basis of a critical examination of their costs within a certain range of limits that are allowed, lt is equally true that certain other operators in Australia receive assistance. We are trying very hard to reduce this level of assistance year by year. I cannot say what the Minister for Shipping and Transport might do with regard to the Australian National Line when he looks at the example that is operating in the civil aviation field: but I will communicate the honourable senator’s thought to him. I know that the Minister has had discussions with the Premier of Tasmania on this matter, but beyond that I am not well informed.

page 25

QUESTION

MIGRANTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration consider that the separation of nonmigrant and migrant mothers in the public maternity wards of the King George V Memorial Hospital in Sydney reeks of racialism? Does not she think that the issue is compounded when some mothers, notwithstanding 20 years of residence in Australia and Australian citizenship, are victims of this Little Rock philosophy because they do not possess Anglo-Saxon names? Is she also aware that, if the happenings referred to in the first and second parts of the question are accepted for administrative purposes, there is no evidence that the nurses operating in this section of the hospital have any bi-lingual capacities? Will the Minister probe the overall position, including that referred to in the third part of the question, mindful of my earlier exposure of the limited linguistic ability of sisters operating baby health centres in or adjacent to major migrant centres in Sydney?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– In reply to the honourable senator’s question regarding patients in the public maternity wards of the King George V Memorial Hospital, 1 inform him that the administration and policies of public hospitals are the responsibility of the individual State Governments. But inquiries have revealed that the migrant mothers in the hospital in question are allocated to beds in accordance with their ability to speak English in order that they may readily communicate with each other and render mutual support at this particular time. This is indeed what many migrant mothers prefer. It is therefore not a matter of racialism but what is in the best interests of mother and of infant at this time. Secondly the honourable senator asked about people who have been in Australia for 20 years.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I have the name of the person if the hospital is trying to get away from its responsibilities.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will continue with the information I have, and if there is any further information the honourable senator wants me to obtain, I will get it.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I am not giving false information, if that is what the hospital implies.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall continue with the reply to Senator Mulvihills question. If it does not contain all that he requires and if I can get any further information, 1 will be pleased to do so. I believe that the answer which 1 have already given largely covers the matter raised in the second part of his question. The hospital authorities have stated that they are perfectly happy to move a patient if she so desires. I would emphasise that the grouping of patients frequently takes place at the request of the patients. There is an Australia wide shortage of nurses in general, and in particular of bi-lingual nurses. In the hospital in question one of the sisters is Italian speaking, whilst some other nationalities are assisted by other bi-lingual staff members.

I understand that the New South Wales Department of Public Health has recognised this problem and has authorised a number of the larger hospitals to employ interpreters to assist in patient care. Then national group organisations, such as the Good Neighbour Council, advisory services attached to banks and other community organisations, frequently render valuable assistance in interpreting for patients. However, grouping of patients of similar nationalities would appear to be to their mutual advantage and convenience of communication, especially at such times as immediately before and after the birth of the baby when the mother should be free of all extraneous worries. Again - and I emphasise this point to the honourable senator - this is properly the function of the State authorities. There is an ever increasing recognition by the community of the needs of non-English speaking migrants, and departmental staff assist in this regard by lecturing to community health nurses attending New South Wales Department of Public Health in-service training courses. I am informed that the Department of Immigration is currently considering proposals to further extend its integration facilities, including an expansion of its interpreter services.

page 26

QUESTION

INDIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Bearing in mind the urgent commercial need for Adelaide to be connected with the IndianPacific standard gauge railway system, can the Minister advise the Senate, or obtain a report, as to the stage arrived at in the negotiations between the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government for the standardisation of the Adelaide to Port Pirie railway link?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I understand the importance of this matter to South Australia and the purport of the question asked by the honourable senator. However, I think it would be quite wrong for me to take upon myself the responsibility of saying what decision has been made or what discussions are proceeding regarding the Indian-Pacific railway line, but I will certainly try to find out the information as soon as I can and let the honourable senator have it.

page 26

QUESTION

SERVICES PAY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Air seen the ‘Australian’ of 17th August 1970 in which the Government’s policy on flying pay and conditions of service in the Royal Australian Air Force and in the other armed forces comes under strong criticism from the Returned Services League and others? In view of the action of 200 members of the Navy who, according to the Minister for Defence, Mr Malcolm Fraser, have waited too long already for pay adjustments, can the Minister inform the Senate when adjustments will be made, acknowledging the principle that the RAAF air crew salaries should be adjusted to match movements in the civil aviation industry? Will the Minister make an early statement to the Senate with a view to propping up what is known as the sagging morale in the Services and to stem the flow of officer resignations which is plaguing all 3 Services?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– On a number of occasions I have referred to pay and conditions within the Service. For some time my Department has been represented on the Defence Conditions Committee which has been looking at pay and conditions in the Services. Recommendations have been made in which my Department has been involved. The Chief of the Air Staff has seen the recommendations. Those recommendations have been put before the Government. Some of them have been accepted and others are awaiting examination. In regard to the point that Senator 0’Byrne made about flying pay for the Service as against that paid to Department of Civil Aviation employees, 1 point out for the information of the honourable senator that the recent increases in flying pay were rather substantial. In some cases they were almost double the existing rates.

I have before me examples of the total emoluments, inclusive of flying pay for junior and senior ranks. I remind the honourable senator that when I answered a question on this matter during the last sessional period I spoke of senior flight lieutenants and squadron leaders. A married flight lieutenant has a range of between $6,724 and §8,606. The Department of Civil Aviation examiner of airmen has on appointment a salary range of 57,138 to $7,328 plus flying pay amounting to $1,613, which brings him up to $8,751. So the difference is not great. Perhaps the only thing these 2 officers have in common in the way of duties is that they both fly sophisticated aircraft. We are looking at pay and conditions. Recommendations have been made and we hope that very shortly these will be considered and announcements will be made.

page 26

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Has the Minister seen in this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’ a report that during a meeting held outside Parliament House yesterday a member of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force took photographs of the pensioners and trade unionists taking part in the meeting? Is the report correct?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– 1 have not seen the newspaper, therefore I have not been able to read the article referred to. I shall try to find out what the facts are and let the honourable senator know.

page 27

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. As continuing drought in Queensland and other States is causing catastrophic circumstances for rural producers and rurally based businessmen, will the Federal Government give immediate consideration to establishing a small drought alleviation committee composed of senior officers of the Department of Primary Industry and the Treasury to investigate conditions in areas where drought is occurring and prepare a prompt report as to ways in which the Federal Government may offer effective aid to the States where drought is occurring and also to advise the Government as to the immediate legislative and financial measures which require introduction by parliaments to avoid the possible bankruptcy of individuals or the loss of property which may be forced on individuals - both producers and businessmen - due to economic circumstances which are beyond their personal control?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator suggests that the Government should consider setting up a small alleviating committee in relation to the problems of drought with special reference initially to Queensland and certain other States. I think I should point out first that there is reference in the Budget Speech to special assistance for Queensland in relation to the problems of drought. Equally I feel that I should point out, as I did in reply to Senator Young, that the normal procedures for dealing with matters such as extreme droughts and things of this nature affecting the States are through representation by the Premier of the State concerned to the Prime Minister, at which time the Commonwealth gives consideration to the problem. Generally when the Commonwealth intercedes it does so by affording financial assistance to the States which then determine the procedures to be adopted and the assistance to be given. The States have a far more intimate link with the problems and have responsibility for the local government authorities which in turn become vitally affected in these matters. The honourable senator’s proposal is that some organisation should be set up to consider this matter. I shall refer his question in the first instance to the Minister for Primary Industry. I have no doubt that his question will attract a reply which I shall give to the honourable senator in due course.

page 27

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question was intended for the President but in his absence I address the question to you, Mr Deputy President, and ask you to pass it on to him. By whose authority were pensioners visiting Canberra to lobby for increased pensions denied entry into Kings Hall yesterday morning and why was such entry refused to them?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - This question will be referred to the President for a reply which the honourable senator will receive in due course.

page 27

QUESTION

TELEPHONES

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact thai in Queensland there is a delay of approximately 4 months before installation and connection of telephones to private homes can be effected because of a lack of the necessary equipment? If such is the case, can the Minister advance any reasons for what appears to be such a lengthy delay?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I feel that I should get this information from the Postmaster-General so that I may have an accurate reply for the honourable senator. I shall do this and inform him as soon as possible.

page 27

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Will the Neptune Orient Line’s new shipping service between Singapore and Australian east coast ports include calls at any Tasmanian ports? If so, which ports and in what circumstances?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have no knowledge of this new line, but I shall certainly have inquiries made for the honourable senator with the Department of Shipping and Transport and let him have the information.

page 28

QUESTION

MR ANTONIOS VRETTOS

Senator GEORGES:

– In addressing a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs I refer again to the Vrettos case. Why have officials of the Department of External Affairs not checked the information which I gave to them at approximately 10 a.m. this morning? If they have done so, why has the information not been added to the file from which the Minister read earlier?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONSenator Georges said that he gave information to the Department of External Affairs today at 10 a.m. and he wants to know why I have not been given a brief by 2 p.m.! I indicated in my previous answer to him that if he had any further information he should give it. Obviously he was holding out on me because he already had further information. However I have that information now and as the honourable member would expect, I have sought to check it out. I am informed that in another place the Minister for External Affairs has indicated that this morning his Department received information from other sources - perhaps Senator George’s sources - that Mr Vrettos had been again detained. The Department immediately telephoned the Australian Embassy in Athens and instructed officials there to interview Mr Vrettos at his hotel and to do all in their power to ensure that his civil rights were protected. Representatives from the Embassy could not talk to him immediately because it was 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in the morning. As soon as possible they will seek to see him and ask him if he wants any assistance.

page 28

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services inform the Parliament whether it is a fact that when a married person who is in receipt of a pension passes away the surviving pensioner receives the normal pension rate for a married couple for a period of 12 weeks? Can the Minister further advise whether, in the event of 1 of the married pensioners being committed to a hospital or home, the 12 weeks’ extra pension is not paid should the person thus committed pass away?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will get a detailed answer from the Minister for the honourable senator.

page 28

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether he will consider alterations to the Federal Bankruptcy Act so as to offer alleviation to individuals, both producers and businessmen, in drought areas of the various States who are financially embarrassed due to circumstances beyond their control?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I can understand that the honourable senator has some concern with rural indebtedness. As to its relevance to the bankruptcy provisions, I shall refer his question to the Attorney-General for his consideration.

page 28

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– 1 direct a further question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Has the Australian Government had discussions with the British Government on the future status of Commonwealth citizens entering Britain? Does legislation under preparation by the Heath Government largely abolish the entry privileges normally accorded to people from Australia and other Commonwealth countries?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Australian Government has not had discussions with the British Government concerning the future status of Australians entering Britain. It is internationally accepted that every country has the right to determine the composition of its own population, and it would not be appropriate that Australia should seek to interfere in British immigration legislation. The British Government has not informed the Australian Government of any intended legislation which would adversely affect Australians wishing to visit Britain.

page 28

QUESTION

PHANTOM AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply. Is it a fact that executives of the McDonnellDouglas aircraft company, the manufacturer of the Phantom aircraft, have put to senior Australian officials in Washington a proposal which could lead to the production of its aircraft in Australia or a proposal for placing in Australia off-set orders relating to current Australian purchases or future requirements of the Australian Government?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I was not sufficiently informed before question time of the proposals to which the honourable senator is alluding in order to give him a reply but 1 shall certainly process the matter immediately after question time so as to be better informed of the facts. Of course, it is true that the question of off-set orders being fulfilled in Australia, particularly within the aircraft industry, is a current topic of discussion. As the honourable senator knows, the Department of Supply and the Department of Trade and Industry have special officers in Washington looking into this matter. 1 have no doubt that discussions are going on in relation to possible off-set orders. I am not informed whether they are going on with this particular company but I will obtain the information and make it available to the honourable senator, I hope tomorrow.

page 29

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHT RATES

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the serious dislocation facing the Tasmanian economy as a result of the increase of 12^% in freight rates by all shipping lines trading to and from Tasmania, the inevitable impact on the cost of exporting primary products from Tasmania to the mainland and the increase in the cost of living to consumers in that Slate, will the Minister consult with the Treasurer with a view to giving urgent consideration to the granting of a special freight subsidy to Tasmania until some meaningful solution can be found to allay the deep concern of all Tasmanians over this steep freight increase?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator directed the question to me as the representative of the Treasurer. This afternoon several questions have been asked about this increase in freight rates between Tasmania and the mainland. I think, initially, this is a matter which should be directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. If it went to the Treasurer the first thing he would do would be to go back to the Minister for Shipping and Transport and obtain the basic facts from him. In view of those circumstances I will direct the question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 29

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHT RATES

Senator DEVITT:

– I wish to ask a question, which is also on the subject of shipping freight rates, of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Because the increase in the Australian National Line shipping freight rates which commenced on 1st August 1970 will mean further substantial increases in the cost of living in Tasmania, estimated by the State Minister for Transport within the last 24 hours to be as high as 4% on groceries alone, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate request his colleague the Treasurer to make the whole of the State of Tasmania a zone A tax allowance area as a means of partially offsetting the very great disabilities of that State which are increasing because of this Government’s neglect to intervene to protect its interests and recognise its special transport disabilities?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I would not deprecate for one moment the situation which must essentially emerge when there is an increase in freight rates to and from the island of Tasmania which is dependent on the shipping lines. But to suggest that that would justify the Treasurer putting the whole of Tasmania into a zone A taxation allowance area is an entirely different matter. There are many implications in relation to that which I suggest are not essentially linked to the question the honourable senator poses. However he has asked the question and I will refer it to the Treasurer. I express my own view for what it is worth. I do not think that is a real answer to the type of problem the honourable senator has posed in his question.

page 29

QUESTION

WILD LIFE

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Why has not the summit meeting materialised between the Minister for Education and Science, Mr

Bowen, whose portfolio embraces (he Division of Wildlife Research of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and State Ministers responsible for fauna conservation matters? It was foreshadowed by Senator Wright during the debate on an urgency motion on this issue during the last session. Can this inactivity be linked with the failure of the Minister for Customs and Excise to curb the export of kangaroo and wallaby products?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I can assure the honourable senator that there is no inactivity as stated by him. The conservation authorities met in Darwin late in May. Those people who attended the meeting included representatives of State and Commonwealth departments responsible for fauna conservation. The final proceedings of the conference were completed and forwarded in late July to all member authorities for consideration and submission to their respective Ministers. As a number of resolutions came from the conference some time is required to prepare briefs for Ministers before the Ministers assemble in conference. This consideration is proceeding at present.

With regard to changes in customs regulations, I remind the honourable senator that controls already exist only over kangaroos and kangaroo skins. However, the Minister for Customs and Excise has raised the question of the control of kangaroo products and this is included in the consideration of the recently appointed House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation. It will be remembered that that Committee was set up at the instigation of my colleague in another place, Mr Fox. It is actively considering many representations, received from every point of the compass, bearing on the conservation of kangaroos. I am sure that the honourable senator would not expect precipitate action to be taken in that respect. Consideration of the customs regulations and the appropriate methods of conservation will reach decision point after the Committee has had an opportunity to report.

I do not think the honourable senator will get very far if he implies in the Senate that there is a lack of interest in the conservation of the kangaroo. No doubt his attention will have been drawn to the fact that in the last few days the Australian Conservation Foundation issued a most informative pamphlet on the subject. Every interest is being taken in the conservation of our most precious wildlife, in the form of the kangaroo.

page 30

MR ANTONIOS VRETTOS

I ask the honourable senator to assure me that there is no implication that either I am not or the Department is not giving the truth. I would resent any such implication.

I am giving the information that is coming forward. The honourable senator should be more careful in his choice of words and in the implications he makes. An Embassy official spoke to Mr Vrettos in his hotel at 5.20 this morning, Athens time. Mr Vrettos is not under guard. He accompanied Embassy officials to the Embassy and informed them that he had been interviewed on 3 occasions by the Athens police and was asked to interview them again at 9.30 this morning. An Embassy official was to accompany him to the interview. Basically Mr Vrettos is all right. The main problem is associated with his passport, which is not in his possession. It had been given to the Soviet Embassy in order that a visa could be issued to him for a visit to Moscow. It seems that the main worry is that the visa has not been given. He wanted to leave for Moscow on Friday of this week. AH we can say at present is that he is not under guard and is apparently free to leave.

page 30

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister advise the Parliament of any official government action taken and any progress achieved in the search for Australian journalist Francis James?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I have some information about Francis James, but in the welter of paper in front of me, including the information obtained for Senator Georges, 1 cannot put my hand on that information. Before question time is over I will give the honourable senator the information I have on the current position.

page 31

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Senator BISHOP:

– 1 ask the Minister for for Civil Aviation, ls it a fact that, resulting from the recent negotiations with 2 United States of America airlines for operating rights between Australia and the United States, Qantas Airways Limited will be forced to increase the number of its monthly nights to the United States of America to 13 and will stand to lose financially because of having to meet the new competition? If this is true, was this circumstance considered by the Minister during the negotiations?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– What happened in relation to this matter will take a little time to explain, but as Senator Bishop has asked the question he is entitled to a considered answer. Quite some time ago the United States of America authorities designated an additional carrier on the Pacific route. In the first stage it was Eastern Airlines. Subsequently this became American Airlines. The Government was approached, through the Department of Civil Aviation, to increase the frequency of flights on the Pacific route by something in the order of 140%. We refused to accede to this request. Negotiations took place on the basis that a reasonable increase in capacity would be somewhere about what looked to be a sensible growth rate in the market, which was in the order of 25%. To that was added something for expansion because of new opportunities and a new carrier. The result was that the number of American frequencies rose to 13 a week. Qantas Airways Limited needed to match this number to make quite sure it did not lose its share of the market. It is much too early to say whether, as a result of the increased number of flights, Qantas will lose money, break even or make money. The honourable senator may be assured that the Department and I fought to maintain the Australian interest and, equally, to ensure that tourist opportunities were not neglected in any way. If he is interested in this subject, he can refer to a Press article concerning an interview with Captain Richey, the General Manager of Qantas, who indicated that what Qantas has today was not very far off what it had been planning for.

Senator Bishop:

– Did he make a statement as to losses?

Senator COTTON:

– The honourable senator should read the article. He might find it interesting. He should read it in its entirety.

page 31

QUESTION

HONEY INDUSTRY

Senator WEBSTER:

– ls the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the charge made by several associations of honey producers in the southern areas of Australia that they are troubled greatly by ‘the parlous state into which the honey industry has been allowed to drift since the advent of the presently constituted Australian Honey Board’? ls there any ground for such a charge? Was the Board constituted after proper consultation with producers? Is the Minister aware of demands made by those producers to ascertain views upon the Board’s possible reconstruction?

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

– BROCKMAN - I understood that over the last 12 months the sale of honey on the export market had improved and that prices were holding quite reasonably. I am not aware of some of the points raised by the honourable senator. I will make inquiries and let him have an answer at a later date.

page 31

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator DEVITT:

– I direct a further question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport or to the appropriate Minister in the circumstances. ls the Minister aware of the provisions of section 18(1.) of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956-1962, requiring the payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on the capital of the Commission? Does not section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution which takes precedence over the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956-1962 require that trade, commerce and intercourse between the States shall be absolutely free? Would not any law which operated to the serious disadvantage of any one State of the Federation, so as to adversely affect trade between that and any other State be in conflict with the spirit and intentions of section 92 of the Constitution? If that is the position, would it not follow that section 18(1.) of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956-1962 is ultra vires the Constitution and therefore without any force or validity as an argument to justify freight increases in the case of Tasmania which has no interstate land transport system as an alternative to shipping and where trade, commerce and intercourse between the States as a consequence of the recent rise in shipping rates are not now absolutely free?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I hope a literal interpretation of that question does not mean that it is proposed that under section 92 of the Constitution the Australian National Line will carry free of charge all goods to and from Tasmania. This is a long question which involves a substantial amount of legal argument. Properly I should refer it to the Minister for Shipping and Transport who, I imagine, would want to confer with the Attorney-General. In due course, following consultation with my colleague, I will give a considered reply.

page 32

QUESTION

AID TO PRIMARY INDUSTRY

(Question No. 211)

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Are Statutes identical with, or substantially identical with, the Queensland Farmer Assistance (Debts Adjustment) Act 1967 in operation in other States (being a re-enactment of a Statute of 1935-36).
  2. What are the amounts in the respective State Funds - called in Queensland ‘The Federal Aid Rehabilitation Fund’.
  3. Are not such Funds, created by moneys made available by the Commonwealth, to be applied for the benefit of farmers.
  4. How many applications for money have been made in each of the States in which the legislation exists, in each of the last 5 years.
  5. If this information is not held by the Federal Government, can such information be obtained.
  6. As the legislation is for the express relief of primary producers economically affected by drought is the Minister satisfied that primary producers are familiar with the legislation and their rights under it.
  7. What moneys have been made available by the Commonwealth to the States, individually, since the inception of the scheme.
  8. What amounts have been made available to each State in each of the last 5 years.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– On 23rd April 1970 the Minister for Primary Industry asked that I inform the honourable senator that some of the information requested was not immediately available. The Minister for Primary Industry has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. All States enacted legislation to implement the Commonwealth Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act 1935-1950. In Queensland, The Farmers’ Assistance (Debts Adjustment) Act 1935- 1945 was subsequently repealed and replaced by The Farmers’ Assistance (Debts Adjustment) Act of 1967. A perusal of the Statutes in each State indicates that there are some similarities and some differences in the provisions.
  2. Grants provided to the States under the Commonwealth Farmers’ Debt Adjustment Act were represented in State Accounts at 30th June 1969 by the following cash balances, loans outstanding and amounts written off or remitted:
  1. The Commonwealth Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act 1935-1950 authorised the Treasurer to make grants to the States for the purpose of discharging, in whole or in part, the debts of farmers by means of compositions or schemes of arrangement between farmers and their creditors. The legislation provided that the Commonwealth could make grants to the States up to a total of $24m. However, in 1943 the Act was amended with the effect that no further grants could be made to the States. Up to that time advances totalling $15,934,000 had been made. The funds can only be used by the States for the purposes laid down by the Commonwealth Act and arrangements for debt adjustment may not be made unless the State authorities are first satisfied that the farmer has a reasonable prospect of recovery. Schemes for debt adjustment would also need to comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act, as amended. The grants provided to the States may be used by the States to make grants or loans to farmers. Repayments of loans to the States may only be used by the States for purposes authorised by the Commonwealth Act.
  2. and (5) The number of applications for assistance made under this legislation in the various States during the last 5 years is not known to the Commonwealth. This information would have to be obtained from the State Governments.
  3. The purpose of the Commonwealth legislation was to enable the States to assist farmers generally, in the economically depressed conditions of the 1930s to make compositions or schemes of arrangements with their creditors in respect of their debts. However, to the extent that drought-affected farmers incur debts and are eligible for assistance, the legislation may be said to be of assistance to drought affected farmers.
  4. Total Commonwealth grants paid to the States under the Farmers’ Debt Adjustment Act are as follows:
  1. No grants have been made to the States under this legislation since 1943.

page 33

QUESTION

FORESTS

(Question No. 249)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Will the Treasurer give consideration to a request that Commonwealth Development Bank funds be made available to individuals and companies who have demonstrated ah interest and an ability in the planting of forest areas in Australia.
  2. Will the Treasurer consider making finance available from a Government source on similar terms and conditions as funds which are made available to State instrumentalities for forest planting.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. Provision of finance for afforestation falls within the functions of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, and applications for loans for that purpose are considered by the Development Bank in accordance with the provisions of sections 72 and 73 of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959-1968.
  2. In view of the answer to (1) it is considered that the need to do so does not arise.

page 33

QUESTION

AID TO PRIMARY INDUSTRY

(Question No. 305)

Senator BROWN:

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

Are many small farmers in a desperate financial position and is there a real possibility that many more relatively solvent farmers may reach the same state; if so, will the Government consider immediately enacting legislation to reintroduce a Mortgage Bank’, in order to help such farmers survive the current crises in the primary industries.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

The Government is aware that, due to a variety of causes, financial difficulties are being experienced in some sectors of the rural economy. It is not possible to say with any precision how many farmers are, or may be, affected.

Under the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959, which came into operation in January, 1960, the Mortgage Bank and Industrial Finance Departments of the former Commonwealth Bank of Australia were amalgamated to form the basis of the Commonwealth Development Bank. It was considered that, by combining these two Departments and by giving the Commonwealth Development Bank specific functions and additional resources to provide assistance to primary producers and industrial undertakings, a wider range of needs could be met than under the previous arrangements.

The Commonwealth, through the Reserve Bank, arranges for the trading banks to provide preferential treatment in their lending to the rural export industries. The negotiation of individual loans is, however, a private matter between the banks and their clients. In such negotiations, all the facts relating to each proposal can be considered.

page 33

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 315)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. Upon the introduction of a requirement in the New Zealand Repatriation Act that the reasons for rejection of a claim for Repatriation Benefits be given to the claimant ex-serviceman or his beneficiary, did the level of rejection drop from 40 per cent to 1 per cent: if so, does this not raise a very strong probability that a high proportion of current claims now being rejected in Australia would be accepted if a similar provision were made in the Australian Repatriation Act.
  2. Will the Australian Government demonstrate its bona fides in repatriation matters by inserting a similar provision in the Repatriation Act and thereby demonstrate a maximum desire to compensate ex-servicemen who are suffering from disabilities for which they, at the present time, can get neither help nor recognition.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. There has been no change in the relevant New Zealand legislation of the kind mentioned by the Honourable Senator. However, in practice the New Zealand War Pensions Board has, since 1967.. supplied to all persons who lodge an appeal to the War Pensions Appeal Board, details of the enlistment medical examination, disabilities suffered during service and other information relevant to the claimed disability. After this summary of fact and medical opinion the Board gives its reason for the decision which gave rise to the appeal. My information is that the reasons for decisions are couched in short and fairly general terms.

Statistics provided by the New Zealand authorities do not indicate any significant changes in the proportion of claims or appeals allowed since 1967.

  1. Underthe Australian repatriation system, an appellant to an Assessment or Entitlement Appeal Tribunalhas available to him a detailed summary of the evidence and information about his case and on which the decision appealed against has been made. This enables him to prepare and present his appeal to the appropriate tribunal, and in doing so to introduce further evidence and comment on any relevant issue.I do not see any need for a change in the existing arrangments, which have operated satisfactorily for many years.

page 34

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

(Question No. 382) Senator KEEFFE asked the Minister representingthe Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Has the Government decided to instal a natural uranium fuelled Canadian reactor system in Australia’s first nuclear power station; if so, will this system allow for speedy conversion for the production of nuclear weapons.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer tothe honourable senators question:

No. A decision has not been taken on the reactor type to be installed at Jervis Bay.

page 34

QUESTION

BANKS ISLAND: WOLFRAM DEPOSITS

(Question No. 394)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the Queensland Government calling tenders for the mining of wolfram on Banks Island: if so, are the Island people likely to receive a return of less than 50% of the net profits.
  2. Will the Minister take the appropriate action to ensure that Islanders are able to mine the deposits under the Direction of a locally formed co-operative, or, alternatively, that they be guaranteed not less than 90% of the net profit, if the mineral field is to be exploited by a private company.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer:

  1. The Queensland Government has invited proposals for the development of wolfram and other mineral deposits within the Reserves for Torres Strait islanders on Banks (Moa) Island in the Torres Strait.

Applicants arc requiredto provide free a capital share on behalf of assisted Torres Strait Islanders. The percentage of capital participation given on behalf of the Torres Strait Islanders is to be maintained in the event of further capital raisings by the successful tenderer.

Profit from the Islanders’ share is to be paid into a trust to be controlled by Islanders nominated by the Torres Strait Islands Councillors in conference.

Proposals must also provide for maximum participation by Islanders, including thorough training programmes.

As the decision to accept a proposal rests with the Queensland Government,I am unable to comment on the likely percentage of profits for the Islanders. However,I would recall that the Queensland Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal and Island Affairshas already assured me that he will not allow the deposits to be exploited to the disadvantage of the Islanders.

  1. My officers have made and are continuing to make real efforts to give the Moa Islanders every opportunity to obtain the largest possible share of the ownership and profits of the enterprise.

The Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, Dr Coombs has had discussions with elected representatives of the Moa Islanders regarding ways in which we might assist them to submit an effective proposal to the Queensland Government for development of the wolfram deposits. As a result the Islanders have engaged appropriate professional and technical services and I have approved financial assistance from the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises to meet the preliminary costs involved. The Moa Islanders have also been advised that an application to the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises to assist with the financing of development and mining will receive sympathetic consideration when their proposal has been formulated.

Whether the Moa Islanders will with to operate through a locally formed co-operative or through some other form of incorporated group is for them to decide themselves.

With regard to the percentage of profit which might be received by the Islanders, this will be a matter for agreement between the Islanders concerned and a reputable mining company having the necessary mining skills and experience, if they decide to go into some form of arrangement with such a company. I hope that the professional services made available to the Moa Islanders will enable them to negotiate the most favourable agreement possible, having regard to the possible necessity for them to obtain outside mining expertise and experience.

On 8th June 1970 the Commonwealth MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs discussed this matter with the Queensland Minister (Hon. N. Hewitt) and informed him that the Commonwealth desired to see thegreatest possible degree of Aboriginal ownership and participation in this venture, and that the Commonwealth, through its Aboriginal Capital Fund, would stand ready to contribute reasonable amounts of capital on behalf of the Islanders to enable these purposes to be achieved.

page 35

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. Are there in fact two Vietnams; if so when was the boundary line drawn, where was the line drawn and by whom was the line drawn.
  2. Do countries other than the combatants and those committed in the Vietnam affair, accept, as an historical fact, that there are two Vietnams.
Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. and (2) Article 1 of the Geneva Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam of 20th July 1954, provided that forces of the People’s Army of Vietnam (Viet Minh) were to regroup north of a provisional military demarcation line, fixed in part along the Cua Tung River but generally following the alignment of the 17th parallel of latitude, and that forces of the French Union were to regroup south of this line. Under Article 14, provision was made for two separate civil administrations in the two regrouping zones. The agreement and the Final Declaration issued by the Conference recognised the provisional character of the demarcation line and that it should not be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. Nevertheless, developments since 1954 have proved unfounded the Conference’s ‘conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present declaration and in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Vietnam’ (paragraph 6 of the Final Declaration). The present reality is that two separate stales exist, and the division has received wide diplomatic recognition on the part of communist as well as non-communist countries. Some 60 countries have recognised South Vietnam, which is also a member of many of the Specialised

Agencies of the United Nations, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. North Vietnam has diplomatic relations with more than 20her countries. The United Nations General Assembly has passed resolutions recognising that the Republic of Vietnam is a peace-loving State qualified for membership of the United Nations. Although the Republic’s admission was vetoed by the Soviet Union in the Security Council, the U.S.S.R. had itself put forward in the General Assembly in January 1957, a draft resolution for the simultaneous admission of both North and South Vietnam, arguing that, as in Korea, two separate States existed with different political and economic structures.

page 35

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

page 35

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

(Question No, 399)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has Esso contracted to sell 500,000 tons of liquid petroleum gas overseas; if so, at what price is the liquid petroleum gas being sold.
  2. If the Government does not know the price which the liquid petroleum gas will be sold overseas will the Government issue an export licence for this liquid petroleum gas without knowledge of the price.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. It has been announced publicly that liquefied petroleum gas in quantities of the order of1 million tons per annum is intended to be exported by the proprietors of the Bass Strait offshore fields. Esso will have the disposal of half of this quantity, that is, about 500,000 tons per annum. The price receivable for this material has not been made public.
  2. The answer is the same as the answer to a similar question (No. 104) recently asked concerning export of liquefied petroleum gas by Hematite, that is, no permit is required for the export of this material. In the answer to Question 104 the word licence’ was wrongly used instead of the word permit’. Export controls for pricing policy purposes, when they exist, are exercised by means of permit. On the other hand, all goods exported must be covered by a licence issued by the Department of Customs and Excise and information concerning the value of the material to he exported must be included in the licence.

page 36

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

(Question No. 426)

Senator LAUCKE:

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

  1. Has an appraisal been made of the detrimental effects on our dairy, meat, dried and canned fruits and other primary industries, in the event of United Kingdom entry to the European Economic Community.
  2. What steps are being taken to safeguard our rural export interests in the United Kingdom in such circumstances.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Acting Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. It is not possible to assess accurately the implications that United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community will have for Australia’s primary industries until the terms of Britain’s entry are known. The negotiations on the United Kingdom’s application tojoin the E.E.C. are due to begin on June 30th.

Obviously, the answer to this question was formed prior to that date.

  1. The Minister for Trade and Industry has recently left for Europe - and of course he has now returned - to personally assess the situation and to bring the position in relation to Australia’s export interests to the attention of the British Government and to the authorities of the European Economic Community.

To some extent events have caught up with the question and answer hut. nevertheless. I have no doubt that the honourable senator has read with considerable interest the reports of what the Minister for Trade and Industry said on his return.

page 36

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 429)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Have any national servicemen who, prior to call-up. were employed in the Commonwealth Public Service, since been discharged medically unfit, Class’C’; if so, were such men re-employed by the Public Service Board, or were they retired and, if so, were they given full pensions under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following answerto the honourable senators question:

I have been advised by the Treasurer as follows -

A number of national servicemen who prior to call-up were employed in the Commonwealth Public Service, have been discharged medically unfit interms of Section 52A of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1969: under that Section they are entitledto a gratuity as if they had been classified as Class’C’ under that Act.

In accordance with that legislation and the Superannuation Act 1922-1969 any such person on re-employment and subsequent retirement on invalidity grounds, for the purposes of the Superannuation Act, would receive an invalidity benefit under that Act. This benefit would be the entitlement under the Superannuation Act or that which would have been applicable under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. whichever the greater.

Without an exhaustive analysis it is not possible to state whether any such cases have occurred; but the Offices of the Superannuation and D.F.R.B. Boards do not recall any cases of an invalidity discharge of a national serviceman who could have been classified as Class C andwho was re-employed by the Commonwealth Public Service and subsequently retired on invalidity grounds.’

page 36

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 430)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: (1)Is ita fact that the programme “This Day Tonight’ on Australian Broadcasting Commission television arranged for 27 May 1970 was cancelled at the last minute at the direction of the Postmaster-General because Sir Henry Bolte declined to appear.

  1. Is it a fact that leaders of all political parties were advised prior to the day of the programme (hat the programme would proceed provided two party leaders were prepared to appear.
  2. Is it a fact that the Leader of the AustralianLabor Party, the Leader of the Democratic Labour Party and the Deputy Leader of the Country Party arrived at Ripponlea ABC studios to take part in the programme and were only then advised that the programme had been cancelled.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. No. At 4.00 p.m. on 27 May the Executive Producer of the programme decided not to proceed with a planned segment because Sir Henry Bolte and other members of the Victorian Liberal Party had decided not to appear in the programme.
  2. Yes. However it was later realised that under the provisions of Section 116(4) of the Broadcasting and Television Act no right of reply after the scheduled telecast of’This Day Tonight’ of May 27 would have been available to the party not represented. The ABC expressed its regret to those inconvenienced.
  3. Yes. Because of the late decision in Sydney to cancel the segment it was not possible to advise the party representatives before their arrival at the Ripponlea studios

page 37

QUESTION

RADIO-ACTIVE WASTE

(Question No. 433)

Senator BROWN:

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

In view of the report in the ‘Australian’ of 4th June, entitled ‘U.S. to bury A-Waste in salt mine’, which states that the American atomic Energy Commission has decided to bury its most radio-active atomic waste in a depository that will cost some $US45m and take as long as 5 years to build, has any consideration been given to the provision of satisfactory disposal arrangements at the power plant to be built at Jervis Bay; if so, will the Minister provide the Senate with detailed plans and a description of the disposal arrangements.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Radio-active waste is recovered from used nuclear reactor fuel elements when they are subjected to chemical processing in order to recover the unused fuel material remaining in the elements. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission is familiar with the processes in use, both for the recovery and the disposal of the waste.

No decision can be made regarding the chemical processing of fuel from the Jervis Bay power station until after tenders have been assessed and a decision has been taken on the type of nuclear power reactor to be built at Jervis Bay. Should the used fuel be processed overseas, then of course the matter of radioactive waste disposal will not be of concern in Australia. If it is decided to process the used fuel in Australia the honoiurable senator may be assured that adequate provisions will be made for the safe handling of the radio-active waste material.

page 37

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

(Question No. 458)

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In view of President Nixon’s announcement that 50,000 United States troops will be withdrawn from South Vietnam by 15th October, can the Government now take this Parliament and the people of Australia into its confidence and announce when Australian troops will be withdrawn from this costly conflict.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

The position remains as outlined in my statement of 22nd April 1970 (Hansard, Senate, pages 1011-1013).

page 37

QUESTION

BANKING

(Question No. 468)

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Under what circumstances and conditions does the Commonwealth Savings Bank make loans available, in excess of $8,000, for home building and purchase.
  2. How many such loans have been made and over what period.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has furnished the following information:

As indicated in the answer given to Question No. 375 on 2nd June 1970 (see Hansard page 1826), in a limited number of suitable cases the Commonwealth Savings Bank is approving mortgage loans in excess of $8,000 for home building and purchase. Normally loans are made up to 75% of the Bank’s valuation of the property with interest rates ranging between 7.5% and 8% per annum. The suitability of each application is considered on its merits.

The mortgage loans were introduced in April 1970 to match facilities provided by other savings banks. For competitive reasons, the Commonwealth Savings Bank does not propose to publish information as to the number of such loans.

page 37

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 469)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. Is it a fact that in France, West Germany, the United States of America and New Zealand the reasons given for rejecting a claim for the acceptance of a disability as being war caused must, by law, be provided to the claimant.
  2. In view of the widespread and growing discontent being expressed concerning the shortcomings of the Repatriation Act, in this and other areas, is there any valid reason why a similar procedure cannot be adopted in this country.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Whilst 1 do not know in precise terms the laws and practices followed in all of the countries mentioned by the honourable senator, my understanding is that some explanation or reason for the refusal of claims may be given to unsuccessful claimants.
  2. As I have indicated in my reply to an earlier question asked by the honourable senator, under the Australian system an appellant has available to him a detailed summary of the evidence and information about bis case, and this enables him to introduce further evidence and comment on any relevant issue before an Appeal Tribunal. It is my view that the existing practice is soundly based, andI see no valid reason for change.

page 38

QUESTION

GLADSTONE AIRPORT

(Question No. 506)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Is the building at the Gladstone airport terminal one of the most dilapidated in Queensland, and does the surrounding area closely resemble the Gladstone rubbish tip.
  2. Are facilities for fighting a major aircraft fire inadequate at the airport, and have plans to establish new terminal facilities been slow in coming to fruition.
  3. Is the Minister’s Department prepared to take the necessary action to expedite the construction of new terminal buildings and to have adequate fire fighting facilities installed before a major fire occurs at this increasingly busy airport.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Gladstone aerodrome is owned and operated by the Gladstone Joint Aerodrome Committee (comprising the Gladstone Town Council and the Calliope Shire Council) under the aerodrome local ownership plan. That Committee is responsible for the provision and maintenance of all aerodrome facilities excluding such services as air traffic control, aeronautical communications, navigation aids and airport rescue and fire services. The aerodrome was built in 1957-58 and the Committee was reimbursed by the Commonwealth in accordance with the local ownership plan. The Committee determined the facilities required in regard to the terminal area, which included the existing small terminal building. The appearance and general state of the area are, of course, the responsibility of the proprietor.
  2. In accordance with criteria which is used by my Department to determine the need for an airport rescue and fire service, Gladstone operations have not yet reached the stage when a fire station is normally established. However, operations at the present time and forecasts of air traffic for the next few years indicate that a service may be required in 1971. In regard to new terminal facilities an application was made for a development grant to provide a new terminal early in 1967 and an item for this was included in the vote for 1967-68 and for the two subsequent financial years but the buildings project has not been pursued by the Committee. I understand that the main reason for this delay hag been the necessity to consider whether the aerodrome site would meet possible future requirements. Apparently it has now been agreed that the site will continue to be used for many years and recently discussions were held with my Queensland regional officers regarding the proposed new terminal layout. Hems on the development grants programme include additional facilities in the terminal area.
  3. As indicated in the answer to (2) above, the initiative in establishing new terminal facilities is largely with the Gladstone Joint Aerodrome Committee but my Department will certainly cooperate in any way possible in progressing the project. As a result of the situation referred to in (2) above, preliminary planning for a fire service unit is in hand in the expectation that air traffic growth will be as forecast. Present indications are that fire service facilities will be provided during the latter part of 1971 subject to the availability of funds, equipment and manpower.

page 38

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

(Question No. 509)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. How is the retail price of petrol fixed for sale in Australian Territories?
  2. Has the decision of any State Minister, in relation to a price at which product will be sold, any effect on the price of goods sold in an Australian Territory?
  3. As the Commonwealth Government takes a substantial interest in the encouragement of the search for crude oil, and further interest in its petroleum equalisation subsidy, will it take an interest in the present request for an increase in the retail price of petrol.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for

Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) I understand that the oil industry throughout Australia bases its pricing structure for petroleum products on determinations made following examination by the South Australian Prices Commissioner. I am further informed that the oil industry regularly submits details of its coststo the Commissioner for examination. After examination by the South Australian Prices Commissioner of changes in actual costs incurred by the oil industry, new prices may be determined to apply in South Australia. As a matter of practice these changes are also applied by the oil industry to all parts of the Commonwealth, including the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. To this extent price determinations for petrol made by the South Australian Government have an effect upon the price of petrol throughout the Commonwealth.
  2. It is true that the Government is interested in changes in the prices of petroleum products and the reasons for these changes.

In the case of the petroleum products subsidy scheme, this scheme operates to reduce prices of certain petroleum products sold in country areas at the wholesale level. Broadly stated, the aim of this scheme is to reduce the wholesale price of eligible petroleum products sold in rural areas to no more than 3.3c above the relevant capital city wholesale price.

Subsidy rates for each location are related to the industry costs of distribution and subsidy is payable where these distribution costs exceed 3.3c per gallon. The scheme does not compensate for Commonwealth-wide changes in the wholesale price of petroleum products.

page 39

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

(Question No. 510)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did investments of the funds of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board total approximately $357m at 30th June 1969.
  2. Is the Annual Report of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board for the financial year 1968-69 available; if so, on what date was the report published.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. The President, Superannuation Board advises that the investments of the Superannuation Fund at 30th June 1969 totalled $367,626,462.
  2. No, the Report for the year 1968-69 is not yet available. However, the preparation of the Report is at an advanced stage; the Superannuation Board expects to submit it to the Minister for presentation to the Parliament during the Budget session.

page 39

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 512)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. Is it a fact that, following publication of a book entitled. ‘Be in it Mate’, written by a former medical officer employee of the Repatriation Department, . and in which criticism was levelled at the procedure covering the award of pensions for war-caused disabilities, a drastic tightening up took place which resulted in a dramatic decline in the figures of the acceptance of disabilities as being war caused.
  2. Was any instruction, directed towards this end. issued by the Repatriation Department to its various officers and tribunals, making it virtually impossible for appeals against rejections of claims to succeed.
  3. Would it not be a travesty to allow this situation to continue, based upon such illinformed and narrow judgments as those contained in the publication.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. A situation of the kind suggested does not exist.

page 39

QUESTION

EXPORT OF BIRDS

(Question No. 438)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Why is the export of live birds from Australia prohibited.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The export of birds which are native to Australia is controlled in terms of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations which govern the export of Australian native fauna generally. This control is maintained to assist the conservation programmes of the various State fauna Authorities and to prevent the commercial exploitation of native bird-life.

In these circumstances the export of native birds is only permitted for zoological purposes on a zoo-to-zoo basis or for scientific purposes. Commercial transactions are not permitted.

The Government does not, however, maintain controls over the export of birds which are not native to Australia.

page 39

QUESTION

NATIONAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY

(Question No. 445)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. How many times has the National Consultative Committee on Atomic Energy, the appointment of which was announced by the Prime Minister on 12 June, 1969, met.
  2. Is there any machinery which allows the Parliament to be informed of the discussions of the Committee.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Once- on 8th June 1970. Certain delays were encountered in relation to finalising representation from each of the States and in finding a date suitable for all Committee members.
  2. There is no machinery of a formal nature for informing Parliament of the discussions of the Committee. Commonwealth and State Ministers will, of course, be kept informed of the Committee’s more important activities by their officers and as a result they will be in a position to keep their respective Parliaments informed.

page 40

QUESTION

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES: SALARIES

(Question No. 432)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that an advertisement which appeared in ‘The Australian’ of Saturday 30 May, on behalf of a group of 42 geo-scientists at present located in Canberra, was sponsored by employees of the Bureau of Mineral Resources; if so, did this constitute a determined attempt by experienced scientists to seek employment outside the Public Service at a time when the Bureau is labouring under a sadly depleted establishment resulting from the loss of more than 230 officers from its staff in the last 7 to 8 years in the face of enormous salary discrepancies between those offered by the Public Service Board on the one hand arid the mining and exploration industry on the other.
  2. Is it a fact thatthe Public Service Board has had before it since 24th December 1969 sufficient information to allow it to adjust geoscientists’ salaries to reasonable levels and so forestall an attempted exodus of this magnitude from an organisation of such national importance as the Bureau.
  3. In view of the factthat at the first National Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of Australia, in May 1970, the Chairman of the Public Service Board, Sir Frederick Wheeler, said:

The Public Service Arbitration Act provides that claims made by staff associations shall be served on the Board and on all Ministers of State whose departments employ the staff concerned.

As a practical matter, of course, the management side does present a single Front, and it is the practice of the Board to take the leadership in the determination of the joint policy approach and the presentation of this approach to the arbitral authorities. However, the policy debates are against a background of the statutory right of the departments, through their Ministers, to present their own views to the Arbitrator’, did the Minister at any time, being conscious of the apparently delicate staff situation in the Bureau, formulate views on a claim for scientists’ salaries which has been before the Public Service Board since 28th May 1969.

  1. Did (he Minister, in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Public Service Arbitration Act, cause his answer to this claim, to which he is a Respondent, to be tiled with the Public Service Arbitrator.
  2. Why was not an answer to this claim filed within the prescribed period of 14 days within lodgment on 28th May 1969 and why had it not been lodged as at 26th May 1970.
  3. Does the Minister allow the Public Service Board to represent him in matters such as this without any continuing awareness of actions of the Board directly affecting officers employed in and concerned with the administration of the Department.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. I personally do not know whether or not officers of the Bureau of Mineral Resources sponsored an advertisement in ‘The Australian’ of 30th May 1970. (2)I am informed that the Professional Officers’ Association made material available to the Public Service Board on 24th December 1969, and on 20th March 1970 and 21st April 1970, forwarded further material to the Board. 1 understand that the Board has this matter under consideration.
  2. My Department has been in communication with the Public Service Board on the question of the salaries of geologists and geophysicists employed by the Bureau.
  3. and (5) The provisions of the Public Service Arbitration Act provide that it is sufficient for only one of the respondents to object to a staff association application for the matter to be placed before the Arbitrator. My Department was aware that the Public Service Board on 3rd June 1969 lodged a formal objection to the claim and therefore a separate answer on my behalf was not required at that stage.

At the public hearing of the claim before the Arbitrator on 26th May 1970, the advocate for the Professional Officers’ Association indicated that he desiredto know what the attitude was of each of the respondents to the claim. The Arbitrator gave the respondents a period of seven days in which to provide an answer. An answer, objectingto the claim, was lodged on my behalf on 29th May 1970.

  1. It is standard practice for the Public Service Board to represent the Department before the Arbitrator. The Public Service Board keeps my Department and me informed of all relevant matters before the Arbitrator.

page 41

AIRLINE EMPLOYEES: PARKING METERS

(Question No. 425)

Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Has the Melbourne City Council recently decided to install 1 hour parking meters,in lieu of all-day parking, in an area adjacent to T.A.A. and Ansett centres, thus depriving employees of both organisations of parking facilities essential to them because of the unusual hours of employment they are obliged to work.

Will the Minister have this matter investigated, with a view to providing parking accommodation for those employees whose irregular hours of work often preclude them from using public transport.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The only area adjacent to the premises of Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia where parking meters are installed and to which any recent variation has been made in the length of time vehicles are permitted to park is in Bouverie Street, between Victoria Street and G ratton Street, Carlton.

Parking meters were installed in this street by the Melbourne City Council in 1963, and provided for 1 hour parking on each curb and all day parking in the centre of the road.

The period of all day parking was between 7.30 a.m. and S.30 p.m. At all other times there are no parking restrictions.

In March 1970, the Council changed the time permitted for centre of the road parking from all day to a limit of 3 hours and retained the 1 hour limit for curb-side meter parking.

This variation of parking hours is in line with the Council’s policyto continually review all-day meter parking facilities, especially those close to the heart of. the city.

  1. In addition to using meter parking, airline employees also use private parking close to the premises in which they work. Trans-Australia Airline employees have reserved the whole of a small car park in Therry Street and also share as much available parking space with employees of Ansett Airlines of Australia at another private car park in Bouverie Street. Employees not accommodated in these two private car parks are the ones affected by the change in centre of the road meter parking in Bouverie Street from allday parking to a limit of 3 hours.

The Council considers that adequate private or meter parking accommodation is available to cater for the needs of motorists in the area concerned and indicated that it would not make parking facilities available for the specific use of any section of the community.

page 41

QUESTION

CANBERRA AIRPORT: POOR VISIBILITY

(Question No. 419)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. On how many occasions since 1st April 1970 have civil aircraft been delayed in landing at Canberra Airport because of poor visibility.
  2. What are the details of the delays.
  3. Whatis being done, or is proposed to be done, to overcome the problem.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. There were 12 days in the period 1st April to 7th June when reduced visibility resulted in delays to aircraft. Some 70 inbound flights were affected and delays to these aircraft would in most cases be passed on to the departures for onward flights out of Canberra.
  2. The attached list shows the more significant delays that occurred on 7 of the 12 days to some of the 70 inbound flights mentioned in (1). It may be assumed that delays not included in this list were of a minor nature where, because of low visibility, an instrument approach was made resulting in a later landing time than normal (5 to 10 minutes).
  3. In considering solutions to the general problem of delays to landings in fog conditions, two possibilities come to mind. The first is whether it is feasible to prevent fog from forming orto hasten fog dispersal when it forms. Although this was attempted during the second world war with moderate success, and at great cost, subsequent research has not resulted in any satisfactory technique, scientific or otherwise, being developed. The second possibility is whether a landing system can be devised which would permit landings to be made in cloud (fog) and visibility conditions worse than the minima in which they are authorised at the present time. This matter is currently the subject of a special study by the ‘All Weather Operations Panel’, convened by the International Civil Aviation Organisation on which my Department is represented. If a system is ultimately developed which would allow landings with reduced minima, or even in zero ceiling and visibility conditions, its applicationto Canberra would be doubtful because of the special problems related to high terrain around the airport. Canberra is already served by the most modern landing aids available which provide for landings under conditions of cloud base 2400 ft above mean sea level (ceiling 527 ft above the aerodrome) and visibility1½ miles.

When fog conditions occur or are forecast, aircraft operations are adjusted to best serve passenger traffic, subject only to safely consideration. If there is an indication that the fog will clear within a reasonable period of time, aircraft normally proceed to Canberra from their departure points on the basis that they will be able to carry out a safe landing on arrival or after holding for a short period. Although on some occasions when the fog does not clear sufficiently it is necessary for aircraft to divert to another aerodrome, experience has shown that the procedure outlined above more often than not enables passengersto arrive at the airport without loo much delay and inconvenience.

page 43

QUESTION

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES: EXPENDITURE ON AEROMAGNETIC SURVEYS

(Question No. 385)

Senator YOUNG:

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

In view of the Minister’s answer to a question concerning Bureau of Mineral Resources expenditure ‘that the proportion of expenditure on aeromagnetic and seismic surveys in each State is not available, but the greater proportion of the expenditure was north of the 26th parallel’, and as the northern border of South Australia runs along the 26th parallel, would it be correct to say that very little has been expended by the Bureau on aeromagnetic and seismic surveys, in South Australia, particularly when compared with the amounts expended in some of the other States.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The Bureau of Mineral Resources has covered over 40% of South Australia by aeromagnetic surveys. This compares favourably with the overall Australian figure of about 35%.

The Bureau has done relatively little seismic work in South Australia mainly because the South Australian Mines Department has had its own seismic party and equipment since 1957.

page 43

QUESTION

PEARSON ISLANDS: FAUNA DISCOVERIES

(Question No. 97)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science:

  1. Did the Minister, who is Chairman of the Committee of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for fauna conservation, read an article in the December 1969 issue of Wildlife in Australia outlining the rare fauna discoveries on the Pearson Islands, off the South Australian coast; if so, will he give an assurance that the islands will be declared out of bounds to oil and mineral developers, thus avoiding invasion of the type which previously occurred at Barrow Island, Western Australia.
  2. Will (he Minister seek the co-operation of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force to institute a coast watching service, even if only at spaced intervals, to prevent any plundering of fauna on Pearson Islands by either foreign vessels or nomadic Australian fishing craft.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) As the honourable senator is aware, conservation of native fauna is the prerogative of the State concerned. The Stales are developing an inspection service for fauna conservation which is tending to stamp out wanton destruction, including the taking of protected species, together with restraining any untoward action by oil and mineral developers.

Concerning (he specific question of Commonwealth assistance in this respect through the facilities of the Armed Services, such as helicopters, I am advised that, in accordance with long established practice, the Services do not normally provide such assistance unless the State authorities request it and unless it is possible to provide the assistance from within the Services’ available resources. In this regard the Pearson Islands are well out of the way of normal RAN and RAAF operations. However the RAAF does operate periodically in the Bass Strait area as part of the Commonwealth’s surveillance programme for the declared fishing zone.

Having regard to the Services’ other higher priority operational and training commitments it is regretted that it wilt not be feasible for the RAN or RAAF to undertake a continuing commitment for the surveillance of these islands. Should the Victorian and South Australian State Governments request it, the RAAF could look periodically at the Chappell Islands including Goose Island; and should any ships or aircraft be in the vicinity of the Pearson Islands, arrangements could be made for any vessels sighted there to be reported to the appropriate authorities. If visits were made by RAN ships to any of the islands, reports could be made on the state of flora and fauna if requested.

The helicopters on order to which the honourable senator refers are required to improve the Services’ tactical mobility and fire power and battlefield surveillance capabilities. In present circumstances it is not anticipated that it will be possible to divert any of these from their primary operational and training roles.

Commonwealth Industrial Court: Payment of Expenses (Question No. 279)

Senator MURPHY:

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

In what cases, in the Commonwealth Industrial Court in the last 5 years, has the Commonwealth (other than pursuant to the order of the Court) paid or contributed to the costs of any litigant who was not an agent or instrumentality of the Commonwealth.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

page 45

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA: ORIGIN OF CASES

(Question No. 351)

Senator MURPHY:

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

For each of the years 1968 and 1969, what percentage of cases (a) before a single justice, and (b) in the Full Court, of the High Court of Australia, has originated in each of the Slates.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

Cases originated in the following Registeries of the High Court:

page 45

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION COUNCILS: SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES

(Question No. 483)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What salaries and allowances, if any, are payable to the Chairman and members of: (a) the Commonwealth ImmigrationPlanning Council, (b)the CommonwealthImmigration Advisory Council, (c) (he Commonwealth Immigration Publicity Council, and (d) the Qualifications Committee.
  2. Where are the above made public.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

Fees and allowances paidto members of the Immigration Planning Council, the Immigration Advisory Council, the Immigration Publicity Council, andthe Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications, are determined by the Higher Salaries Committee of Cabinet.

Members of the Immigration Planning Council receive an annual honorarium of $800 per annum (Chairman $1,550) and travelling allowance at the rateof $21 per day when an overnight slay is involved.

The Chairmen and members of the Immigration Advisory Council, the Immigration Publicity Council, and the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications, receive fees at the following rates:

TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE

$21 per day when an overnight stay is involved. The Chairman of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications receives an entertainment allowance of $500 per annum.

Honoraria and Sitting Fees are not payable to Members of Parliament or persons employed by Commonwealth instrumentalities.

  1. The total anticipated expenditure for the Immigration Planning. Advisory and Publicity Councils is shown each year in Appropriation Bill (No. 1)

In 1969-70 anticipated expenditure for the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications (being a new policy item) was shown in Appropriation Bill (No. 2). Commencing with the financial year 1970-71 anticipated expenditure for this Committee will appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 1).

Elements, such as fees and allowances within the total anticipated expenditure of these bodies are not however made public but such information is available to any inquirer.

page 46

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION:

page 46

QUESTION

SALARIES OF MEMBERS

(Question No. 473)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. What are the salaries and annual allowances (if any) of: (a) the Director of War Service Homes, and (b) members of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation.
  2. Where are those salaries and allowances made public.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. (a) Salary of the Director of War Service Homes is$14,253 per annum. There are no allowances payable to the Director.

    1. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation consists of 5 members; a Chairman and Deputy Chairman who are full-time members and who receive an annual salary and 3 part-time members who receive a daily sitting tee. Details of the salary and allowances payable to members of the Corporation are -

(Where a meeting is of less than 3 hours duration the fee is reduced to $20).

  1. Section 5 of the War Service Homes Act provides that the Director of War Service Homes shall be appointed and employed in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. The office of Director of War Service Homes is an office in the Second Division of the Commonwealth Public Service created in the Department of Housing. The salary of the office is that of Level 3 in the Second Division salary structure prescribed in Regulation 104 under the Public Service Act. The Housing Loans Insurance Act provides that a member of the Corporation shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as the Governor-General determines. Details of the remuneration payable to members of the Corporation are not required to be made public and have not previously been published.

page 46

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT: S.T.D. CALLS

(Question No. 417)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that it is possible for people in at least two capital cities to make S.T.D. calls of unlimited duration for 5 cents from some public telephone booths.
  2. Is it a fact that Post Office investigators have tapped, and in some cases taped some such calls without the knowledge of the persons concerned, and that some investigators have also physically ‘shadowed’ the parties in the cities involved.
  3. Is the taping of private conversations under these circumstances legal; if so, can such tapes be used as evidence in a public court.
  4. Will the Postmaster-General take the appropriate action to ensure that the practice of taping telephone conversations should cease forthwith under any circumstances.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. Yes. However, such calls can be made from relatively few public telephones, and the number of these from which it is possible is being progressively reduced by the installation of new type exchange equipment. To obtain such a call a person would need to have a high degree of manipulative skill and considerable patience.
  2. If it is suspected that a particular public telephone is being used to obtain calls without payment, it is normal practice to connectto it a machine which prints on paper the number dialled and the time at which the call is made. Voice recordings of conversations are not made.
  3. See answer to 2.
  4. See answerto 2

page 47

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION: ASSISTED PASSAGES

(Question No. 412)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Is it a fact that any potential European male migrant, if marriedto a non-European, is denied an assisted passage although he and his wife could enter Australia provided they pay their own fares?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

Yes. In such a case assisted passages would not normally be granted to either husband or wife. In a small number of cases where a nonEuropean has formed part of an applicant’s family, assisted passages have been granted as a matter of discretion. 11 is a matter of genera) policy that eligibility for assisted passages is separate from basic policy relating to entry and that as a general rule assisted passages are granted only to persons of European descent.

page 47

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: EX-EMPLOYEES

(Question No. 405)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

How many directors and producers, who were employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission when television was first introduced into Australia, are now working in the industry in Great Britain. Canada or other overseas countries.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

The A.B.C. does not require ex-employees to keep the A.B.C. informed of their current employment, nor is it the practice of the A.B.C. to keep itself officially informed of ex-employees’ movements. However it is known that two people employed by the A.B.C. as Producers at the time of the introduction of television in Australia are now working overseas.

page 47

QUESTION

WHEAT: MINIMUM PRICES

(Question No. 306)

Senator BROWN:

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

In view of statements by the Chairman and other members of the Australian Wheat Board that prices are being maintained’at or near the minimum price’, what are the prices obtained for wheal being exported at present, and are these prices below the minimum price set under the International Grains Arrangement which became operative in July 1968, raising the then minimum by 19 cents per bushel; if so, to what extent.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

I am informed by the Australian Wheat Board that any statements by the Chairman and members of the Board that prices are being maintained at or nearthe minimum price’ tinder the International Grains Arrangement would have been made when that situation did in fact prevail - about twelve months ago. Prices generally have deterioratedto some extent since then.

The prices at which wheatissold by the Board for export vary according to competition from wheat from other origins and arc not made available for publication. However, the Board’s prices for grades other than Prime Hard, which is in short supply, presently are below theI.G.A. minima for the grades concerned, having regard to currently prevailing transportation costs and exchange rates. This is also the case with most grades of wheat being sold by other exporter members of theI.G.A.

The Government, with theco-operation of the Board, has been endeavouring to restore prices to a more satisfactory level through consultations with other member exporters. These consultations have been largely responsible for stabilising prices at about their present level and avoiding a furt her decline in world prices in the present over-supply situation.

page 47

QUESTION

WOOL: PUBLICATIONS

(Question No. 373)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Indust ry, upon notice:

  1. How many complimentary copies of the book ‘Wool Disposals 1945-52’ have been made available to:

    1. individuals;
    2. federal woolgrower organisations and their respective State affiliated bodies:
    3. members of the Commonwealth and Stale Parliaments;
    4. capital city and country libraries:
    5. the Australian National University; and
    6. any other individuals and/or organisations, including members of the Australian Wool Industry Council.
  2. How many copies of the Australian Wool Board publication ‘Wool Digest’ are distributed, and how often has the availability of ‘Wool Disposals 1945-52’ been referred to in this publication.
  3. How many bookseller organisations have been informed of the availability of ‘Wool Disposals 1945-52’; and if these organisations have not been advised of its availability, why not.
  4. How many copies of the book were distributed by the Wool Secretariat, or any other authority, to the wool boards of South Africa and New Zealand, and the International Wool Textile organisation.
  5. Will the Government arrange with the Australian Wool Board for the distribution of the book, free of cost, to all woolgrowers as one of the essential elements of study on effective Wool marketing.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

As mentioned in reply to a question asked by the honourable senator on this subject last year, the distribution of the book ‘Wool Disposals 1945-1952 - The Joint Organisation’ written by Sir Edwin McCarthy is in the hands of the Australian Wool Board.

The answers to the specific queries raised are as follows:

The distribution of complimentary copies of the book to individuals and organisations, itemised as requested, is set out below:

To individuals - 82 copies.

To federal woolgrower organisations and their respective State affiliated bodies - 16 copies.

To members of the Commonwealth and Slate Parliaments - Nil.

To capital city and country libraries - 24 copies.

To the Australian National University - 2 copies.

To other individuals and organisations in Australia, including members of the Australian Wool Industry Conference - 64 copies.

The circulation of the Australian Wool Board’s newsheet ‘Wool News Digest’ is currently 2,200 and increasing each month; the press and other news media are on the circulation list. The availability of the book ‘Wool Disposals 1945-1952’ was publicised in the ‘Digest’ in October 1968 after supplies of the book had been received by the Wool Board. The book was publicised again in the June 1970 issue of the Digest’.

Booksellers have not been circularised regarding the availability of the book. It has always been the Wool Board’s intention that the history should be an authoritative document of reference and not a commercial venture.

The South African Wool Board received 5 complimentary copies as did the New Zealand Wool Board. The latter Board subsequently purchased 200 copies. Two hundred and fifty copies were distributed gratis to members of the International Wool Textile Organisation, wool trade organisations in England, some Government libraries in the United Kingdom, the International Wool Study Group and the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Free distribution of the book to all woolgrowers would be a costly undertaking. Despite publicity and a free distribution to woolgrower organisations, the interest shown in the book by woolgrowers at large has been disappointing. So far, only 33 copies have been sold. Accordingly, the kind of blanket distribution proposed could well result in the history being sent to many persons who would not bother to read it. This would obviously be wasteful. Anyone who is interested in obtaining the book can obtain a copy from the Wool Board at a nominal charge. For the foregoing reasons the Government is not prepared to arrange a free issue of the history to all woolgrowers.

page 48

QUESTION

NURSING: CONCORD REPATRIATION HOSPITAL

(Question No. 437)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. In the light of the overall unrest exhibited by the nursing profession over salaries and conditions, does a feeling of being exploited also exist amongst nursing staff at Concord Repatriation Hospital.
  2. What action is contemplated to redress any such grievance.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) As the honourable senator is aware, there was dissatisfaction in the nursing profession generally, as well as among Repatriation nurses, with the level of salary increases granted by the Arbitration authorities in May 1970, for nurses employed at the Canberra Community Hospital. However, since then further salary increases have been granted to nurses employed at that hospital.

After a review by the Commonwealth Public Service Board, which took into account general movements in nursing salaries elsewhere, the salaries of nursing staff at the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, and at other institutions in the Commonwealth service, were substantially increased from 21st May last, in line with increases granted to the Canberra Hospital nurses. More recently, further increases in the salaries of these nurses have been granted again in line with the latest increases granted to the Canberra Hospital nurses.

In total, increases in basic salary for nurses employed in the Commonwealth service have ranged from $613-726 a year for nursing sisters to $895-928 a year for senior sisters. In addition, substantial increases have been granted to more senior executive nursing staff.

Increases for nursing and senior sisters that were granted in May are now being paid and the further increases will be paid within the next few weeks.

page 49

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

(Question No. 489)

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Are lamb exports to the United States of America and Canada banned.
  2. Are lamb carcasses processed in the same abattoirs as deal with mutton.
  3. Are the same standards of hygiene and inspection applied to both lamb and mutton.
  4. With regard to complaints of contamination by faeces and hair, are lambs not liable to this source of contamination.
  5. Is the sole difference the liability of mutton to certain harmless parasitic infection.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. Lambs are indeed susceptible to contamination withboth faeces and wool. However, it is well recognised that the younger the sheep, the easier it is for the slaughterman to remove the skin and to carry out other dressing operations predisposing to contamination. Therefore the problem of contamination isof least concern in lambs and of greatest concern to older sheep.
  5. As sheep increase in age and have greater contact with bacteria and parasites, the incidence of bacterial infections and parasitic infestations increase. Therefore inspection problems are progressively magnified as age increases. The diseases which are at the moment causing concern to overseas inspection authorities are, in fact, regarded as being harmless to man.

page 49

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY: WAR SERVICE BENEFITS

(Question No. 497)

Senator GEORGES:

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

During the period of Australian involvement in Vietnam, how many junior and senior Army officers from Malaysia have been transferred to Vietnam for the minimum qualifying period, to enable them to receive War Service benefits.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

No Army members transferred to Vietnam from Malaysia (or anywhere else) for the purpose of enabling them to become eligible to receive War Service benefits.

As necessary, members are allotted for ‘Special Duty’ in Vietnam and in these circumstances they become entitled to War Service benefits. A minimum qualifying period is not applicable except for those benefits which accrue on a time basis, such as War Service leave.

Members are only alloted for ‘Special Duty’ where:

They are on the posted strength of a unit located in South Vietnam (other than the Military Attaches staff).

They perform duties in South Vietnam that are portion of the duties and responsibilities of units located in Vietnam.

Members visiting South Vietnam on liaison duties, for training or orientation or to perform duties associated with their parent unit which is located outside South Vietnam are not allotted to Special Duty’ are not entitled to War Service benefits unless injured or wounded or suffer illness as a direct result of hostile action.

During the period 31st July 1962-26th June 1970 219 officers, have been allotted for short term Special Duty’ in the South Vietnam Zone from Australian Army units in Malaysia.

page 49

QUESTION

AVIATION: TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT

(Question No. 513)

In view of the comments contained in paragraph 131 of the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes relating to the use of airports for night traffic, to obtain maximum cost effectiveness in aircraft usage, why will the new Melbourne International Airport, which was designed for night traffic, be not available for such traffic.

Is there any reason, other than Sydney interests, preventing the Melbourne Airport from having a 24 hour service.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) You will be aware of the decision not to apply a jet night curfew to the new Melbourne Airport as announced by the Prime Minister on July 1st when he officially opened the Airport. This decision was based on technical and operational grounds and was not influenced in any way by the Sydney Airport situation. The domestic airlines will not transfer to the new Melbourne Airport until about mid-1971.

page 49

QUESTION

AVIATION: AIRCRAFT PARKING FACILITIES

(Question No. 516)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Is it correct that the parking facilities for aircraft at the international airport at Sydney will be insufficient for the expected traffic in the immediate future.
  2. Are there any plans to enlarge the facilities.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. There are occasions during morning hours when most if not all of the aircraft parking positions are occupied; on the other hand, during the greater part of the time there is spare apron capacity and the tendency appears to be for airline schedules to make some adjustment in order to take advantage of that spare capacity.
  2. There are plans to increase the number of aircraft parking positions.

page 50

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER: CANDU SYSTEM

(Question No. 500)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Was a Canadian Senate Committee set up to investigate the Candu System, to report in March of this year.
  2. Has any report yet been published; if so, what, in summary, are its findings, and have they been considered by the Australian Government or the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. A Canadian Senate Committee on Science Policy was set up to report on the nation’s research and development effort. As a priority measure it concentrated its attention on research and development in the nuclear field: it was not set up solely to investigate the Candu system as such.
  2. We have not yet received a copy of the Senate Committee’s report and accordingly cannot comment on any findings the Committee may have made.

page 50

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER: AUSTRALIAN URANIUM

(Question No. 501)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. What investigations have been made of the suitability of Australian uranium ores as sources for fuel elements in nuclear power station reactors.
  2. Have studies been made to determine whether the use of Australian uranium will cause technical problems in the treatment of fuel elements after use.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has for a number of years carried on a programme of research directed towards the manufacture of nuclear reactor fuel using Australian uranium ores.
  2. It is considered that the reprocessing of Australian nuclear-grade uranium after use will not present any unusual problems.

page 50

QUESTION

JERVIS BAY NUCLEAR REACTORS

(Question No. 502)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Has the Australian Atomic Energy Commission foreshadowed the building of five further power stations after that proposed to be built at Jervis Bay: if so, will these be of the same designas that chosen for Jervis Bay.
  2. Will the establishment of such reactors depend solely on their economic viability as power stations; if not, what other factors will be considered.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission believes that afterthe Jervis Bay power station has been completed there will be a steady and increasing demand for nuclear stations. It does not know what (he design of these stations will be.
  2. The installation of later nuclear power stations will be a matter for the State electricity authorities, who will have their own criteria for selection, though they will no doubt be influenced by the experience gained from the Jervis Bay station.

page 50

QUESTION

NUCLEAR REACTORS: OVERSEAS STATISTICS

(Question No. 503)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. What countries have constructed power stations fuelled by natural uranium.
  2. Have any of these countries subsequently decided not to build further such stations; if so, which countries.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The following countries have constructed power stations fuelled by natural uranium: Canada, West Germany, France, India, Pakistan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Italy. A power station of this type is being constructed in Argentina.
  2. West Germany. Sweden and the United Kingdom have stated that no further natural uranium fuelled power stations are planned for construction at present as part of their national nuclear programme.

page 51

QUESTION

ROPER RIVER SETTLEMENT: GRANTING OF PERMIT

(Question No. 470)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Has Mr Paul Fox, a student, been granted a permit to enter the Roper River Settlement in the Northern Territory; if not, when is a permit likely to be granted.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

An authority to visit Roper River was granted to Mr Fox on 12th June.

page 51

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION: SALARIES

(Question No. 472)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What are the salaries of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners and General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) of the Australian National Airlines Commission.
  2. What other allowances are payable to each of the above persons.
  3. Where are those salaries and allowances made public.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Chairman - $7,700 per annum

Vice-Chairman - $3,200 per annum

Commissioners - $2,600 per annum

General Manager - $22,750 per annum

  1. Chairman - $400 per annum

General Manager - $2,000 per annum

All members of the Commission receive travelling allowance of $21 per day when required to travel on duty on behalf of the Commission within Australia and Papua-New Guinea.

The General Manager receives $28 per day when required to travel on behalf of the Commission.

  1. Section 9 of the Australian National Airlines Act provides that a Commissioner shall be paid such remunerations and allowances as the Governor-General determines. When any variations to these salaries and allowances are approved by the Governor-General, appropriate notification is included in the Commonwealth Gazette.

The rate of salary payable to the General Manager is subject to the approval of the Governor-General under the provisions of Section 17 (6) of the Australian National Airlines Act, and variations to the’ General Manager’s salary are notified in the Commonwealth Gazette. However, this does not apply to allowances payable to the General Manager.

page 51

QUESTION

AVIATION: QANTAS SALARIES

(Question No. 474)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What approximately are: (a) the basic; and (b) the average, normal annual salaries and allowances payable to Qantas captains and pilots.
  2. What increases will, in the ordinary course, take place in those salaries and allowances by 31 December 1970.
  3. How do these salaries, allowances and prospective increases (if any) compare with those of: (a) the General Manager, (b) the Deputy General Manager, (c) the Secretary and Director of Finance, (d) the Director of Policy Development, (e) the Director of Administration and Personnel, (0 the Director of Technical Services, (g) the Director of Flight Operations, (h) the Director of International Relations, and (i) the Director of Commercial Services.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. (a) Basic salaries for:

Boeing 707 Captain - $18,738 per annum.

Boeing 707 First Officer - $11,589 per annum.

Boeing 707 Second Officer- $7,689 per annum.

  1. Average normal annual salaries and allowances:
  1. All salaries will increase by 3% on 12th September 1970 in accordance with Section 7E of Pilots’ Interim Award.

(3)

page 52

QUESTION

AVIATION: QANTAS SALARIES

(Question No. 479)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What are the salaries and allowances paid to (a) the Chairman, (b) the Vice-Chairman, (c) the Directors and (d) the General Manager of Qantas Airways Ltd.
  2. Where are the above made public.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

All members of the Qantas Board receive travelling allowance at the rate of $21 per day when required to travel on behalf of the Company.

The General Manager receives travelling allowance of $28 per day when required to travel on behalf ofthe Company.

  1. The salaries and allowances shown above are not made public.

page 52

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER: ZIRCONIUM

(Question No. 446)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Is zirconium used in the construction of nuclear reactors.
  2. What is the present rate of production of zirconium in Australia.
  3. How much of the present production is exported, and what is the average price obtained.
  4. Does the Government restrict in any way the export of zirconium.
  5. Is the Government stockpiling zirconium, or has it done so in the past.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Zirconium is used quite extensively as a structural material in some types of nuclear reactors. It is widely used in the cladding material for fuel elements.
  2. Zirconium metal is not produced in Australia but is exported as the raw material, zircon, which is separated from beach sands found predominantly in northern New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
  3. Virtually all of Australia’s zircon is exported at an average price of approximately $50 per ton. Recent figures are available from the Quarterly Review of the Australian Mineral Industry which is published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources.
  4. There is no restriction on the export of zirconium from Australia.
  5. No. The Government is not stockpiling zirconium and has not done so in the past.

page 52

QUESTION

PHYSICAL METALLURGY GROUP

(Question No. 449)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

How many research scientists, experimental officers and technicians now comprise the Physical Metallurgy Group in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The strength of the Physical Metallurgy Group at present is:

page 52

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

(Question No. 450)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

What was the total number ofestablished positions in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment during each of the past 7 years in each of the following categories:

Research Scientist:

Scientific Officer;

Experimental Officer, and

Scientific Services Officer.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment does not operate to a fixed establishment structure, but the number of professional staff employed during each of the past 7 years in each of the categories has been:

page 52

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER: FEASIBILITY STUDY

(Question No. 452)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Has the Australian Atomic Energy Commission had a twenty-two man team investigating the SGHWR, if so, where did they carry out their investigations.
  2. Has a report from the team been presented; if so, will the Minister have the report tabled in the Senate.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission sent twenty-two people to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority several years ago to obtain experience in a number of areas, and for some of them to participate with the U.K.A.E.A. in a feasibility study relating to a natural uranium steam generating reactor, somewhat similar to concepts then under consideration in Canada and Italy. The study showed that the system was of doubtful feasibility. The result was of importance to Australia and to the U.K.A.E.A.
  2. Reports on this study have been presented to the Commission but they contain classified material and hence cannot be tabled. The reactor system investigated was not the SGHWR which uses enriched uranium.

page 53

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER: TRAINING FACILITIES

(Question No. 455)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. What facilities are now available in Australia for training in nuclear engineering.
  2. How many persons have received such training and to what levels.
  3. How many of these persons are now resident in Australia.

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

  1. A formal post-graduate degree course in Nuclear Engineering is operating at the School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of New South Wales. In addition a course is offered by the University of Melbourne. Also the Australian School of Nuclear Technology at the Atomic Energy Commission’s Research Establishment at Lucas Heights offers an advanced post-graduate course in Nuclear Technology which covers phases of the design, engineering and operation of nuclear reactors.
  2. At the University of New South Wales 52 students have undertaken the course and 32 have passed. At the Australian School of Nuclear Techology 64 students have undertaken the course and all have passed. To date no courses have yet been undertaken at the University of Melbourne.
  3. Of these numbers 35, including 11 from New Zealand, came from overseas to attend the courses, returning home at their conclusion. It is not known how many of the other graduates have moved overseas either permanently or temporarily since completing their courses.

page 53

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER STATION: PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS

(Question No. 457)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Who prepared the specifications for Australia’s proposed nuclear power station.
  2. If it was not the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, why not.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The specifications for the proposed nuclear power station at Jervis Bay were prepared by officers of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission assisted by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales and in association with the Commission’s consultants, the Bechtel Pacific Corporation Ltd.

page 53

QUESTION

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES: GEOPHYSICISTS

(Question No. 495)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. How many geophysicists have (a) been appointed to and (b) resigned from the Bureau of Mineral Resources in each year since 1964, including the available figures for this year.
  2. What are the salary ranges for geophysicists within the Bureau.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The following table shows the numbers of commencements and cessations of employment of geophysicists in the Bureau of Mineral Resources since 1964-65:
  1. The salary ranges applicable to the various classes of geophysicists employed by the Bureau are as follows:

page 54

QUESTION

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: SALARIES

(Question No. 491)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What are the salaries and allowances payable to (a) the Commissioner, Associate Commissioner and Secretary of the National Capital Development Commission, and (b) the Chairman, members and Secretary of the National Capital Planning Committee.
  2. Where are the same made public.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. This information is not normally published.

page 54

QUESTION

NATIONAL LITERATURE BOARD OF REVIEW: SALARIES

(Question No. 484)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What are the salaries and allowances payable to members of the National Literature Board of Review.
  2. Where are the above made public.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The annual fees for members of the National Literature Board of Review set by the Higher Salaries Committee of Cabinet are:

Where appropriate $21 per day travelling allowance is paid.

  1. Provision is made for this expenditure in the annual departmental estimates tinder Division 210/2/10; but because of relativity to other expenditure, it is not separately itemised.

page 54

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA: APPEALS

(Question No. 353)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: (1)In each of the years 1968 and 1969, how many applications, in criminal matters, for leave or special leave to appeal, from each State or Territory, have been heard by the High Court of Australia, and how many were (a) granted and (b) refused.

  1. Ofthe applications granted how many resulted in successful appeals.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. It was sought to appeal from decisions of courts of the following States and Territories:

page 54

QUESTION

STANDARDISATION OF LAWS

(Question No. 361)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What subject matters of standardisation of laws are at present pending before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General
  2. In regard to each, how long has it been pending, and what progress has been made-
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The discussions of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State AttorneysGeneral are conducted on a confidential basis and I am therefore unable to provide a complete list of the matters concerning ‘standard isation’ of laws that are at present being considered by the Committee. The position with respect to those matters that I am at liberty to mention appears from the following list

page 55

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 18th June Senator Rae asked me the following question, without notice:

Can the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral confirm that the present situation is that although the new Bankruptcy Act has been in force for some time, the regulations to enable prosecution of offenders under the Bankruptcy Act have not as yet been introduced and that there is a situation in which people are free to commit offences at the moment without being liable to prosecution?

The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There was at no time a situation in which people were free to commit offences against the Bankruptcy Act 1966 without being . liable to prosecution. From the commencement of the Act on 4th March 1968it has been possible to bring proceedings for an offence against the Act in a court of summaryjurisdiction which may either determine the proceedings or commit the defendant for trial.

The Bankruptcy (Offences) Rules were made on 3rd July 1970. They prescribe the procedure to be followed in relation to proceedings for an offence against the Act instituted in the Federal Court of Bankruptcy or the Supreme Courts or Courts of Insolvency of the States having jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act. Proceedings may be instituted under the rules for offences committed at any time after 4th March 1968.

page 55

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONOn 10th June 1970 Senator Prowse asked me the following question without notice:

My question, directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows upon a question asked earlier by Senator Lawrie. Does the Australian Government intend to make further representations to the British Government regarding the impact on Australian trade prospects in the event of Britain entering the European Economic Community? What consideration is being given to the possible effects on Australian trade, particularly on dairy and fruit exports?

The Acting Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following additional information:

The implications for Australia of U.K. membership of the E.E.C. are being closely watched by the Government. The actual effect on our export industries cannot be assessed with any precision until the terms of U.K. entry are known.

The Minister for Trade and Industry has recently left for Europe to personally assess the situation and to bring the position in relation to Australia’s export interests to the attention of the British Government and to the authorities of the European Economic Community.

page 56

QUESTION

PEAS

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 5th June 1970 Senator Lillico asked me the following question without notice:

Following on the question asked by Senator Devitt I ask the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral a question. Part of the trouble with New Zealand pea imports is due to the Unilever company failing to operate its patent within Australia and apparently preferring to manufacture overseas and export to Australia. Will the Minister take up wilh the Attorney-General’s Department the legal position of this company in apparently refusing to make its patent available to Australian producers.

The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Part XII of the Patents Act 1952-1969 contains provisions that enable interested persons to take action to obtain compulsory licences under patents or even to have patents revoked where the patents are not utilised in a way that meets the requirements of the Australian public. The provisions afford remedies to private persons and it would not be appropriate for me to comment as to their effect in a particular case.

The relevant sections are -

  1. section 108, which applies in a situation where a patentee fails lo satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public after the expiration of 3 years from the date of sealing of a patent. An interested person may present a petition for the grant of a compulsory licence. The petition is considered in the first instance by the Commissioner of Patents and, if a prima facie case is made out, is then referred to the High Court for its determination whether a compulsory licence should be granted.
  2. section 109, which enables an interested person to present a petition for the revocation of a patent where, after a period of 2 years from the granting of the first compulsory licence, the reasonable requirements of the public are not satisfied. The procedure is similar to that in the case of a petition for a compulsory licence.
  3. section 110 of the Act, which lets out the circumstances In which the reasonable requirements of the public are deemed not to have been met

page 56

QUESTION

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 14th May 1970 Senator Mulvihill asked me the following question without notice:

In view of the Government’s claim that lt upholds the laws of the land without political bias, will officers of the Attorney-General’s Department examine the origin of an ultra-right wing document emanating from South Australia which smears our Canadian visitor, Prime Minister Trudeau

The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Inquiries that I have made have not disclosed any document that answers the description given by the honourable senator.

page 56

MUTTON

On 12th May 1970 Senator Poyser asked me the following question:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that the loss of export markets for mutton could mean that between 300 and 400 employees al an abattoir al Portland, Victoria, could be dismissed? Is he also aware that such dismissals could have disastrous effects on those employees, on the whole town and on mutton producers generally? Will he use all his influence to see that such a disaster is avoided by requesting the Minister whom he represents in this chamber to do everything possible lo retain our overseas markets in the United Stales of America and in other countries to which we now export?

The Minister for Trade and Industry has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

The ban imposed by the United States on Australian mutton imports arises from an apparent failure of Australian meatworks to comply with procedures specified by the United States authorities which, of course, also apply to domestic abattoirs in the United States.

The effect of this ban on individual meatworks and on the mutton trade generally is fully appreciated by the Government and everything is being done to enable mutton shipments to the United Slates to be resumed as soon as possible.

The ban which is applicable to mutton produced after 15th May 1970 is of a temporary nature. It is expected that individual Australian meatworks will be reinstated progressively as local procedures are brought into line wilh United Slates requirements.

page 57

VIETNAM

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONOn 17th June Senator McManus asked me the following question without notice:

Has the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs noted today’s report that 75 South Vietnamese villagers have been massacred by a force of the Vietcong because, in defiance of instructions from the Vietcong, they had cooperated with the South Vietnamese Government? Will the Minister obtain information on this massacre and also on the massacre last week of more than 100 South Vietnamese villagers by the Vietcong, again because they had refused to obey orders not to co-operate with the Government? Do these massacres indicate an intensification of the Vietcong’s campaign over a number of years to make effective government of South Vietnam impossible and to convince the people that they will be given an opportunity of peaceful and effective government only under a Communist regime?

I said I had seen only a brief report of the matter and would seek further information, adding that such tactics were similar to those that have been employed by the Vietnamese Communists for many years.

The Minister for External Affairs has now supplied the following additional information:

The place referred to by Senator McManus was Thanh My hamlet, in Quang Nam province, which was attacked by enemy forces on the night of11th June 1970. While the main enemy force attacked the hamlet’s Popular Forces’ local defence compound, another small enemy unit ran through the hamlet throwing satchel charges and grenades into buildings, houses and family bunkers where people were sheltering. As a result 74 civilians were killed and a further 68 civilians were wounded. Three hundred and sixteen houses were completely destroyed, 50houses were severely damaged and 2 schools and 2 office buildings were destroyed.

It is clear that the real target in this attack was the civilian part of the town, as by comparison with the civilian casualties the military casualties amongst the defenders were 4 killed and 30 wounded. It is also clear that the attack was a deliberate terrorist effort aimed at intimidating the people of South Vietnam, who are cooperating increasingly actively with the South Vietnamese Government’s pacification campaign.

page 57

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES ACT: INTRODUCTION OF COM PL EMENTARY LEGISLATION

(Question No. 363)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What endeavours have been made, over the last 2 years, to induce the mainland States to introduce legislation complementary to the Trade Practices Act.
  2. To whom, by whom, and when, were requests made by or on behalf of the Commonwealth.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) An approach was made in 1966 by the then Prime Minister to the State Premiers regarding the enactment of legislation complementary to the Trade Practices Act, and discussions were held with the States on the matter, particularly in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. In the result, no State enacted complementary legislation, but Tasmania, by the Commonwealth Powers (Trade Practices) Act 1966, made a reference to the Commonwealth, and an unsuccessful attempt to pass similar legislation was made in South Australia in 1967. It appeared that no good purpose would be served by continuing to press the matter and no further approaches have been made to the Slates.

page 57

QUESTION

JUDICIARY ACT: PROGRESS OF COMMITTEE

(Question No. 368)

Senator MURPHY:

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

What progress has been made by the Committee appointed, under the Chairmanship of the Solicitor-General,to consider the provisions of the Judiciary Act.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Considerable progress has been made by the Committee. The Committee has invited and received representations from a number of interested bodies. With these representations in mind, it is at present considering those provisions of the Act relatingto the original and appellate jurisdiction ofthe High Court, exclusive and invested jurisdiction and the removal of Causes from State Supreme Courts, found in Parts IV to VII of the Judiciary Act. The Committee has also considered earlier provisions found in Part 111 of the Act.

page 57

QUESTION

CONSOLIDATION OF ACTS

(Question No. 464)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What is being done to ensure the publication, in consolidated form, at frequent intervals, of (a) the Commonwealth Acts; and (b) the Commonwealth Statutory Rules.
  2. What is the reason for the great length of time since the last sets were issued.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Reprints in the form of separate pamphlets of Commonwealth Acts and Commonwealth Statutory Rules as amended to the date of publication are constantly being issued by my Department. Legislation is selected for reprinting in this form having regard to the stocks held by the Australian Government Publishing Service, to the number of amendments made since the legislation was last reprinted, and to the extent of its use by the public and the legal profession. The Income Tax Assessment Act, for example, is reprinted every year. The Acts that are available as separate reprints number approximately150; they include reasonably up-to-date reprints of most Acts in common use. From time to time, as space permits, selected reprints are included in the annual volume of Acts or are included in a separate volume of reprints. If the honourable senator has any particular Act in mind that he thinks should be reprinted, he might care to let me know.

Although the present system of separate reprints appears to meet the practical needs of most users and has the advantage of being more easily kept up-to-date than a complete reprint in the form of bound volumes, my Department has under consideration proposals for a general reprint of Commonwealth Acts to replace the 1901-1950 reprint. The organisations representing the legal profession in Australia and the law publishers were asked for their views concerning a new reprint, but the replies received have been by no means unanimous and a decision has not yet been reached. I propose to give the matter early consideration.

page 58

QUESTION

COMMISSIONER FOR TRADE PRACTICES

(Question No. 480)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What is the salary of the Commissioner for Trade Practices.
  2. What allowancesin respect of travelling expenses are payable to the Commissioner.
  3. Where are the above made public.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The salary of the Commissioner of Trade Practices is $19,500, and he also receives an annual allowance of $1,000.
  2. $28 per day.
  3. The amount payable to the Commissioner by way of salary and annual allowance is stated in the Budget (see Division 140, Sub-Division 1, of the ‘Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1970’, 1969- Parliamentary Paper No. 58). The rate of allowance payable to the Commissioner in respect of travelling expenses has not hitherto been made public.

page 58

QUESTION

ROYAL VISIT: CATERING ARRANGEMENTS

(Question No. 318)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which Commonwealth Department was responsible for the catering arrangements for functions attended by the Royal Family during their visit to Canberra.
  2. Was all food, liquor and additional staff for the functions at Government House and Parliament House airlifted from Sydney and Melbourne; if so, why were local catering firms and casual chefs overlooked when both functions were being arranged.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Joint House Department was responsible for the catering arrangements for the function attended by the Royal Family at Parliament House on 23rd April. The Official Secretary to the Governor-General was responsible in the case of those functions attended by the Royal Family at Government House.
  2. The Joint House Department has advised: All food required was purchased through normal suppliers to the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms, with the exception of a small number of items that were purchased interstate because they were not available locally.

All liquor required was also purchased through firms which are the normal source of supply to the Refreshment Rooms, most of which have established businesses in the Australian Capital Territory.

The overwhelming proportion of staff engaged on this function were residents of Canberra and Queanbeyan. The only persons brought from outside this area were certain specialists which it was impossible to obtain in the required number locally.

The Official Secretary to the Governor-General has advised:

The Official Secretary made no arrangements to air-lift food, liquor and additional staff from Sydney or Melbourne. Insofar as the Royal Garden Party is concerned, enquiries revealed that no local firms interested in the catering for ‘outside’ functions had the facilities and/or experience to cope with the Garden Party, at which it was expected 3,500 people would attend. In the event, approximately 3,400 people were present. For this reason, invitations to tender were sent to eight inter-State catering firms. Seven declined to quote. The eighth, David Jones’ of Sydney, in conjunction with their Canberra store, supplied all food, beverages, cutlery, crockery, napery, glassware and staff. The Official Secretary has been informed that all casual staff was recruited from the Canberra area.

The barbecue at Government House was catered for by Government House staff. No food, liquor or additional staff was air-lifted from Sydney or Melbourne. All food for this function was purchased from Canberra firms.

page 59

QUESTION

ROYAL VISIT: COST OF FUNCTIONS

(Question No. 320)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the Minister rep resenting the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What was the total cost to the Commonwealth Government of the function held in honour of the Royal Family at Parliament House, and the total cost of the similar function held at Government House.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

The cost of catering and printing of invitations, entree cards, menus, etc., for the reception at Parliament House amounted to $9,961. The cost of catering, printing of invitations, entree cards, etc.. and the provision of marquees, urns, tables and chairs for the garden party at Government House amountedto $10,554.

page 59

QUESTION

LOANS BY COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION BOARD

(Question No. 338)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. To what companies, organisations or individuals, if any, has the Commonwealth Superannuation Board loaned money over the last 5 years.
  2. How much was involved in each loan, and what rate of interest was charged.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. and (2) The Superannuation Board has supplied the following information:

page 61

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION: TAX CONCESSIONS

(Question No. 392)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What financial advantage is gained, by way of taxation concessions, by companies and/or professional people who invest in primary production.
  2. Is the investment of capital as ‘tax farming’ providing unfair competition for bona fide primary producers, and is this type of investment resulting in unwise use of land.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. The principal income tax concessions availableto any taxpayer engaged in primary production are:

    1. Accelerated rates of depreciation.

The cost of plant and machinery, other than passenger vehicles, used wholly and exclusively for agricultural or pastoral pursuits is allowed as a deduction by equal instalments over a five year period. Similar deductions are allowable in respect of structural improvements used in a business of primary production, including improvements providing residential accommodation for employees engaged in that business, wherethe improvements are situated on land used for agricultural or pastoral pursuits. The special depreciation for residential accommodation is limited to an amount of $6500 for each employee and, where the cost of the building exceeds this amount, normal depreciation is allowed on the balance. In the case of structural improvements situated on land in the Northern Territory, the taxpayer has an additional right to have the total cost deducted in the year in which the improvement is completed.

  1. An investment allowance deduction on new plant

A special deduction equal to twenty per cent of the cost of new plant, excluding road vehicles, for use in a business of primary production is allowed in the income year in which the plant is purchased.

  1. Deductions for specific kinds of capital expenditure.

Broadly stated, capital expenditure relating to improving the carrying capacity or productivity of land is deductible in full in the year in which it is incurred. This includes expenditure on the eradication or extermination of pests, the clearing of land, the preparation of land for agricultural or grazing purposes, the drainage of lowlying land, expenditure relating to the conservation of soil or water and fencing to keep out animal pests.

  1. A right of election to spread the following receipts or profits over five income years:

    1. insurance recoveries on losses of livestock or trees;
    2. profit from sale of livestock due to compulsory resumption of land;
    3. profit from sale of livestock due to loss of pastures or fodder because of fire, flood or drought;
    4. profit from sale of livestock due to tick eradication campaign;
    5. profit from compensation received for compulsory destruction of livestock.

  2. Averaging of income.

An individual taxpayer, but not a company, may be entitled to have his income averaged over five years for the purpose of determining the rate of tax payable for a particular year of income.

  1. There are many aspects to be considered in forming judgments as to what constitutes unfair competition, whether unfair competition exists, and whether land is being used wisely or not, and these are obviously not subjects on which broad generalisations can be made. Certain specified requirements have to be fulfilled by any parties seeking to obtain the various taxation concessions accorded primary producers which are set out in the preceding paragraph.

page 62

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS FUND

(Question No. 398)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. In view of the Treasurer’s announcement, last December, that ex-service pensioners would benefit from distribution of surplus assets from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, what progress has been made in the distribution of these assets.
  2. How many ex-servicemen have benefitted from this distribution and what were the conditions of their entitlement.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. Payments due to eligible pensioners from surplus assets in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund have been completed with the exception of amounts due to estates and a few cases in which there is still a need to ascertain current addresses; the bulk of the distribution was completed before Christmas 1969.
  2. There were more than 5,600 eligible pensioners. The conditions of entitlement were set out in section 15’ of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act (No. 3)1968; the main requirements were that a member should have become liable to contribute to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund before 4th December 1959 and have received pension from the Fund at any time during the period 1st July 1959 to 30th June 1964.

page 62

QUESTION

GRANT TO PERCY GRAINGER FESTIVAL

(Question No. 403)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Was a grant of $1,500 made from the Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers Fund to the Percy Grainger Festival in London.
  2. What is the total amount available during this financial year to the Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers Fund.
  3. It is the policy of the Fund’s Advisory Board to assist the public performance of an already world famous composer, now deceased, who in 1914 became an American citizen at the age of 32, or is it the policy of the Fund to utilise finance made available to them to assist living Australian composers, particularly those who are willing to sacrifice the obvious advantages of working overseas and who patriotically continue to live in Australia.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No; a special grant of $1,500 was provided, vide Division 430 Sub-division 4 Item 31 of the schedule to the Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1969-70.
  2. $21,300.
  3. The policy of the Advisory Board is to assist projects which will facilitate the performance of Australian serious music composition and promote better understanding of Australian music, thereby improving the status of Australian composers.

page 63

QUESTION

TIN MINERS: FINANCIAL COMPENSATION

(Question No. 427)

Senator MILLINER:

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

Did any miner who was in the process of negotiating a sale of tin incur financial loss when devaluation occurred; if so, to whom should such a miner make representations to determine if he is entitled to financial compensation.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

I am not aware whether any miner who was in the process of negotiating a sale of tin incurred financial loss when devaluation occurred.

Any such miner or other exporters of tin should furnish details concerning the circumstances of their lossesto the Secretary. Department of Trade and Industry, Canberra.

page 63

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE: REMUNERATIONS AND ALLOWANCES

(Question No. 440)

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

asked the minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What remuneration and allowances, if any, are attachedto the following positions:

Chief Justice of the High Court;

Administrator, Northern Territory;

Commissioner, and Chairman, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission;

Consul-General in San Francisco;

Australian High Commissioner, London:

Ambassador to Japan;

Member, Australian Broadcasting Commission;

Member. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia);

Judge, Commonwealth Industrial Court;

Ambassadorto Argentina; and

Australian High Commissioner, Malta.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

page 63

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 461)

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice

  1. How many loans have been approved to assist in financing the purchase of the 24 F111C aircraft, their spares and associated equipment: what was the source of each loan and in which year was it approved.
  2. What is the aggregate amount of the loans.
  3. What is the interest rate on each loan; what amount has been drawn upon from each loan; and what are the terms and conditions of each loan.
  4. What will be the aggregate of all loans plus interest when repayments have been finalised.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Two loans of $US80m and $US75m have been approved to assist in financing the purchase of 24 F111C aircraft, their spares and associated equipment and services. The source of each loan is the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the loans were arranged in 1966 and 1968.
  2. The aggregate amount of the loans is $US155m.
  3. The interest rate on the loan of $US80m is 4%, and that on the loan of $US75m is 6%. Drawings of SUS77.2m have been made on the $US80m loan but there have been no drawings on the $US75m loan. Apart from the interest rate, the main terms of the $US80m loan are that drawings are repayable in 10 semi-annual instalments, commencing at the end of each financial year in which the drawings are made. Drawings on the $US75m loan are repayable in 14 semi-annual instalments commencing 6 months after the end of the financial year in which drawings on the loan are made. This loan carries a commitment fee of one-half per cent per annum on the undrawn balance.
  4. It is not possible to calculate precisely the amount of principal repayment plus interest, since it is not known whether or when further drawings will be made. However, on the assumption that the full amounts of both loans are fully drawn repayments plus interest would total approximately $US181m.

page 64

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MUTTON

(Question No. 490)

Senator YOUNG:

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

  1. With regard to the Canadian ban on the importation of Australian mutton into that country because of the presence of some organisms, is it a fact that these organisms are not considered harmful to humans.
  2. Do the same strict standards of hygiene apply in Canadian abattoirs in relation to inspections of Canadian meat for home consumption as applies in Australia.
  3. Is it a fact that the balance of trade between Australia and Canada is an adverse one to Australia, with Australian imports from Canada in 1968-69 amounting to approximately $153,160,000 and exports to that country amounting to approximately $67,655,000.
  4. If the ban on Australian mutton is to continue, will the Government taking into consideration the adverse balance of trade, give consideration to Australia reducing its Canadian imports and importing from other countries which are importers of Australian meat, particularly Australian mutton.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Canadian restrictions were related to meat inspection criteria for the acceptance of mutton carcases affected by the disease caseous lymphadenitis. The disease is not regarded as being communicable to man.
  2. The Canada Meat Inspection Regulations, under which the restrictions were imposed, apply equally to both imported meat and meat prepared in Canada for domestic consumption.
  3. Yes.
  4. The Canadian ban is effective until such time as procedures in Australian meat works satisfy Canadian requirements. As a result of urgent action being taken in Australia to amend meat works’ procedures it is expected that mutton exports to Canada will soon be resumed.

page 64

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

(Question No. 493)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. On how many occasions, and on what dates, has the Australian Government made official protests to the French Government concerning French nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean.
  2. On how many occasions, and on what dates has the French Government replied.
  3. What was the substance of these protests and replies.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Twice, on 17th May 1968, and 3rd April 1970. The Government’s opposition to the tests has been stated on numerous occasions in this Parliament.
  2. No replies have been received.
  3. The honourable member is referred to a supplementary reply which I gave to a question without notice on 27th August 1968 (Hansard pages 310-311) and to a reply by the Minister for External Affairs to a question without notice on 7th April 1970 (Hansard pages 734-735).

page 64

AUSTRALIAN RURAL ECONOMY

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following letter from Senator O’Byrne:

Mr President,

In accordance with standing order No. 64 I intend to move today for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.40 a.m.

page 64

STATEMENT OF MATTER OF URGENCY:

the urgent need for the reconstruction of the rural economy including a constructive national drought policy.

page 64

QUESTION

JUSTIN O’BYRNE

Is the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I move:

I do so for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely:

The urgent need for the reconstruction of the rural economy including a constructive national drought policy. ] should like to say at the outset that because we have chosen this matter of urgency for debate it does not mean that we are not well aware also of the pitiful state of the aged, invalided and widowed of Australia and the miserable pittance that has been given towards their welfare. We are fully aware also of the plight of the hidden poor and those who have had the value of their savings whittled away by the policy of a government which has allowed inflation to reach critical proportions. We realise that ex-servicemen whose lives have been ruined as a result of their war-caused disabilities and injuries are reduced to a common plight of securing less than the basic wage to live on in these days of galloping inflation. However, we believe that because of its urgency priority is warranted for the matter of a constructive national drought policy and a reconstruction of the rural economy.

Today, the policy of the Government over the years is catching up with it and events have proved that the Government has failed badly. Once again Australia is faced with a drought of frightening proportions combined with a depression particularly in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. The depression is spreading rapidly throughout the other States because of the hopeless situation facing the primary producers as a result of Government policy. This policy has been aided and abetted by the Australian Country Party. Tn a question today Senator Webster referred to a catastrophic situation. That is a very strong word to use, but I believe that it describes the situation. It is catastrophic. The Government and the Country Party have let their people down. The people who have relied on them over the years have been let down. They have proved, as always, that in a critical situation they are fair weather friends. They give their supporters an umbrella on a fine day but take it away on a rainy day. In addition to that we have the cynicism of the Government in claiming prosperity for Australia. Underlining all its statements is an emphasis on our minerals and the export of our natural resources. The Government is prepared now to climb on to the new band wagon of prosperity in the mineral field and to leave the farmer to struggle with his difficulties and to face virtual bankruptcy.

Senator Webster:

– What a lot of rubbish.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The Government seems to be incapable. The honourable senator who is interjecting does not serve himself well by trying to answer this by saying it is a lot of rubbish because the plight of the small farmer and small grazier is fast becoming hopeless as a result of the low prices for their products and the effect of the drought over vast areas of Australia. The Government cannot do anything about the weather pattern, but later I shall have something to say about how the Government has failed. It is only now that we have before the Parliament measures to complete the emasculation of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. The Government has no vigorous policy for water conservation, irrigation and fodder conservation. lt has none of these great national objectives that any government worth its salt would have. The Government should have anticipated that this cycle would come eventually, but it is finding today that these critical things have caught up with it and it has only palliatives - little sticking plasters to put over the cancers in our society. Senator Webster, other members of the Country Party and other Government supporters are whistling in the dark to keep up their courage. The worst feature is that the economic conditions combined with the drought are forcing good men off the land. They are being broken in spirit as well as being broken financially.

In the past, a farmer could withstand drought because of the price he received for his products. He had a margin over and above his living and working expenses. But now he finds that there is no margin. In many cases his credit has been stopped. Here we find the fair weather friends who were very anxious to let him have money at 8%, or at whatever Scrooge interest rates they could get when the farmer was able to pay. Now that the time has come when he really needs assistance from those great financial institutions to which the Government has given birth over a period of 20 years they are turning the farmer away from their doors. He finds that his credit has stopped. This leaves him with no alternative to leaving his property and allowing his slock to die of starvation and lack of water.

I wonder how many Government supporters who are interjecting really know the ravages of drought. 1 have lived through many bad droughts which were similar to the ones continuing at present in Queensland and New South Wales and, according to what Senator Young has said, increasing in severity in South Australia. How many Government supporters know of the utter hopelessness of a drought period as stock search fruitlessly for any sort of fodder - for roots or dry grass of any kind? How many know the spectacle of the weaker stock tailing off until they fall to await their death, the sound of the crows quarking and waiting for the stock to die or to become so weak that they can finish them off? How many know the hopeless plight of the cattle waiting to die at the dried up water holes or the dying wheat crops. The wheat, cattle and sheep that many farmers see dying are their only hope to pay off the interest on their mortgages. How many people in this Parliament or in the cities have watched the recent stock and wool sales and sensed the depressed spirit of farmers who are forced to take market prices that they know very well will be insufficient to cover their costs of production? These conditions exist not only in a few localities but right throughout the length and breadth of Australia. ] ask honourable senators who, over the years, have been claiming to have the support of farmers whether they want to see our rural communities go to the wall and our rural economy crumble. By the lack of activity on their part, this is what is happening. The farmers want help and they want it now. In half of the drought stricken areas of Australia it will not be long before the farmers go to the wall because of the sheer weight of economic circumstances. Family after family is moving out of rural areas against its will to seek the bare means of existence. These people are leaving behind them family hopes and aspirations built up over a long time, even generations. Some farmers are the sons and grandsons of the pioneers. Many of them are veterans of the 2 world wars. These men are the victims of a ruthless Government that is telling them that their only choice is to get big or gel out. What a cynical approach for any government.

Rural Australia is in the grip of a depression comparable to the depression of the 1930s. This is a very hard fact to digest but it is true. In the 1930s we were suffering from an international depression. The depression we are experiencing at the moment is caused mainly by the inflation that has been allowed to continue over the period that this Government has been in power. When a similar situation existed in the 1930s a moratorium was declared to protect the farmer from foreclosure. On this occasion the Government should be acting along those lines and should be funding the farmers’ debts and making available lower interest loans from the Commonwealth Bank.

We had today a query from Senator Byrne relating to farmers’ debt adjustment but, according to the figures given today nothing has been done in that regard since 1943. The lime has come for us to look more deeply into these problems and to see that our national assets are not sold piecemeal for the short term benefit. We must recognise the long term benefit of having strong and virile primary industries. This is of paramount importance to the economy. So the time has come for us to look to long term loans with cheaper interest rates for the farmers. There is no doubt that they need them. They are not able to get them from the finance companies. The finance companies have closed up on them. A long term policy must be evolved to see that these people are helped over this very difficult stile that is in front of them.

Much of the national income that is being obtained at the present time is being directed towards the ultimate profits that will flow to overseas investors. These are the ones who are gaining all the advantages of this Government’s concessions while another substantial and reliable section of our community is suffering so much as a result. The Government, as I said, seems incapable of understanding the immediate and radical reconstruction policies that are required for rural industries. One would have thought that by now the Government would have learned a lesson. In the first time ever farmers have been driven into the streets of Perth, Adelaide and even conservative Melbourne to demonstrate.

Senator Lillico:

– Would the honourable senator say that Melbourne is a conservative place?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I would say that the western districts of Victoria and the Mallee district, where many of these farmers come from, could be classified as conservative. They are conservative because for so many years they fell for the 3-card trick, the sleight of hand trick, that has been put over by the Country Party. 1 have just been handed tonight’s Melbourne ‘Herald’. According to the headlines, the $30m grant made to farmers in the Budget is inadequate and farmers might march on Canberra. It is reported that Edenhope farmers may organise a mass march on Canberra to protest over the Budget.

The Government has had its opportunity in the last 24 hours to give some glimmer of hope to these people. But what did we see in the Budget? We saw palliatives and parsimonious, temporary expedients that will do no good at all. After all, farming is not a sector in which changes can be made overnight. Farmers have to plan years ahead what they will do with their land, and to make changes rapidly is beyond most of them. Practically every field that should be open to farmers for diversification is being closed to them. Urgent and radical action is needed to avert the demoralisation of a good many honest people in the country towns and on the farms engaged in the industries of wheat, wool, dairy, export fruit and sugar. When one comes to think of it, there are very few alternatives to which farmers can turn to find any hope for the future.

It comes back to what I said before. The primary industries are being hit from 2 directions. They are being hit by the results of inflation, which is caused by the Government’s policy and which is costing farmers out of their markets. The other thing is drought. This is aggravating the serious crisis which we are facing. Today Senator Young asked a question relating to South

Australia. It would appear that a crisis is facing many people in that State. The cause of this mess can be sheeted home quite clearly to the policy followed over the years by the Government. The Government has neglected the need for long term planning. It has also fooled the people in primary industry about the European Common Market. I would like to refer to the remarks that were made by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) when he recently returned from his trip overseas. A newspaper report, referring to the Minister for Trade and Industry, quoted him as saying: 1 got nothing to encourage me in Brussels. . . Our trade could be in serious jeopardy.

Australian agricultural trade might be ‘greatly endangered’ if Britain joined the Common Market, he warned.

Australians have known for years that Britain would join the Common Market. We have known that Britain could not survive as an individual island off the coast of Europe. Joining the Common Market was the only prospect it had for any sort of economic stability. According to the newspaper report Mr McEwen went on to say:

If Britain joined on the same terms operating at the present time, in due course our markets for dairy products and soft wheat would disappear.’

I put this to the Government: What sort of an administration do we have when all of a sudden we are confronted with inescapable problems relating to the primary industries which are our traditional backbone, the basic part of our economy?

Senator Young:

– Do you not recall the same thing being discussed before when talking about the Common Market?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Precautions needed to be taken at the time when there was a strong prospect of Britain joining the European Economic Community. That was the time when alternative plans should have been made. For some years Australia has been finding a small outlet for its wheat by selling to China. It has been a hypocritical policy because we have failed to recognise the existence of this vast continent whose people are prepared not only to buy our wheat but to pay cash for it. There are 800 million mouths which could consume our primary products. Yet we have gone through the absolute charade of refusing to recognise these people and to send our most vigorous trading people up there to see whether China is willing to buy more of our primary products. Do honourable senators mean to say that people with a developing economy such as we see in that vast area of Asia are not seeking to improve their quality of life and their standard of living? Do honourable senators mean to say that a primary producing country such as ours could not have seen the potential for wider markets than just the supply of wheat?

I believe the Government stands condemned for not having developed that market and markets in Indonesia, the Philippines, South East Asia, India, Pakistan and many of our other near neighbours. Surely arrangements to expand our trade could have been made. If an alternative government had been in power arrangements would have been made for longterm credits for these countries. After all, if the people in those countries are not heading towards a better standard of living, if they cannot expect some prosperity in a world where science is capable of producing plenty, not very much future exists for Australia. Whether Australia likes it or not, it is part of the Asian geography. We have to learn that these are our near neighbours and that our future depends on our trading with them and our co-existence with them. They are our natural markets. Yet what do we see as a result of 20 years of Government maladministration of the trading policy of this country? Within a period of 1 2 months we find the door closed in Europe, sanctions and embargoes put on our exports to the United States and strong lobbies in the United States Congress from the various primary producing States to exclude Australian products. The same thing applies in Canada which has found that its markets are declining, lt is in strong competition with us and it has refused to increase the quotas on our meat and other products. All the way along the line the chickens - they are ugly black chickens - are coming home to roost on this Government, lt has to face up to its responsibility for having allowed this to happen.

The same thing applies with regard to a long range policy on drought, In 21 years the Government cannot even claim to have initiated the great concept of the Murray and Murrumbidgee water supply which comes from the diversion of the Snowy waters across the range. When one looks at that scheme in its proper perspective one can see the potential there is in it and the value of such a scheme in Queensland which has a high rainfall on the coastal areas. Yet for years and years we have heard honourable senators from Queensland who sit on this side of the chamber begging the Government to direct its attention towards bigger conservation and diversion schemes for that State. So it goes on right throughout Australia.

Senator Young:

– Did you not read the policy speech of the Prime Minister?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes; promise me, Kathleen Mavourneen. lt is all fight for getting votes at election time. The Government makes great play of honouring a promise. Whenever it does it gets the headlines on radio and television and says: Look, we have honoured our promise’, as though it is a wonderful occurrence - and it is too. We hear many of these promises on the eve of an election. Unfortunately we see very few of them fulfilled. Others wish to follow me in this debate so 1 conclude by saying that the Government has let the farmers of this country down. The Government has to take drastic measures to meet this critical situation. Unless a positive and imaginative scheme of economic assistance is adopted to relieve farmers of the debts which are hanging around their shoulders and which result from the depressed prices they receive, high costs of production and drought, we will have a tragedy unequalled in the history of this country. The situation is serious enough for such a strong appeal to be made in this urgency debate. In raising this matter of urgency we say that this is an urgent problem.

The Australian Labor Party asks the Government to do whatever it can to try to retrieve the situation which it has allowed to develop. There are so many different ways in which it can be done. The whole of the industry can be reconstructed with energy. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government and its advisers to lift this industry which has been such a vital segment of our economy back to where the people in it can feel with confidence that they are recognised in the community. The primary producers are the backbone of our country. They put up with the lack of many of the facilities and amenities of the cities. They put up with heat, with drought, with flies and all ‘the other inconveniences of living in the country areas. To feel they are practically neglected by the Government must be very heartbreaking to them. The Australian Labor Party makes this strong appeal to the Government because of the urgency of the crisis that is confronting them. We hope that the full power of Government policy will be aimed in their direction.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– The Australian Labor Party has seen fit this afternoon to move an urgency motion following the introduction of the Budget last night. The statement on the matter of urgency is:

The urgent need for the reconstruction of the rural economy including constructive national drought policy.

I do not think any of us would contradict the assertion that the primary industries of this country are in a very serious situation. For some years now the continent of Australia has gone through a number of years of very drastic droughts. Long periods have occurred in which there was very little rain in Queensland, northern New South Wales and in the last 12 months, in Western Australia. Many farmers throughout the continent have received very little income over this period. Senator O’Byrne commenced his contribution this afternoon by pointing his finger at the Australian Country Party. He said that it was partly responsible for the situation in which primary producers now find themselves. I refer to a situation of falling prices and climbing costs of production. This position is not applicable only to Australia. It is to be found also in Canada, the United States of America, Great Britain and France, but so far as I know none of those countries has a Country Party.

I do not understand why Senator O’Byrne moved his motion this afternoon, following last night the introduction of the Budget in which the Treasurer (Mr Bury) stated that about $2 15m is to be made available to primary industries. I do not see why Senator O’Byrne did not wait to learn the full details of the Budget provisions for assistance to primary industries. I think all honourable senators recognise the difficulties facing primary industries at present. There is no question about that. I know from my own experience in Western Australia that the wheat, wool and dairy industries have faced a difficult period in the last year. A drastic fall in wool prices has combined with a continuing rise in costs and has been compounded by a severe drought in large areas of Australia. The result is that the position in some regions has reached a calamitous stage.

The Government has been concerned at the plight of the wool industry, not only because of the hardships suffered by people in that industry but also because of its great importance to the Australian economy. If the wool industry is to continue to provide a major share of Australia’s export income as well as to remain the basis of livelihood for so much of the rural area of Australia, it is essential that its viability be preserved. The present crisis in the industry requires a comprehensive approach involving immediate and long term measures. Prolonged drought and low wool prices have placed many wool growers in an almost impossible position in which they require emergency finance.

Honourable senators will be aware that incomes from wool growing have fallen markedly in the last year. The aggregate income from shorn wool declined by about SI 00m to S687m in 1969-70. I do not think the severity of the blow experienced by individual wool growers has been generally appreciated. The Government has been giving detailed consideration to the problems being experienced by wool growers and the ways that are open to place the industry on a sound basis. The Government has a number of proposals before it. However, the total approach is essentially long term. Improvements to wool marketing, research into the problems of the industry, debt reconstruction and farm adjustment necessarily take time, but short term urgent measures are clearly needed to prevent a loss of confidence in the industry which would be reflected throughout the whole economy.

The only concrete statement made this afternoon by Senator O’Bryne was that the men in primary industries need help now. The Government realises that they need help now. That is why the Treasurer announced last night that the Minister for

Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) would make in the House today a statement explaining in detail the basis upon which S30m is to be made available for emergency relief of the wool industry. Senator O’Byrne referred to long term interest rates - I am quite sure that my colleagues from Queensland know many people in drought areas of Queensland who could not borrow another cent. Long term interest rates are of no use to them. They want assistance now. That is why the Government has included in the Budget provision for that assistance to be given now.

Are we all in agreement on that move? Perhaps honourable senators opposite who will speak in this debate on behalf of the Labour Party are in favour of such assistance, but I wish to read to the Senate an extract from an article which appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’. It reported that Mr Hawke, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, had declared that his organisation would strongly resist further efforts by employers and the Government to use arguments about the cost-price squeeze. Surely the costprice squeeze is one of the greatest problems in primary industries at present. Yet Mr Hawke the leader of the Labor Movement declared that they would resist any further arguments on the basis of the costprice squeeze. Mr Hawke went on to refer to the use of those arguments by farmers to hold down wage levels. He said that he did not deny that some farmers were in financial trouble. It could be judged from Senator O’Byrne’s speech this afternoon that all the farmers are in financial trouble and that there is not a solvent farmer in the country. But Mr Hawke recognised the fact that some farmers are in financial trouble.

Senator Cant:

– When did Mr Hawke make that statement?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– This report appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ on 19th February. Mr Hawke said that he did not deny that some farmers were in financial trouble, but he went on to say that these were almost solely small and inefficient marginal farmers. That is what the leader of the Labor movement had to say. This afternoon Senator O’Byrne told us his side of the story. The

Australian Financial Review’ went on, in its report about Mr Hawke, to say:

The cost-price squeeze argument, he said - and this is what we are here today about - amounted to little more than a plea for maintenance of a rural production structure which includes a substantial number of inefficient marginal producers without whom we would all be better off.

That is the voice of the great Labor movement, speaking earlier in the year when it was said that something could have been done to prevent the situation that has arisen now. 1 turn now to another member of the Labor movement. Recently I came across a report of a statement made by the man who is now the Leader of the Federal Labor Party. Although the statement was made some years ago, it surely reveals the line of thinking of the present Leader of the Labor Party and it must have some effect on the people who sit behind him.

Senator GEORGES:

– Are you talking about the Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– 1 am talking about the present parliamentary leader. The edition of 21st August 1965 of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ carried this report:

Concentrate on belter cities, says Whitlam. Too much attention is being paid to the wishes and needs of rural areas, and too little to the needs of the cities, the Deputy Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr E. G. Whitlam, said last night.

The article continues:

Cities and civilisation go hand in hand.’ he told the Sydney division of the Australian Planning Institute last night.

By . . . 1 cannot read the word.

Senator Georges:

– You cannot read, period.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– lt is the fine print that I cannot read. The article continues:

By derivation, civilised men are those who live in cities - pagans are those who live in the country.’

Senator Webster:

– Who said that?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The then Deputy Leader of the Federal Opposition. These are the kind of statements that are made day in and day out in this country, but at election time or at a time when the Labor Party thinks it can earn Kudos it introduces a debate such as this. Its members twit the Government about all kinds of policies, but they say very little about those policies. They try to shelve the blame on to Government members and, in particular, on to members of the Party to which I belong. They make concrete suggestions to overcome these problems.

Senator Milliner:

– That is not correct.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I have not seen the Labor Party do anything yet. I shall look now at some of the rural policies of the Labor Party.

Senator Georges:

– I hope it is in bigger print.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– 1 have it in good print. I can read it. I have headed it ‘Points from Labor’s Rural Policy’. The first is–

Senator Cant:

– The Minister should pick out the points he wants. He should read all the points.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I have the original here. The first point is:

Majority representation of primary producers on all Boards affecting the handling and marketing of their products.

Is not that done at present? Is there anything new about that measure that the Labor Party would introduce? The second point is:

A Labor Government will, through the Reserve Bank, increase the capital of the Development Bank and arrange for the simplification of loan application procedure.

What is new about that?

Senator Webster:

– That is not new. It is old hat.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It is old hat. Yet the Labor Party is going out on the hustings and telling the people that it will do those things for them. The third point is:

Labor believes that access to long, medium and short term financial accommodation at low interest rates is desperately urgent.

What is new about that? The fourth point is:

A Labor Government, after consultation wilh the industry, would promptly introduce legislation for a Wool Reserve Price Scheme, approximating that proposed in 1965.

In 1965 the growers in this country threw that scheme out, yet the Labor Party wants to introduce it. The fourth point continues:

Co-operation and co-ordination of Reserve Prices would be sought with New Zealand and South Africa.

This Government did that in 1950. The fifth point is:

Labor has a positive proposal for the Dairying Industry, and would guarantee full protection to those farmers who, through resettlement programmes . . .

I do not know what that means - . . may be adversely affected.

This Government has put into operation a dairy reconstruction scheme. What will the Labor Party do that will improve on that?

Senator Cant:

– That was recommended to the Government in 1959 by the McCarthy Committee and the Government is implementing it only now.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– 1 say to Senator Cant that this has been part of Government policy for a long time, but it took many meetings of State Ministers of Agriculture and many meetings of Directors of Agriculture in the States before Western Australia, the first State to come in, joined the scheme.

Senator Cant:

– The Government has been at it for 2 years.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The scheme can be introduced only with the cooperation of all States. The sixth point is:

Labor has a constructive policy for Soldier Settlers in financial difficulties through no fault of their own.

I would not know what the constructive policy is. The next point is:

Labor would continue to subsidise superphosphate and nitrogenous fertilisers. Price increases which absorb the subsidy would be investigated.

We have superphosphate subsidies and nitrogenous fertiliser subsidies. The Department of Customs and Excise is investigating the manufacture of superphosphate to ensure that the subsidy is passed on to producers. What is new about this point from Labor’s rural policy? This is the alternative government that the Labor Party is offering to the people. In other words, it is offering what this Government has put into operation.

Senator Georges:

– But far better.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Far better? Will the Labor Party increase the subsidies paid lo the primary industries? The Government recognises that there must be a policy of reconstruction for the primary industries. We have shown this by introducing legislation for the reconstruction of the dairying industry.

Senator Cant:

– Get big or get out.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– f do not think that is right. When the Senate debated the legislation for the reconstruction of the dairying industry, I reminded Senator Cant that if a farmer who had a unit producing 15,000 lb of commercial butter fat wanted to buy out his next door neighbour and the total production of the 2 farms exceeded 30,000 lb of commercial butter fat he could not get assistance under the scheme. Those were the figures for Western Australia. I do not see how the honourable senator can say. ‘Get big or get out’. This scheme will enable a man who is not an efficient producer to sell his unit to his neighbour. He will get out of the situation with some equity in his property. Surely the Labor Party does not condemn that kind of a scheme. The Government has said that it is willing to look at other schemes for other rural industries but this will take years. If all the industries have to be considered, a considerable amount of money - running into, I should think, several hundreds of millions of dollars - would be required. I do not think that the men on whose behalf Senator O’Byrne was trying to speak today can wait for this kind of legislation to be introduced. These men want money immediately. That is why the Government said that in the present Budget it would provide money to he given to the most deserving people.

Senator O’Byrne talked about the wool growers. To which group of wool growers was he referring? A small percentage of wool growers grow a large percentage of this country’s wool. Does he mean that these growers will get assistance also? Does he mean that the Labor Party will introduce legislation which will give so many dollars for each pound of wool grown? Does that mean that a small percentage - the larger wool growers - will get the biggest percentage of the money that the Labor Party wishes to give to the wool growers? He did not tell us this. We have to presume how this money will be allocated and how much will be allocated. He said nothing about this.

Senator Wilkinson:

– This was a censure of the Government.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Honourable senators opposite talk about what the Government has not done, but they say nothing of what the Government has done.

Senator Cant:

– The Government has done nothing.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Let us get on record what the Government has done. This will enlighten some members of the Opposition in this chamber. I presume that the Opposition spokesman has been referring to the year 1969-70 because this situation came about only in the last 12 months.

Senator Wilkinson:

– No, it came about in the last 5 years.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Firstly I will tell the honourable senator what we did last year and then I will tell him what we did in the last 5 years.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Go back to the 1950s and tell us what you did for the woolgrowers.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– 1 will take a couple of minutes to tell the honourable senator what the Government parties did for the woolgrowers. The Korean War broke out in 1950. The Americans and some other people said they believed that because of the circumstances at that time they should be able to come to Australia and buy their requirements of wool at a certain price irrespective of conditions prevailing in Australia, such as the price of wool compared with the price of other raw materials. The Government immediately sent Mr McEwen to America to have talks on what were called pre-emps. In the result Mr McEwen said to the Americans: If you want our wool, come to Australia and buy it on the floor at auction.’ As a result wool prices went up to the highest point in our history.

Senator Hendrickson:

– That is when the Government should have taken action.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Every time Senator Hendrickson interjects he puts his foot further into the mire. The Government took action and introduced legislation for a reserve price scheme. It did this at a time when the Australian woolgrowers had money in kitty.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Read what Mr Maisey said. He has doubts about it.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The honourable senator does not know what he is talking about. I am referring to that period. He is referring to what Mr Maisey said recently. The Government put the reserve price scheme before the woolgrowers of Australia and they voted it out. The Labor Party is talking about making arrangements with South Africa, New Zealand and other countries. We did have those arrangements in 1951.

Senator Hendrickson:

– That was not the cause of the trouble.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-The Opposition has been talking about the Government’s policy so I propose to go on with it. On both occasions Senator Hendrickson has interjected he has referred to things he knows nothing about. I have shown that the Government’s policies were in effect in each case. I now want to start on my own speech and to refer to areas in rural industry which received direct assistance in the 1969-1970 Budget. Firstly, protective bounties to raw cotton totalled S3. 531m. Devaluation payments to a number of industries totalled S9m. Bounties on phosphate fertilisers - something which the Labor Party has said it would continue if it gained office - amounted last year to $45. 82m. Grants or payments to rural industry for nitrogenous fertilisers amounted to $9. 876m. Payments in respect of butter and cheese totalled S27m. The Opposition spokesman said that this Government had done nothing. Payments for assistance in respect of petroleum products cost $23. 367m. Total payments to rural industries in the last Budget came to about $138m and this year could be expected to increase to about SI 80m. Grants for promotion and research were made as follows: $l3.091m for the wool industry; $900,000 for the wheat industry: S 1.426m for the meat industry; 5351,000 for the dairying industry; and 3382,000 for the tobacco industry.

Senator Milliner:

– What is the good of giving a legless man a pair of socks.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The

Opposition suggests in its motion relating to this matter of urgency that the only way out of these difficulties is to have a reconstruction plan.

Senator Milliner:

– We initiated this debate in order to make the Government aware of the problem.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– What is to happen to the man who is in trouble through no fault of his own? A man may have an overdraft yet still be a good farmer. We must remember that there are wheat quotas and that wool prices have fallen something like 16% in the last year. Those 2 things were not the fault of that farmer. Also, costs have been continually rising because other sections of industry in this country believe that we are in good shape economically and therefore they are entitled to a fair share of the wealth. What does the Lahor Party say about the primary producer who cannot meet the interest bill on his overdraft and cannot meet his repayments?

Senator Hendrickson:

– The Government put him in that position.

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

-BROCKMA N - The

Opposition proposes a reconstruction programme that would take some years to implement. That was the suggestion made by Senator O’Byrne this afternoon. Debt reconstruction, not a reconstruction scheme, is the policy to meet this situation.

Senator Hendrickson:

– ft is time the Government put it into effect.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am glad the honourable senator agrees with me. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has been talking about this scheme and has been endeavouring for some time to bring it into operation. It must take some time to implement. But what is going to to happen to the farmer I referred to earlier? The Opposition slates that it wants reconstruction of the entire rural industry.

Senator Hendrickson:

– We have not said it only today: we have been saying it for years.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I have looked into the affairs of the rural sector in my State. A survey conducted recently revealed that many mcn are in such a difficult situation that no matter how much money was lent to them at this stage, they could not use it because they would be building up a higher repayment bill which they would not be capable of meeting. Surely, in such a situation, the thing to do is to make them an immediate payment in order to allow them some time in which to readjust. This is exactly what is proposed in the Budget announced last night. Without ascertaining the details contained in the Budget the Opposition this afternoon introduced a debate on a matter of urgency. The Opposition spokesman did not say what was required or what action the Labor Party would take to overcome this problem. Surely one can put only one interpretation on this: The debate was initiated in an attempt to hurt the Government on the eve of a Senate election.

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who in this chamber represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), has spoken for half an hour. The major part of that time was devoted to reading to the Senate extracts from statements made by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, when he declared that the trade union movement would strongly resist efforts by employers to use arguments on the cost price squeeze to stop workers getting wage justice. In typical fashion and according to conservative thinking the Minister seemed to adopt the attitude that when something goes wrong with one section of the community or some economic area the blame has to be cast on the Australian Council of Trade Unions or the working class generally because of their attempts to get wage justice from the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

I remind the Minister that the worker is very much akin to the primary producer in these economic circumstances because, just as the primary producer has only his product to sell on the market, the worker has only his labour to sell on the market. If the price of his labour is fixed by an arbitration tribunal at a minimum level, he and his spokesmen and leaders are entitled to put all the arguments at their disposal in order to obtain from the tribunal the best possible determination and the best assessment of what his labour is worth, just as the farmer is entitled to obtain the best possible price for the commodity he produces. [ remind the Minister that, just as farmers are going broke, many workers are facing economic difficulties because of the growth of monopolies in this country and the financial stringencies that are imposed upon them by the wealthy hire purchase companies. The Labor movement is concerned not only about the worker but also about the primary producer, because the two must dovetail one into the other.

Senator Webster:

– What is your representation policy?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister had half an hour in which to make his speech, but I have only a quarter of an hour in which to make mine; so I ask the honourable senator to be fair. The Minister cited statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). But he forgets that, whether it be despite those statements or because of them, at the last Federal election the Labor movement won a considerable number of seats from the present Government.

Let the Minister answer this question: To whom have the farmers come with their problems since the last Federal election? As Senator Milliner interjected earlier in this debate, to whom did the farmers come 6 months ago when this Government lifted the embargo on the export of merino rams? Let the Minister also answer this question: Why are the farmers marching today? Are they marching because of statements made by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Are they marching because of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition? The answer to those questions is simply: No, they are marching because this Government has failed to cater for the needs of the man on the land.

I am pleased that the Minister took a great deal of his time to read the rural policy of the Labor movement because, even if he has not learnt anything from it, at least a number of people listening on the radio will have heeded it. But not once did he tell us what the Government intends to do to ameliorate the economic problems of the farming and rural communities. Earlier this year and during the recent parliamentary recess 1 visited a wide cross-section of New South Wales. All sections of the rural community are very much concerned about the economic situation that confronts them, the economic welfare of their families and future job opportunities for their children. The concern is not only in the farming section of the community; it is also in the retailing section of the community in country towns and in the work force in country towns.

On 27th February this year I attended a meeting called by farmers in the southwestern portion of New South Wales at Jerilderie. Some senators from other political parties were there. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) was there. The Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) was there. At that meeting we all heard at first hand of how the farmers were being hit, the problems that were confronting them, the concern they had about the high prices that existed, the high costs that existed, the problem of inflation - ‘creeping inflation’ as they described it - the problem of drought, the problem of high rates, the problem of high interest charges, the problem of falling markets and the problem of excessive shipping freight charges. Yet the Minister for Air, in his speech here this afternoon, appears to adopt the attitude that because there is overproduction in France and Canada we cannot do very much about the situation here in Australia.

Is it any wonder that one of his colleagues in another place - a very senior member of the Country Party - is desperately calling out for a heavier kicking of the Communist can in order to diversify the thoughts of the people who are concerned about the maladministration of this nation’s affairs by the present LiberalCountry Party coalition? I would have thought that by this time the Government would have done something to ameliorate the shocking conditions about which we all have heard so much and which are the subject of this debate. But, quite obviously, very little has been done to satisfy the rural section of the community. As Senator O’Byrne read from today’s Melbourne

Herald’, farmers are now contemplating marching on Canberra because they are dissatisfied with the paucity of the handout in the Budget that was brought down last night, having regard to the critical situation that confronts them. All the shilly-shallying in the world is still going on merely because this Government does not know what to do and is insufficient to handle the crisis.

I have spoken already about the meeting at Jerilderie. Last Friday I, in company with the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament, Senator Bull and our new Country Party friend Senator Douglas Scott, attended a meeting at Forbes, lt was convened by the Lachlan Valley Development League. There the case for rural assistance and for the Government to take quick and positive action was stated not only by farmers but also by mayors of cities and towns, presidents of shire councils, chambers of commerce and traders associations, educationists and all those who go to make up a wide cross-section of rural life. There is certainly frustration and despair among farmers. A feeling of despondency and gloom is lurking in the shadows of many country towns.

The situation applies not only to the south-west and west of New South Wales about which I have already spoken but to practically the whole of the Stale. In fact, it applies to a greater extent to the northwest of New South Wales. The area between Tamworth and the Queensland border has been declared a drought stricken area. Well over 600 people were at the meeting at Forbes. They made a unanimous decision that the Federal Government be urged to take positive steps to end the present economic depression in rural industries. It was said that, although only about 600 people were at the meeting, it represented 75,000 people who were demanding that the Government take immediate action. As a Mr Macphillamy said and as he was reported in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald’: ‘It is fair to say that the Government has exhorted rural producers to increase production without much idea whether the extra output could be sold at profitable prices or not’.

A Mr Meagher - he is referred to in yesterday’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ as

Mr O’Mara presented to the meeting figures that showed a serious decline in trade in country towns along the Lachlan River, resulting in staff reduction and unemployment. This is why I say that the economic problems confronting the rural producers now are dovetailed into the economic conditions confronting the work force. There is no doubt that there is despair amongst the farming community and, as I have said, there is a feeling of despondency and gloom lurking in the shadows of these country towns. The Labor movement is very concerned about the economic plight of people in these areas because we realise that 40% of the Australian work force is dependent on rural producers, and if this sector went to the wall it would not be very long before the other 60% was in the same trouble. It is on behalf not only of primary producers but of all sections of the Australian community that we demand quick and positive action by this Government.

Only yesterday I received a letter from a farmer in the Tumut district stating that when he was hit by the drought last year he had to sell his stock in order to survive. Now the severe effects of the drought have lessened in his area, he cannot get sufficient money to restock his property. He is at a loss to know what he can do to overcome his economic difficulties. He has the capacity and ability to work his property but through economic circumstances he cannot obtain finance and therefore he is not allowed to work his property. I should have thought that the Government would have been far more objective in its approach to this problem than it showed last night in the introduction of this financial year’s Budget. The Government stated:

Woolgrowers’ incomes fell steeply in 1969-70 . . Within a total amount of $.”!0m -

In other words, a maximum is placed on the amount - the Commonwealth will make payments to wool growers based on the fall in their gross proceeds from wool between 1968-69 and 1969-70 . . . But again the shilly-shallying comes in, as will be seen when I read further from the Budget speech. It continues:

The scheme is regarded as an interim measure pending consideration of other possible action appropriate to the longer-term problems of the woolgrowing industry. In particular, the Government is examining the need for reconstruction in the wool industry, including as one aspect of reconstruction the question of growers’ indebtedness, and of ways in which the Commonweath can most effectively assist.

The Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) told us today that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) is giving consideration to this matter. We heard about it last night in the Federal Budget. But we in the Labor Party and the primary section of the community want to know when that consideration will be brought to finality. The Budget speech continued:

The Minister for Primary Industry will submit a report to the Government on these matters. The Government will also examine all aspects of the setting up and operation of the proposed statutory wool marketing authority.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– No one can say today that the rural industries are not faced with many problems. This applies to most sections. Nor can anyone who is associated with rural industry not show genuine concern. The Government is very conscious of the situation and is looking at both short term and long term measures to improve the lot of the man on the land. This afternoon Opposition supporters were critical of what the Government has done and is proposing to do to assist primary industry. There was an element of panic in some of the things they were saying.

Senator Sim:

– Where is the Opposition?

Senator YOUNG:

– Opposition supporters are absent because they are trying to collect their thoughts about what they should have said this afternoon and did not. T emphasise that the Government would be foolish to implement any measures that were not well considered and sound, because in the long term they could have very adverse effects upon rural industry. As I said, all of us are conscious and are very concerned that we have problems with rural industry. But I say that these problems are not peculiar to Australia. These problems are worldwide. Mention was made today of what we should be doing in relation to selling wheat to China. The Australian Wheat Board, with Government and industry backing, has done an amazing job in disposing of its wheat over the years. We have a huge surplus of wheat on our hands. Again, this problem is not peculiar to Australia but is worldwide. But wheat is not the only grain with which we have such problems. Today there is a surplus of rice. Even a country like Japan, which not so long ago was importing rice, is now an exporter. Countries in South East Asia have a surplus of rice and are concerned as to how to dispose of that surplus. So when we start talking about other markets for wheat that we should be developing we have to look squarely at all the facts and assess the situation in its correct context. We have spoken before of the reasons for the wheat explosion. This has occurred because of new strains of wheat that have been developed. Likewise, there is a great surplus of rice because of two new varieties that have been developed.

Perhaps one of the great problems of primary industry has been this great fall in wool prices. Today most wheat farmers arc also sheep farmers. Because quotas and increased costs were adversely affecting their profitability, they found that wool was a very good asset in the production of their overall net income. So the fall in wool prices has affected the mixed wheat- wool grower. But it has done more than this. The fall in wool prices has encouraged more wool growers to come in under the umbrella of wheat stabilisation. Hence we have had, as we know, an explosion in wheat production. The droughts that have occurred earlier and which tragically are occurring today in so many parts of Australia have encouraged many wool growers to come into the area of wheat production as a short cash crop. 1 think we should look at what the Government has done over the years to assist primary industry. Last year in direct financial assistance the Government spent about $ 1.40m. Last night in his Budget speech we heard the Treasurer (Mr Bury) say that expenditure relating to rural industries is estimated to be $2 15m this year, which will be an increase of $77m. This is one area which shows clearly that the Government is currently giving direct support to primary industry.

Even if there are huge surpluses in the wheat industry, the Government last year still guaranteed the first advance of SI. 10 a bushel, and this amounted to some $440m in ail. In addition to this, when the Australian Wheat Board had a big debt on its hands through not being able to sell all its wheat, the Government completely took over the debt for the Wheat Board and the wheat industry of some $300m. Again, we look to assistance that was given in the form of compensation when the United Kingdom devalued its currency. To the present time this has amounted to Si 15m. We look lo the great amounts that the Government is spending on research to assist the various sections of primary industry. The Government is supporting primary industry through the Commonwealth Development Bank with term loan funds and farm development loan funds. Then wc have taxation concessions. We have also special depreciation rales. We have full deductibility on some capital items and the averaging of incomes for rural industry. We have the benefit of the superphosphate subsidy, the averaging of prices for petrol and many other things that the Government has done to assist primary industry. In his policy speech the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) promised that the Government would reduce the rates of probate for rural dwellers, lt has carried out that promise. Again, there has been an increase in the amount of asset value of a property that can be exempted from any type of probate whatsoever.

I think that now we should also look to another of the industries that is causing us quite some problem. I refer to the wool industry. The Government has given every encouragement to the industry organisations over the years to come forward with policies which would assist. As we saw in the Budget last night, the Government is doing a lot to assist the wool industry on a short term basis. Further than this it is looking to other areas, which I shall mention later, in which it may help on a long term basis. The Government is bringing in a one year scheme of emergency relief of a total amount of some $30m.

Before 1 turn to some of the areas where perhaps the Government will assist primary industry in the long term we should look at some of the other factors which are causing these problems in primary industry. Inflation, which greatly increases the cost of production, is one of the great problems facing primary industry today. The Government is doing its best to counter inflation. This, I think, can be clearly seen in the Budget and by Press reports on the Budget. In most instances these reports have given credit to the Treasurer for the type of Budget he brought down last night. I mentioned inflation. One of the factors that can affect inflation and the cost structure is an increase in wages. I am not one to criticise the wage earner in any way. I have the greatest of sympathy and respect for the wage earner but I want to say that the militant trade unions - unfortunately there are many of them in this country - are endeavouring the whole time to increase the wage structure at a far greater rate than the increase in the gross national product, which does encourage inflation. All of us are conscious of the fact that when this happens there will be an inflationary trend. We read that last week the Premier of New South Wales criticised suggestions - in some cases they were more than suggestions - that some trade unions were fighting for a 35-hour week. This afternoon we heard read something which I believe is worth repeating. The report state’d:

The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, declared that his organisation would strongly resist further efforts by employers and the Government to use arguments about the cost/price squeeze and its impact on farmers as a reason to hold down wage levels. Mr Hawke said he did not deny some farmers were in financial trouble, but these were almost solely small and inefficient marginal producers.

Senator Rae:

– Who said that?

Senator YOUNG:

– Mr Hawke from the ACTU. The report continued:

The cost/price squeeze argument, he said - and this is what we are here today about - amounted to little more than a plea for maintenance of a rural production structure which includes a substantial number of inefficient marginal producers without whom we would all be better off

Did any member of the Opposition stand up and criticise that statement which was made by Mr Hawke? Honourable senators opposite today in this chamber - no doubt others will follow - have been shedding crocodile tears and saying what should be done for the man on the land. But here is an opportunity for honourable senators opposite to speak to the militant trade union leaders in order to persuade them to curb this great fight for increases over and above the rate of increases of the gross national product. But honourable senators opposite will not do this. Let us consider a Press report in which Mr Whitlam, the Leader of the Opposition, is reported to have made some comments. The report stated:

Too much attention is being paid to the wishes and needs of rural areas, and too little to the needs of cities, the Deputy Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr E. G. Whitlam, said last night.

By derivation, civilised men are those who live in cities - pagans are those who live in the country.

This was the Leader of the Australian Labor Party making a statement like that. When we combine that with the remarks of Mr Hawke from the ACTU one wonders just how much sincerity there is in what the Opposition is bringing forward. I should like to comment on many other things, but because time is running short I shall refer quickly to some of the reconstruction proposals which are being seriously considered by the Government.

The Government has agreed to provide $25m over 4 years for the reconstruction of low income dairy farms. This matter was dealt with by the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) this afternoon. We were told in the Budget Speech last night that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) will be urgently examining the question of the wool industry reconstruction and reporting to the Government and that the Government recognises (hat ‘reconstruction’ includes also financial reconstruction. My comment is that I hope this will include longer term loans and, if possible, lower interest rates. It was stated that an investigation will include also the question of debt reconstruction. This will apply not only to the wool industry but also to primary industries generally. We were told that one thing the Government makes quite clear is that in any policy of reconstruction we must work in the closest possible co-operation with the industries and the people concerned. That is very important because people are important.

Another area where improvements can be made is in that of tariffs because they increase the cost factor. Another matter is probate and death duties which have a long term adverse effect in a cycle upon the rural dweller. Before the last session finished there was a debate in this place, at which time some of us spoke in favour of the abolition of probate. At that time an amendment was moved to provide an opportunity for honourable senators opposite to cross the floor, but the Labor Party did not cross the floor to support us. Here was a chance for them to support primary industry but they did not do so.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator McMANUS (Victoria) 1.8.15]- Mr Deputy President-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He is a reluctant starter.

Senator McMANUS:

– I am not a reluctant starter, but I was trying to listen to the previous speaker who was being interrupted and prevented from putting his case as he should. One fact that appears to be accepted today in regard to rural affairs in Australia is that there is a crisis. It is a crisis that has been caused because costs have been rising for the farmer and his prices have not kept pace with the rising costs. His prices are now starting to deteriorate. One can see the seriousness with which the average farmer regards the situation from the fact that farmers are adopting a form of demonstration which over the years has been completely foreign to them. I was present - Senator McClelland referred to this matter - at a meeting in Jerilderie early this year when, in one of the most fertile areas in Australia, some 2,000 farmers devoted a whole day to a meeting at which they said that many of them would not be able to carry on unless urgent remedial action were taken. That does not apply only to the fertile areas of New South Wales. The Kowree Shire on the border of Victoria and South Australia is one of the most fertile areas in the whole of Australia and yet Kowree Shire, from the point of view of farmers’ incomes, today is one of the most depressed areas in the whole of Australia.

Here we have farmers in the most fertile areas of this country forced to come together to protest against the conditions that they have to face and to call for remedial action. I am not interested in suggestions that this motion might have been brought forward for political purposes. My view is that anything that can be done to draw attention to the farmers’ situation today in a reasonable manner and in a manner which can lead to constructive discussion is worthwhile. Today we have this situation of depression among farmers in the most fertile areas and the threat of foreclosure, particularly for the small men. Store keepers in many of these areas have been on cash for months and simply say that they are unable to underwrite farmers’ debts any longer. In some country towns they will tell you that 30 or 40 shops, including some in the main street, are closing. Employment in the country areas is in such a bad state that large numbers of people previously employed in rural production are forced to go to the cities. This, 1 believe, constitutes a crisis.

What 1 fear, as one old enough to remember the last depression, is that just as the falling prices and depression in rural areas heralded depressions in this country in the 1890s and the 1930s, unless remedial action is taken we may be facing a similar sort of crisis today. The worst thing that we could do in the present circumstance would be to panic. Australia is a great country with great resources. The statistics show that per head of population we are about the fifth or sixth most prosperous nation in the world. We have the resources. Unfortunately at the moment we cannot agree on measures to be taken, but I still believe that the know-how is available. I ask: What is to be done?

In the view of my Party this problem has 3 angles. Firstly the farmers have urgent and pressing problems. They are in grave debt and are being pressed by their creditors. Some bought land when prices were rising. They are now in difficulty in paying the amounts of interest that are due. They are being pressed by the banks. Therefore we have to take remedial action on a short-term basis. The Government has taken some action in the measures which we passed last session and some promises have been made in the present

Bis ‘get, with which we will be dealing shortly. But we all realise that the action that has been taken previously and the action in the Budget will not solve the problem. Ail that it will do is plug some of the holes.

There has been public argument and disputation as to whether certain industries should be subsidised. I want to say that my Party is prepared to back subsidies on a short-term basis because we face a serious situation. When a man is drowning we do not argue whether it is worthwhile spending money on a lifebuoy to throw him. We throw him the lifebuoy. The attitude of my Party is to support the short term palliatives that are put forward even though we know that they are only palliatives and do not constitute a proper solution for the problem. We will look with sympathy upon all the propositions that are put forward. We believe that we have to keep the farmer, particularly the smaller farmer, going because the small farm, in our view, is a way of life and we are entitled to do a little bit extra in order to keep small farmers in existence.

The second thing I want to say is that if we adopt these palliatives, these short term measures, it will not really be a solution to the problem. If a person is to build a house, what does he do? He engages an expert builder and possibly an expert architect. He does not simply call a builder and say: ‘Here is Si 0,000 or S 1 5,000 or $20,000; build me a house.’ He calls him and asks him to plan the organisation. When he is satisfied, he gives the builder some money and tells him to get started. The big problem in this country today is that we face a most difficult situation through the 1970s. All sorts of things may happen. Britain is likely to enter the European Common Market. We are told that the attitude of those people in authority in Britain at the present time is, to put it bluntly, that Australia has plenty of minerals, is a prosperous country and will have to look after itself when Britain enters the Common Market. My information is that while Britain thinks it can do something for New Zealand it believes that Australia has to stand on its own feet. Let nobody suggest for one moment that that will not involve serious problems for the primary industries of this country.

Big discussions are going on about the future of the family farm and also on whether we will change our wool marketing system. The decision that will be made about wool marketing - let nobody make any error - will be a very important decision. I have had approaches from a considerable number of supporters of my Party who are engaged in the wool industry who favour the proposal for a statutory marketing authority, but I have had evidence put before me, which disturbs me, on the possible repercussions of such an authority on marketing. 1 think we all have to be very careful in this issue to make the right decision. But if we are to make the right decision surely one thing that we ought to do is to set to work, bring in the expert brains and ask them to make a study of the present situation and tell us the future of Australian rural industries during the 1970s.

At a meeting I attended at Jerilderie that proposition was put forward and I was heartily in accord with it. It was supported by Mr Pat Hills, Leader of the Labor Party in the New South Wales State Parliament. The short term remedies which I have referred to were proposed. But the farmers - and I think they were completely sensible - said that in the long term there ought to be a special survey of the whole field of rural industry in this country. At present each industry is trying to solve its own problems unilaterally. Some are claiming right to assistance in this direction, some in others. Different industries have different marketing outlooks. lt appears to me that if we are to face the 1970s we ought to have an inquiry by an expert body into possible trends here and overseas in order to determine a policy of general principles to cover Australian rural industries as far as this can possibly be done. For that purpose my Party has proposed a commission of inquiry into rural industries. This proposition has been put forward in the Senate and has been debated on 2 occasions. I regret to say that it has not met with the agreement of members of the Government or with the agreement of the Australian Labor Party, but we believe that whether they agree with it now or not this country has no alternative but to seek an expert body to conduct a complete survey of rural industries and to determine principles for the 1970s.

Senator Cant:

– Royal commissions are unpopular.

Senator McMANUS:

– The honourable senator says that royal commissions are unpopular. They are not. People refer to the delays and so on but whether we call the inquiry a royal commission, a commission or a survey, we will never get anywhere and will never be able to determine principles in the whole field until we have it. The Democratic Labor Party will persist in its demand that such an inquiry bc set on foot to prepare Australian rural industry for the serious problems of the future. Finally, let me say that this is not just an Australian matter; it is a world matter. All over the world there are problems between primary producers and governments. In France the other day the chicken farmers parcelled up their chickens and posted the whole lot to the Minister for Agriculture. This matter has to be dealt with world wide. I hope that we take action through the United Nations bodies and others to deal with the question of credit and capital on a world basis because fundamentally we have to solve these problems not just in Australia but on a world basis.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– No-one denies that at the present time primary industries are facing a crisis because of a cost-price squeeze and, in the case of many primary producers in Queensland, a serious drought position. I notice that the matter raised by the Opposition refers to the urgent need for the reconstruction of the rural economy, including a constructive national drought policy. I have not heard one word of the policy or the plan that the Opposition has put forward in regard to drought. The Opposition has just said that it wants to have a drought policy.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator did not listen to the Minister for Air. The Minister told him the policy of the Labor Party.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I was not talking about the Minister, I was talking about the matter of public importance raised by the Opposition in which it referred to a drought policy. It contains not one word as to how this policy should be implemented, taking into consideration the fact that the States have the prime respon sibility in drought matters. Obviously there are 2 reasons for not stating a policy. Either the Opposition does not have a plan or it is happy with the way the Government is conducting its drought policy.

Senator Poyser:

– Are you happy with it?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Yes, I am happy with it on a federal basis. We have 10 years of drought in Queensland. I am right in the middle of a drought area so I know what is happening. The individual must be the basis of any effective drought policy because all areas differ. There are different methods of feeding stock in different places. Transport problems come into it. To have any organised Canberra or capital city control over a drought policy would be disastrous. After all the States are most important in any drought policy. They control the land policy, the transport policy and practically everything which is concerned with fodder marketing and so on. My State of Queensland has been the most affected by drought and the Federal Government has done a remarkable job in granting to the Queensland Government everything it has asked for. Over the last 2 or 3 years, Federal assistance amounts to about $32m. In the Budget which was brought down last night provision has been made for a further SI 2m to be granted to Queensland before the normal summer rains arrive. The position will be reviewed after that.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have no more worries if it has done everything you asked.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Members of the Opposition when talking about a drought policy, imply that the Government has done nothing. The most important point is the individual approach to this problem. The Government must provide the machinery for the individual to operate. Important legislation which has come down in the last few years in respect of drought mitigation has provided taxation deductions for the purchase of fodder in the year in which it is purchased and not in the year in which it is used. That is most important for those people in remote areas who cannot economically grow their own fodder. Recently the drought bond scheme has been introduced. In the area in which f live which is arid and prone to drought, with erratic seasons, incomes are erratic and the drought bond scheme is still the greatest help these people have had. They can put money aside in good seasons and not be faced with heavy taxation. They can use that money later in the way they see fit. Maybe there is a market for sheep or cattle somewhere else. They can transport those cattle or sheep and sell them. If there is no market and if the drought is widespread, they might have to feed their stock. This would depend on the time of the year and the situation they are in. They can use that money as they see fit.

The Federal Government subsidies on transport have been most important to Queensland because of the vast distances involved. The subsidy has enabled people not only to transport their stock to agistment areas many hundreds of miles away and bring them back for a reasonable cost, but also they have been able, where possible, to sell their sheep at markets in New South Wales and other States. Those who feel it is necessary and are in a position to do so have been able to bring back fodder to feed their stock. Once people have suffered drought without an income - as we have in Queensland for years - there has to be some sort of assistance for reconstruction. At the moment the Federal Government is in the process of negotiating with the Queensland Government. Last night the Queensland Premier was here putting forward the final points for a gigantic rescue scheme of reconstruction for the Queensland industry. These are positive things. These are not the things that are bandied around for political reasons by members of the Opposition. It amuses me when members of the Opposition get up and say the Government has done nothing for primary industries. I will read a few figures of what has been done. These are interesting. Because my time is limited I will mention just a few industries. Since 1961-62 for the wheat industry the Government has provided SI 55m and also a loan of $250m for the 1968-69 crop. For dairying S544m has been provided in subsidies up to June 1969 and another $140m has been provided for loans. If we go to the wool industry we see that in the last Budget $29m per annum was provided for research and promotion, plus the S30m which has already been talked about.

I wonder how honourable senators opposite can say the Government has done nothing, the inference being, of course, that if they were the government they would do everything. The only way that can be done is to spend many thousands of millions more. How could they go to their supporters in the capital cities and say. ‘The Government has done nothing for the farmers. We are going to do so much more.’ After all the money has to come from the taxpayers. If honourable senators opposite are going to provide this money it has lo come from somewhere and it is going to come from the taxpayers. Honourable senators opposite say they are concerned for primary industries when it is convenient for them to say so. It is convenient to say it now but I challenge them to come out in the Senate election and say what they are going to do for the primary industries. They should tell us what money they are going to provide. They should say it in the capital cities and tell the people where they will get the money. It has to come from the taxpayers in one way or another.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Cancel the Fill contract.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– You would cancel all our defence contracts. But that is another problem; that is another issue altogether. 1 will return to the drought problem and give a few more figures if some Queensland honourable senators are not satisfied with what the Federal Government has done for the drought situation in Queensland. The Federal Government has given $l6.5m in loans since this drought commenced, $16. 5m for freight rebates and over $8.5m to shires to preserve employment in those towns which are hard hit. In the last allocation nearly $1.5m was given for subsidy on shire rates. This is a considerable sum of money when one takes into account the extra $12m which has been allowed in this Budget. Of course when we get back to the economics of the rural industries, one of the big problems - this is concerned with the wool industry in Queensland - has been the living area concept. Most of the people troubled in Queensland today are those on properties which were cut up and where closer settlement took place during the wool boom periods of the 50s. I think it was a tragedy.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Senator Maunsell, who has just spoken, said that the Australian Labor Party had no plan for the drought. I do not propose to dwell on the drought very much. His Party and the party with which it is joined in government voted against an Australian Labor Party amendment which would have allowed wheat to be sold out of silos at prices sufficiently economic for wool growers to be able to feed their sheep. The Australian Country Party and the Liberal Party voted against that amendment as also did the Australian Democratic Labor Party. 1 am rather surprised that Senator Young should attack the workers’ wages and hours. Senator McClelland said earlier that primary producers and the industrial workers of Australia are married, each of them dependent on the other for their prosperity. Because of the way the Government runs the economy of this country, prices are allowed to escalate at the whim of anyone who wants to put goods on the shelf and workers will have to have higher wages. They are entitled to work shorter hours for the arduous task they do.

Senator Young mentioned that last year the Government provided assistance of about §140m to the rural industries and that in the Budget introduced last night it is proposed to increase that assistance to $2 15m. I appreciate that subsidies have been paid and all sorts of financial assistance have been made available for rural industries out of the public purse over the years. Nevertheless, those methods have helped the people in the rural industries to get only deeper into the mire. They have not touched upon their basic problems. Handing out a few quid to block up a hole as it appears does not solve any of the problems of primary industries. I am not opposed to assistance to woolgrowers who are in difficulty. Sir William Gunn has referred to assistance for about 40,000 woolgrowers with an annual income of less than $2,000 and I agree that they need assistance. But that is not the answer to the problems of the wool industry. Anyone who considers handing out moneys from the public purse to support industries that require a basic examination and real solutions to their problems is just kidding himself and the Australian people. Worst of all, he is kidding the people on the land.

As the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) pointed out, the primary industries that are in difficult circumstances require urgent action to be taken now. But where is the long term policy that should be adopted by the Government to help at least to cure some of the ills of the rural industries? I have here a copy of today’s edition of the ‘West Australian’ and 1 will quote from it, particularly for the benefit of Senator Drake-Brockman. Under the headline Many farms now worse off than in drought’, the article states:

Some parts of Western Australia’s agricultural areas are reported to be in a worse position now than they were during last year’s widespread drought. Pastures are dying, crops are willing and some farmers face the coming summer with empty dams.

Western Australia has a coalition Government of the same political complexion as that in the Federal Parliament. What has happened in Western Australia? After examining where the difficulties lie in the rural industries, the Western Australian Agriculture Department is planning an investigation into the position of farmers in the affected areas. Senator Drake-Brockman quoted what Mr Hawke had had to say and led the people of Australia who were listening to him - his speech was broadcast - to believe that Mr Hawke is the leader of the Labor Party. Mr Hawke is the leader of the industrial section of the Labor Party. He is the man who has to see that the workers get justice in their wages and conditions. The Minister went further and quoted what Mr Whitlam had said in 1965. It is a pretty weak case that must be supported by going back that far.

I want to draw to the attention of Senator Drake-Brockman what was said some years earlier. In 1962 Senator Drake-Brockman was a senator but he did not enter into the debate on the Wool Tax Bill which took place in that year. Senator O’Byrne said in that debate:

The wool classing profession, despite its importance, has not been developed as it should have been, because of the circumstances in which the classing takes place . . . The influences in the haphazard method of selling our wool, which have been referred to without any recommendations being made, are of very great importance.

I had this to say:

In my opinion, organised marketing is a much more urgent matter at this stage because we are able to sell all the wool that we produce . . . The Australian Wool Bureau could consider with advantage the method of handling wool, and in particular, the method of classing wool. All honourable senators know that activities in the shearing sheds today are on a hit and miss basis. Different classers have different methods even though they may have come from the same school … We are perhaps the only great trading nation in the world which is bound in such a way, and which has to accept the dictates of the shipping lines in relation to freight rates. As I have said, we pay freight on the 40% of matter which is exported with our wool. We should be developing a system of exporting only clean wool, which has many advantages over the existing system. Apart from the freight aspect, one such advantage is that if the wool is scoured, a more uniform grade of wool will go on the selling floor. . . There is no question that the cost of this classing, or rather reclassing will fall upon the grower. There will be another middleman who will make profit out of the industry. . . . What we should be doing is endeavouring by all means available to us to increase by means other than promotion the return to the grower.

Senator Kennelly said:

Let us hope that within the 12 months in which this Bill will operate, the Country Party will take the lead for the people in the wool industry, and will have a little bit of courage.

Those statements were made in this Parliament 9 years ago and illustrate the concern that the Australian Labor Party had for the wool industry then. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has already admitted in another place that he knew of the difficulties that were arising for the rural industries 5 years ago. What has the Country Party done? Where is its long term plan? It does not have one and does not know how to get one. All that members of the Country Party can think of is to grab some more of Consolidated Revenue. They are members of the highest paid lobbying group in Australia and they are paid by the Australian taxpayer. If that provides consolation to the rural industries or to the Country Party, they should be 3shamed of it. Money can be taken under false pretences, and that is what members of the Country Party have been doing. They have been taking money out of Consolidated Revenue as a lobbying group. That money has been taken under false pretences because the rural industries have not really been assisted in any way by the Country Party.

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

– Brockman said that falling prices and rising costs are common to other countries. He said that Canada, the United States and the Common Market countries are in much the same position. But: some of those countries exercise control over the price structure. In Australia the Government does not do anything to try to control prices. It lets people put up their prices whenever they like. Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd recently raised the price of its steel by 3i%, despite an increase in its annual profit to about $60m. No supporter of the Government would try to control that company.

The Commonwealth Government has made a deal with the Esso-BHP group for Bass Strait oil at $2.06 a barrel. That oil costs about 50c a barrel to produce. This deal helps to increase the cost of production in industry. In Western Australia BHP can haul iron ore from the Southern Cross district for $3 a ton, but the cost of hauling wool a similar distance from the selling market to Fremantle is $16 a ton. What is the Country Party doing to try to rationalise all these things? Nothing. What is it doing about trying to rationalise freight rates? We chartered a couple of ships and decided that the Australian National Line would enter the overseas shipping trade. But the first thing it did was to join the shipping consortium; so it is bound by its decisions and has to charge the same freight rates.

What about the 12±% increase in freight rates from Europe to Australia? Many of the products used by the rural industries are imported. Is anything being done about that? What is the outcome of the proposed increase of 4% on the freight rates for wool on the northern run? What is the Government doing about that? The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) ran around talking about using the restrictive trade practices legislation but no more has been heard about that. So it goes on. What does the Country Party do? It governs by proxy. It dare not move until the primary industries tell it what they want. I invite supporters of the Country Party to go to the wool industry and ask the people in it what they want today. A chance is never taken by the Government to give a lead. It is the duty of the Government to give a lead to the people when they are in distress, but it does not attempt to do so.

What has been done about handling charges? I questioned Senator DrakeBrockman just before the last parliamentary recess, when were we debating a Wool Bill, on wool villages and the assets of the Australian Wool Board. I have since ascertained that all the property that the Australian Wool Board owns is valued at about SI 5m and that it expects that the wool village to be built just outside Sydney will cost S21m. All this money will have to come out of the wool growers’ pockets. They will have to pay for it eventually.

What is the Government doing about marketing? I do not wish to denigrate the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen). I think he drives a hard bargain. When there is a small crises we send him overseas to try to make arrangements with other countries. But where is the continuity of the promotion of wool? Is the continuity of the promotion of wool the putting of 3 small bales of wool on a boat for Sir Francis Chichester to sail it around the world, with Australia paying for the trip as a wool promotion gimmick? ls that the kind of promotion that the Government is making on behalf of the wool growers? If that is what the Country Party, the Australian Wool Board and the Wool Secretariat think is promotion it is time they had another look at the situation because that will not sell any wool. A country needs marketing people operating throughout the world all the time.

What is the Government doing about low cost money to try to assist these people? I agree with what the Minister for Air said. A lot of these people could not borrow that much if they wanted to, but a lot of people have the ability to borrow if they wanted to. The money is too dear for them to be able to borrow it. What is the Government, doing about making low cost money available to them on a long term basis? Does the Government do anything at all about it? Of course it does nothing about it. What is the Government doing about a reorganisation of the Tariff Board. This is one of the things that the Minister for Trade and Industry has fostered over the years in an endeavour to encourage and direct the urban vote towards the Country Party. The workers live in urban areas. The Minister set out to encourage that vote and direct it towards the Country Party. He was not concerned about the cost price spiral.

The Tariff Board is supposed to be an independent board of review. Any board that has terms of reference can be directed by those terms of reference. In the majority of cases the terms of reference are set up to get the answer the Minister wants. This is the kind of activity that the Country Party has carried on. The activities of the Minister for Trade and Industry in relation to the Tariff Board have encouraged the cost price spiral. This has been detrimental not only to the rural industries but also to the interests of the workers because every time there is an increase in the costs of goods that means a little more money comes out of the pockets of the men who cannot afford it.

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

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– Senator 0’Byrne opened this debate by referring to the hopeless situation facing the Australian primary producers, which he alleged has been brought about by Government policy. He did not enlarge on this point. I challenge Senator 0’Byrne and say that he does not understand the problem facing the primary industries. The problem is not a purely Australian one. It is a worldwide one which is facing the primary producers in every developed and underdeveloped country of the world and to which no-one has found the answer. The matter is not just one of rises in costs. The real problem is a fall in prices, which is worldwide. According to the International Monetary Fund, over the years only 2 developed countries in the world have been more successful than Australia in containing costs. They are the United States of America and Canada. Australia is not far behind cither of those countries. Those countries have problems facing primary producers. One of the problems is that the prices of primary products have fallen throughout the world because no-one is prepared to pay those prices yet the price of all other products has risen. This is a simple fact of economic life.

Senator O’Byrne chided honourable senators on this side and asked how many of us had seen droughts, stock sales and wool sales today. In looking round at my colleagues, I see Senator Maunsell, who has spoken in the debate and who has experienced 10 years of drought on his property. Not one member of the Opposition has experienced, as a property owner, a drought. Many of us on this side have spent a lifetime in the primary industries. We have much money invested in these industries and still retain a close and active interest in them. I am one of these people. Today my wool is in store waiting to be sold. I have seen wool sales, stock sales and droughts. Not one member of the Opposition knows anything about primary industries. Not one member of the Opposition has been a genuine primary producer in his life. Honourable senators who are trying to interject remind me of the unpleasant character Dickens portrayed - Uriah Heep, who wrung his hands and shed crocodile tears of sympathy for the suffering. They know nothing about primary industries. They have never been primary producers. Today they raised this matter which, I think, is a problem. We know it is a problem because we are in the industries. We know first hand that there is a grave problem.

I come back to the Labor Party and to its policies. We have heard strong criticism of the Government for not being able to contain costs. 1 ask the Labor Party: What is its policy? For years its policy which its members have followed has been the breaking up of. economic units for closer settlement - to form uneconomic units. History has shown that the Labor Party has broken up economic properties to develop as uneconomic properties. These have been aggregated again into economic units and the Labor Party, in the pursuit of its policy of closer settlement, has broken them up again.

The second point that I make concerns working hours. 1 challenge representatives of the Labor Party to rise and say where it stands in relation to the claim of the Australian Workers Union and others for a 35-hour week in the pastoral industry. Do members of the Labor Party agree to loading this industry with further costs arising from the granting of a 35-hour week? Do they agree with that policy? If they agree with it, I challenge them to rise and say that they agree with it. Do they agree with the policy of the AWU, which could not obtain from the courts a 40-hour week, which has ordered its members to work a 40-hour week only and which has threatened to declare black any property owner who does not abide by the AWU decision?

Senator Mulvihill:

– If we had the chance, we would state where we stand.

Senator SIM:

– I challenge the honourable senator to rise and say where he stands on this. He is supposed to be sympathetic towards primary industries. The AWU has threatened to declare black any property owner who does not abide by the AWU decision - not a court decision - that its members will work a 40-hour week only. What costs of overtime are being loaded on to the cost structure of the rural industries which are suffering such problems today. If the honourable senator agrees with the AWU, he should have the courage to rise and say that he agrees. If the honourable senator does not agree with the AWU that this is loading the primary industries with further costs, he should rise and say that he has no sympathy for the primary producers in this respect.

Senator Mulvihill:

– We do not blame the primary producers. We blame the shipping companies.

Senator SIM:

– Senator Mulvihill will have his chance to say what he wishes to say on this issue. I do not think he will rise and say it. A couple of years ago, in a wages case, our friend Mr Hawke submitted to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that it should disregard the plight of the primary producers when fixing wages in the industry. He said words to the effect that the cost price squeeze in rural industries was not the problem of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission but was the responsibility of the Government. He had no regard for the responsibility of the Government to make up any loss. My colleague Senator Young, who is also a primary producer, quoted the statement made on 19th February by Mr Hawke. I ask members of the Opposition whether they agree with his statement.

Senator Milliner:

– Yes.

Senator SIM:

– Then stand up and say that you agree with it so that every primary producer in Australia may know. I ask: Do you agree with what Mr Whitlam said in 1965? It is of no use Senator Cant saying that this happened a long time ago because he quoted what my friend the Minister for Air (Senator Drake- Brock man) said in 1961. On 21st August 1965 Mr Whitlam said that too much attention was being paid to the wishes and needs of rural areas. I ask members of the Labor Party sitting opposite whether in 1965 they agreed with what Mr Whitlam said? If they did not agree with him I ask: Did they stand up and say so? The Moratorium people today carry stupid placards bearing the words ‘silence means consent’. If honourable senators opposite support the Moratorium and if they adopt that slogan then their silence at that time means that they agreed with Mr Whitlam that too much attention was being paid to the rural industries. If too much attention was being paid in 1965 to rural industries, what are the crocodile tears about today?

In the past L have had the support of Senator O’Byrne on the question of tariffs. Senator Cant raised the matter of tariffs in this debate. However, in the last debate on tariffs, which was held just before the end of the last session, there was the strongest criticism from members of the Labor Party. That criticism was led by Dr J. F. Cairns, the Labour Party’s trade expert in the other place. He attacked the Tariff Board because it recommended lower tariffs on textiles. The Government accepted that recommendation. Let members of the Labor Party stand up and say where they stand on the question of protection. At the same time, Mr Acting Deputy President, they were crying that the attitude expressed by you and me in this place had suddenly changed. Senator Cant raised this question today.

I want to come back to a few facts of life. If we are to understand the problems of Australia’s rural industries today we have to understand the historical basis on which those industries were built. They were built upon the basis that their production was oriented towards the need to provide cheap food for the United Kingdom and Europe. This was the role filled by Australian primary industries for many years. Our production was oriented towards the needs of Europe and the United Kingdom. The fact is that this situation has changed. Europe today is self-sufficient in many of the products which we formerly exported to that area. Today Europe exports dairy products, of which there is a huge surplus building up. Europe exports soft wheat. Europe is becoming an exporter of sugar and may possibly have achieved this status. In the past Europe relied on Australia as one of the countries which provided the bulk of its needs. This was the experience of our primary industries in the past but the situation today is that we have to reorient our production to the needs of the modern world. In doing so we have to become market oriented and not production oriented, it would be complete and utter folly for Australia to continue producing commodities for which there is no world demand. That is the situation we face. At one time we could sell all our dairy products but we cannot do so today.

Another factor is that the United Kingdom is likely to enter the European Economic Community. If and when that happens the dairy products market in the United Kingdom will be lost to us. At one time we could sell all our wheat but today there is a surplus in the world’s markets. This is not the fault of the Australian Government; it is a fact of economic life because of a change in production, economic and agricultural policies adopted in other countries. There has been this craze - I believe it is a craze - for economic selfsufficiency. At one time we had a big market in Europe and the United Kingdom for sugar but today that market is failing and eventually it will be lost to us.

These are facts of economic life. The situation is that we have to adjust our production to the markets available. We have to switch to the production of commodities required by other countries. This is a traumatic experience which Australian primary industries have to go through. It is not unique to Australia; it is happening in other countries. We have to adopt policies to meet these changing conditions and unfortunately some people will be hurt. Our policies have to be aimed at seeing that our primary producers are hurt as little as possible and that they are assisted to change from one form of production to another or, if necessary, to leave the industry concerned. I believe that these are facts of life.

This brings me to the question of what is an economic unit. Some people use the expression ‘small farmer’. I do not use it because I believe it is incorrect. Many farmers with small holdings are efficient and run economic properties. You cannot define an economic unit in a precise way. However there are many uneconomic farmers. Many of them are uneconomic not through their own fault but because of mistaken Government policies which the Labor Party has always fostered. Farmers have been placed on areas which in view of changing conditions are uneconomic. Governments always seem to follow this policy. Only recently I visited Kununurra with my friend and colleague Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. The same kind of situation has come about in that area. The size of the properties is about 600 acres. They have pickers costing $27,000 which will quite easily handle 500 acres in one year but because of the size of the properties their use is limited to about 300 acres. They have other equipment which will handle 500 or 600 acres but again their use is limited because of the size of their properties. Governments never seem to learn about such situations and always seem to work on minimum areas. The Labor Party is probably the worst offender in this respect.

Senator Mulvihill:

– How did we win Riverina and Dawson? They are rural areas. Did we win them by a confidence trick?

Senator SIM:

– Senator Mulvihill is chattering about the Riverina and so on. He will have the opportunity to announce his Party’s policy and to answer thc question I raised about charges and hours. Let us see where he stands on those matters.

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

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– 1 rise to support the urgency motion moved by Senator O’Byrne. Firstly I wish to indicate that I accept without reservation the challenge issued by Senator Sim to declare myself in support of the workers in rural industry. I support them without equivocation and I will always support them. I want to throw down a similar challenge. The name of Mr Bob Hawke has been mentioned in this chamber this evening by no less distinguished persons than the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman), Senator Young and Senator Sim. I challenge them to invite Mr Bob Hawke to their respective States and to debate with him any subject affecting the Australian community that they choose. Are there any takers? I think not.

Senator Webster:

– lt would be interest ing to hear what you have to say on rural representation.

Senator MILLINER:

– The honourable senator’s representation for the farmers and the Country Party consists of suggesting that we ban everything connected with margarine. His colleagues here do not support him so he is one man out. The honourable senator will bring about the downfall of his beloved Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, by advocating such a policy. It nearly brought about the downfall of the Queensland Government. So, the honourable senator had better go and apologise to his colleague instead of trying to take up my time on this matter. lt has been said that drought, depressed overseas markets and the cost-price squeeze are responsible for the parlous condition in which primary industry finds itself today. We could concede that those are some of the ingredients. But what has the Government done to try to overcome these problems? Let me take the matter of drought - the first one I mentioned. 1 have here an article that appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail’ on 1st August 1969. The heading reads: “State’s “pressing needs” given snub by PM’. The article states:

The Premier (Mr Bjelke-Petersen) told the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) yesterday that the Stale had three pressing needs - drought aid, a new super-powerhouse and a new water conservation scheme.

Do honourable senators know where that meeting took place? It was in a motel room. The Prime Minister did not have sufficient time to go to the Premier’s office to discuss these issues which were most important to Queensland. That article will be tabled for the convenience of honourable senators, if necessary. In the same article a statement by one of the Government’s beloved people, Mr Peter Bell, was reported as follows:

The United Graziers Association President (Mr C. B. Peter Bell) yesterday described as a bitter disappointment Mr Gorton’s reported reluctance to accede to Queensland’s request for increased drought aid.

Apparently he is in the same category as the other people whose names have been taken in vain tonight by members of the Government parties. Let them challenge Mr Peter Bell as to the Government’s sincerity in the allocation of drought aid. Let me give one further instance. An article in today’s ‘Courier-Mail* carries the heading Drought Move is not Enough’ and states:

Graziers in the Maranoa shires of Bungil, Waroo, Balonne and Waggamba have threatened non-payment of rates unless they receive remissions by 1 1th September.

If the graziers carry out their threat, the four local authorities will loose hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So, the graziers are complaining. But when we bring on an urgency motion of this nature we are accused of employing cheap political tricks. I suggest that honourable senators opposite go and accuse their colleagues of employing cheap political tricks because they are saying exactly what we are saying.

It has been said that the Government has plans for the future. I have before me an answer to a question on notice which was presented in this chamber today. The question asked not by one of the Australian Labor Party senators but by one of the Government senators. He asked:

  1. Has an appraisal been made of the detrimental effects on our dairy, meat, dried and canned fruits and other primary industries, in the event of United Kingdom entry to the European Economic Community.
  2. What steps are being taken to safeguard our rural export interests in the United Kingdom in such circumstances.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson presented the following reply:

  1. lt is not possible to assess accurately the implications that U.K. membership of the European Economic Community will have for Australia’s primary industries until the terms of Britain’s entry are known. The negotiations on the United Kingdom’s application to join the E.E.C. are due to begin on 30th June.
  2. The Minister for Trade and Industry has recently left for Europe to personally assess the situation and to bring the position in relation to Australia’s export interests to the attention of the British Government and to the authorities of the European Economic Community.

There is not one word in that answer to suggest what the Government’s plans are. Surely sufficient notice has been given of the more than likely entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community. But there are no plans. What plans has the Government had for drought relief? lt is true that it has given some subsidies. Bui that is not curing the cause; that is dealing with the effects. What has it clone in providing water conservation? Its efforts in that direction have been pathetic, to say the least. The Minister for Air maydisagree with that statement. He may say to me: ‘You are prejudiced’. Of course I am prejudiced. So let us take the word of an independent voice. I refer to the Rockhampton ‘Morning Bulletin’, which is regarded by Liberals in that area as their Bible. On Friday, 11th August 1967. that newspaper said:

Only the political purblind in Central Queensland can fail lo see the sense in the newly announced Australian Labor Party policy on northern development, for it contains much that all political interests throughout the region have been seeking for many years. The proposed programme was announced by the member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) - who represents in that electorate a majority of members of the Country Party - and is clearly his brainchild. For bis work and his advocacy he deserves the fullest praise.

The basis of the ALP policy is the retention of the Snowy Mountains Authority for investigation, design and construction of power and water projects. This has been sought from the Federal Government, with increasing urgency, by Queensland’s Stale Government.

Again it has been snubbed by the Federal Government. They have taken a motel room in which to have a talk about something. The newspaper continued: ll has not got very far, and the Authority’s dis.bandment. as a construction group, has already been foreshadowed.

We know now that it was more than an indication. The newspaper continued:

ALI’ policy envisages the use of the Snowy Authority in the development of river systems in the Fitzroy, Burnett, Pioneer and Herbert systems, and for the steady development of other water resources in the State’s pastoral areas. 1 ask Senator Maunsell to remember what this newspaper said: lt also lays great stress on the need for urgent supplementary programmes to give central and northern regions of Queensland the chance to attract industry, and touches on a tentative scheme of taxation relief to offer industry further financial reasons for breaking out into the provinces.

This is, of course, a policy by a party not in power, and must be reviewed in that light, lt is nevertheless thoroughly welcome, since it is the most solid support northern development has yet been given by any parly, in power or out of it.

This Government was in power at the time. The newspaper continued: ll is bound to spur the Government into going at least part of (he way towards matching it, for such a clear-cut northern development policy cannot be ignored. To do so would be to court disaster in this region

Before this, there had been no real policy issuing from Canberra relating to balanced development of the Australian tropics. The recommendations of the Stanford Report, on the total development of Australia, had been largely ignored. and so far ss central and northern Queensland were concerned development was a matter of unrelated, piecemeal handouts.

That describes precisely what the Government is doing in 1970. It is giving unrelated, piecemeal handouts. It is not tackling the cause of the problem; it is tackling only the effects. Until such time as the Government gels down to these very things and tackles the cause we will continue to experience the same difficulty and provide subsidies here, subsidies there, subsidies everywhere, and not cure anything. That is the problem that is with us today. Do not accept my word for what I am saying. I am using the authorities that members of the Government parties would own. In the 7 o’clock news broadcast tonight a gentleman named Mr K. H. Black was reported as speaking for farmers and wool growers and saying that the Government, by its Budget proposals so far as primary producers were concerned, had signed our death warrants. He said that the Government had failed to stabilise costs. I will touch on that matter shortly. Sir Henry Bolte followed and he was most critical of the Budget. He said that he is a country boy and he looks after the interests of country people.

Honourable senators opposite try to attribute the blame for the cost-price squeeze to the workers. They could implement a policy lo overcome this cost-price squeeze problem, but they have not the courage to do so. All honourable senators opposite have to do is what Mr Bob Hawke has asked them to do, that is to introduce a system of price control. But the people who look after their interests, who provide money with which to fight election campaigns, may be affected by such a policy, and as a consequence honourable senators opposite will not introduce the policy. Notwithstanding the fact that primary industry could be down on its knees begging for some help in this direction, honourable senators opposite have not the courage to implement a policy to overcome the cost-price squeeze. I do not know whether it is their conviction, but most certainly they have not the moral courage to introduce price control. If they talk to some of their supporters and to business people in the community they will be told that price control has to be introduced. There must be price control on essential commodities so that we can overcome the difficult position in which not only primary industry but also other sections of industry are placed today.

Let me deal with the position of country people. No-one has a higher regard for country people than I and a number of honourable senators on this side of the chamber have. I have spent nearly as much time in country areas as any honourable senator - except those honourable senators who live in country areas. I repeat that I have tremendous admiration for country people. Notwithstanding the drought conditions in Queensland today, country people cheerfully battle on. They are smiling but they cannot afford to smile. At the end of each day they say. ‘Well, that is one more day over and one day closer to rain.’ But rain does not come, and because of the policies enunciated by members of the Australian Country Party the day of salvation for these people will never come.

Now I turn to the workers and to members of the business community in these country areas. If honourable senators go to these areas they will find that these people are most despondent, and quite rightly so. Shops are closing in little country areas and workers are leaving the areas. In a little town called Blackall - and I refer to that town because Senator Maunsell would know it very well - one can walk down the main street-

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

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I have listened to this discussion with a lot of interest. I listened to Senator Milliner with a lot of interest. The proposal we are discussing has been put forward as an urgency motion. Of course, I have no quarrel with that al all. The Opposition is entitled to bring this matter forward as an urgency motion, because it refers to a problem of urgency. But the point is that it has been a problem of urgency for the past decade or longer. For years honourable senators in this place - Senator Wright was one of them - and men throughout Australia have been warning the people as to what must eventually happen unless something was done to halt the spiral of wages chasing prices, ever onwards and upwards. They warned that unless something was done to halt the spiral, eventually the primary producer’s profit margin would get less and less until it ultimately disappeared and that when it did disappear there would be real trouble. That is the present position. That is what is wrong today. The whole situation has caught up with the primary producer until his profit margin has gone.

Senator Milliner referred to price control. He said that this Government did not have the moral courage to embark upon a policy of price control. I think I am quite correct when 1 say that the Government has no constitutional authority so to do. Of course, I do not approve of price control. I am one of those people who believe that, wherever price control has been tried, in the main it has only aggravated the position which it has set out to heal. I recall to mind that in the time of Chifly or Curtin - I forget which - a question concerning power to implement price control was placed before the Australian people and they very substantially rejected the proposition to vest the necessary power in the Commonwealth Government. So it is sheer nonsense to talk about getting down to the root cause of the trouble by this Government instituting a policy of price control. The Government would be aiming to do something for which there is no constitutional authority.

During this debute we have heard Opposition senators castigated from this side of the chamber. I do not bracket them all in the one category. We have heard Mr Hawke’s name mentioned. When 1 criticise Mr Hawke for some of the statements he has made 1 am in very good company because 2 or 3 months ago Mr Hawke made a statement on primary industry which so offended the susceptibility of Dr Patterson, the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Primary Industry in the House of Representatives, that Dr Patterson forcefully took Mr Hawke to task for making the statement. Dr Patterson said:

I reject the forceful conclusions of Mr Hawke that the cost-price squeeze amounts to little more than a plea for maintenance of a rural production structure which includes a substantial number of inefficient marginal producers.

Mr Hawke attempted to establish that the cost-price squeeze is grossly over-rated as a farm problem. He seemed to regard il as just a whinge by inefficient farmers.

I say without any hesitation that I come down on the side of Dr Patterson in this regard. Various methods to alleviate the problem have been suggested. 1 believe that whatever is done eventually will be nullified; it will be counted out unless something is done to halt this spiral of wages chasing prices which 1 believe is gathering momentum and which I believe is one of the causes - not the sole cause - of the predicament in which the primary producer finds himself.

The motion refers to the urgent need for the reconstruction of the rural economy. How do we do that? How do we achieve it? To put it in simple words, we would achieve it if we could give to the primary producer a return commensurate with his cost of production and with his cost of living. I do not know how we could achieve that in all the circumstances that exist today, because it has been pointed out by Senator Sim that this is a world-wide problem and that our traditional markets have either been drastically reduced or have disappeared.

There is an urge the world over for self sufficiency in the production of foodstuffs, and the upsurge in primary production the world over has had its repercussions in this country until we have reached the position where nearly everything we produce is in glut supply. Beef is an exception. How do we attempt to obviate this? These conditions have caused people who were forecasting a terrific food problem in the world by the end of this century to revise their estimates and to come down with the conclusion that the food production potential of the world has hardly been scratched and that it could support a much greater population than at present. Now people come along and suggest temporary measures. A lot of them are small in themselves and do not provide all the answers by a long way.

I come down on the side of the farmers organisations in Tasmania when they say that the position of the Collins Street farmers whom they talk about should be looked at. These people are in a wonderful position because of owning some business or other, and to get rid of some of their surplus and to take advantage of the income tax concessions that are available to primary producers they purchase a farm. I believe, and I have always said, thai a very keen look should be taken at the importation of primary producers at this time, whether they are imported under an agreement or not. This is a matter of urgency and I believe that it is more urgent than ever that the primary producer should have complete predominance in his own local market.

It is good to see that the Government is providing concessions to help overcome the indebtedness of primary producers. I was interested to note in a reply to a question asked by Senator Byrne that this same proposition was in operation in all the States some years ago. According to the reply that was furnished to Senator Byrne the legislation provided that the Commonwealth could make grants to the States up to a total of $24m. When the Act was suspended in 1943 advances totalling nearly SI 6m had been made in debt adjustments through the agency of the States. I have said many times that the man who is established and owns his own property has a good chance of survival for a time. If the position worsens he will, of course, be threatened but the farmer who has a substantial interest bill to meet is in an impossible position. I say that without any hesitation. Therefore I look upon it as a matter of urgency that the Government should press on to something on the lines I have just mentioned to try to relieve the burden of interest that has to be met by some of these people who are not so well established.

Senator Byrne:

– There are very substantial amounts in this fund in Queensland and Victoria.

Senator LILLICO:

– I know that there is a substantial amount in those funds in the States.

Senator Byrne:

– It is about $1.5m.

Senator LILLICO:

– Yes, there are several million dollars which have not been expended. Whether it would be a proposition still to expend that amount of money in the present circumstances I do not know; but. be that as it may, it is good to see that the Commonwealth is investigating the position. It is sincerely hoped that some relief will be given, especially to those people who have interest bills to meet, because it seems to me that their position must be infinitely worse than the position of the established man. I believe that the position will worsen unless something is done to halt continually rising costs. In his dissertation, the Treasurer (Mr Bury) said:

It is a major fact of experience that average wage and salary earnings have for long been rising faster than productivity and that, in the past year or so, the gap between the two has widened. Over the 10 years to 1968-69 weekly earnings rose at an annual average rate of 5.4%. Productivity in that decade rose by about 2.5% per year. There was thus an average gap of something just under 3%. The average annual rate of increase in consumer prices in that period was 2.4%.

So we have reached the position over a decade where wages and profits - which, in many cases in my view, are too great - have been rising at a rate faster than that of productivity. There is a gap of 3%. It seems to be perfectly obvious that that gap must be bridged by the person who cannot pass it on, that is, the primary producer.

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

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– It was certainly refreshing to hear from Senator Lillico that he was not entirely satisfied with Government policy.

Senator Lillico:

– I did not say that.

Senator WILKINSON:

– The honourable senator inferred from what he said that more ought to be done, and I would say that if more needs to be done a person is not satisfied with the situation he finds. As I say, this is refreshing. I think this is very important. I want to make only a few remarks in this debate. I draw to the attention of the Senate in the first place the fact that we are not debating Australian Labor Party policy. We are debating an urgency proposal which, in the terms put forward by Senator O’Byrne, states:

The urgent need for the reconstruction of the rural economy including a constructive national drought policy.

That means it is directed at the Government. It is important to realise that the Government is taking palliative steps to remedy situations as it finds them from moment to moment. There is not a long term policy. Senator Sim criticised the Opposition and said that we had not anybody who has ever been a farmer or who has had experience as a farmer. Perhaps it would be legitimate for me to put on the line, although Senator Sim is not here, that during the depression years from 1930-38 I was a dairy farmer with no other source of income. At that time 1 was receiving 6id per lb for butterfat and about 6d a lb for wool from the sheep I was running. I know what the situation is like as a farmer. From that time until now I have without interruption owned a farm. So do not let it be said that no one on this side of the chamber knows anything about farming.

It is important to recall that about 5 years ago the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) made the statement that primary industry was in for a very serious period and that we ought to take cognisance of that fact. He said this not only in Parliament but also throughout the country, and he repeated it only recently in Western Australia. About 10 years ago the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) pointed out that we could not continue to pay subsidies on butter because this was an uneconomic way of running an industry. That was 10 years ago, yet the Government continues to produce short term policies to deal with something which is a long term necessity. It is a long term policy that we need. This can be achieved only if we do some planning and if we do some proper thinking on a long term basis in order to meet the situation that we find.

My next remarks I put forward not as a solution but as an illustration of what I mean. A fortnight ago I was in Sweden. I spent a fortnight of the time 1 was there in looking into the co-operative movement and in looking into the port of Gothenburg which, with its roll on and roll off facilities, is one of the best container ports in the world. 1 looked also at primary industry and 1 was extremely interested in some of the things 1 found which were in line with our problems in this country. I think we should appreciate that their problems are within the European community. They have the opportunity to sell their produce inside the European community, an opportunity which we would not have. Even so, some years ago they appreciated that there was nothing in primary industry for the farmer and realised that they had to look very seriously at the situation. Having done so they have been courageous enough to start phasing out primary industry. That docs not mean that they have wiped out primary industry; they have started phasing it out. Dairying is at an extremely low level. Sheep and wool are at an extremely low level. They produce wheat, oats and barley. I saw that growing, but they do not produce a very great amount. Yet until recently theirs was an agricultural community.

In place of agriculture they are now engaged in regional development and starting industries in the country. 1 ask honourable senators to consider the sorts of things that they are doing. We are installing cross bar telephone equipment in all our exchanges throughout Australia and where are we getting it from? Ericcson’s in Sweden. They are looking outside their own country to see what products of secondary industry the world is prepared to take. One of their biggest industries is the SKF ball bearing industry. Another large industry which has been going on ever since 1 was in the engineering business when I started out some 35 years ago is producing ASEA motors and generating equipment. This is one of the big industries in Europe and it is the sort of industry that they are developing in Sweden. They are taking the problem of primary industry, looking at it realistically and courageously, and curing it, or going a long way towards it.

One of the problems they face is the farmer who wants to remain on his land. We have a similar problem in Australia. They are not going to push the farmer off his land, and in Australia I do not think we should do so either. We should look at the idea of regional development and. in doing so, I think we can learn a lot from countries like Sweden. That is an affluent country. They have high wages. Senator Lillico told us that one of the problems that we have in Australia is that wages and costs are spiralling and he said that we must try to curtail this spiral. But this is not the point. The point is that wages in Sweden are going up. They are enjoying high wages and they are not complaining. It is an affluent country and they are doing all right. 1 believe that this is the son of thing that we can consider for Australia. But this is not being done by the Government, lt is looking only at short term palliatives in order to meet the situation which arises from time to time. There is no doubt in my mind that we have to be carefully analysing the situation wherever we can. There is some merit in the motion proposed by the Democratic Labor Party, but there are other things at which we should be looking. We do not agree that a Royal Commission is a proper way to meet the situation. I believe that this matter which has been raised as a matter of urgency is important and that it is a matter on which we should have a decision. Therefore I move:

That the question now be put.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 94

REPORTS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

  1. Mail Exchange Building at Adelaide, South Australia;
  2. National Standards Laboratories, Bradfield Park, New South Wales;
  3. Development of Freight Aprons, Taxiways, Runway Extension and Engineering Services at Melbourne Airport.

page 94

REGULATION AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I present the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, it being a report on the amendments of the Public Service Regulations contained in Statutory Rules 1970 No. 42.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 94

DISPLAY OF MOON ROCK

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I desire to inform the Senate that with the concurrence of the Presiding Officers - Mr President and Mr Speaker - it is proposed to display in Kings Hall, Parliament House, for the week from 25th August to 1st September, an Apollo 11 moon rock sample. This sample of moon rock was brought back to earth by the astronauts - Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins - and I am certain will be of great interest to all parliamentarians and visitors to the national Parliament.

I should inform the Senate that the moon rock sample will also be displayed in Hobart, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth and is currently being displayed in Brisbane. It was on display at the Geological and Mining Museum in Sydney from Friday, 7th August, for 1 week and attracted tremendous interest.

page 94

COMMONWEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMME FOR 1970-71

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - I wish to provide the Senate with some further details of the Government’s education programme for 1970-71, as outlined by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech. In total the programme amounts to an estimated expenditure of $312,357,000 which is a 25% increase on the expenditure of $249,453,000 during 1969-70. This increase in Commonwealth expenditure on education results from the introduction of new measures as well as from the development of programmes which are already in operation.

Teacher Education

This Budget murks the commencement of further assistance to the States for the construction of teacher colleges. Over the 3 year period to June 1973 §30m in the form of unmatched grants will be provided by the Commonwealth. This is an increase of $6m over that which was made available during the past triennium. An amount of Slim has been allocated to this programme in 1970-71. It is expected that the funds made available during the first stage of the programme will provide 5,500 teacher training places with a further 6,000 places becoming available as a result of the grants during the triennium now commencing.

Whilst these funds are for construction and extension of State teachers colleges, at least 10% of the places attributable to the expenditure of these grants will be made available to students not bonded to State Education Departments. The arrangement, therefore, ensures that places are available to students who may wish to teach in nongovernment schools. I would like to provide the Senate with some details of the projects which will benefit from this extension of the grant. New South Wales proposes to use the funds to complete Stage II of William Balmain, Newcastle and Goulburn teacher colleges. In Victoria, in addition to extending a number of existing colleges, the new La Trobe College will be commenced. In other States the projects will include the commencement of Stage II of Mount Gravatt College in Queensland, the construction of Murray Park College in South Australia, and of Churchland Teachers College in Western Australia. In Tasmania the Launceston Teachers College will be completed.

The programme forms only part of the Government’s policy to improve the size and quality of the teaching force. Honourable senators will recall that the Commonwealth is now supporting teacher education in colleges of advanced education in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. Furthermore, over 40% of Government teacher trainees are in universities for which the Commonwealth shares fully both capital and recurrent expenditure. Expected sharp increases in primary enrolments from 1975 onwards, together with the increasing retention rate in secondary schools and the continued steady reduction in the pupil-teacher ratios create a pressing need to increase substantially the number of places available to educate teachers for both government and non-government schools. The Government’s policy in teacher education will make a significant contribution towards meeting this need. In addition to supporting teacher education at the primary and secondary levels, the Government is, of course, making grants for the erection of pre-school teachers colleges.

J have already referred to Government support for teacher training in colleges of advanced education. Teacher education at the Canberra College of Advanced Education begins in February 1971. The present plan is for an intake of approximately 100 students in a 3-year course of preparation for pre-school and primary teachers and a somewhat smaller number of university graduates to follow a 1-year course leading to a diploma of education which would prepare them for teaching in secondary schools. As a further measure to meet the demand for trained teachers, the Government is establishing, for an initial period of 5 years, a programme of scholarships to encourage students to enter teacher education courses at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. These will be unbonded awards. The recipients will be free to make up their minds at the conclusion of their course as to where they will teach and whether they will teach in government or non-government schools. In addition to payment of fees, the scholarships will provide, subject to a means test, living allowances at the same rate as for Commonwealth advanced education scholarships. A sum of $50,000 has been included in the 1970-71 Budget for this purpose. These various aspects of the Government’s policy in teacher education clearly show our preparedness to join with the States in producing an increasing supply of highly qualified teachers.

Scholarships

Since the introduction of the Commonwealth scholarship scheme in 1951 the Government has pursued a policy of providing financial assistance for able students to further their studies. Its programme of student assistance has grown and diversified with the development of the Australian educational pattern; this year 27,150 new awards were available under 5 main scholarship schemes. These schemes cover a wide variety of courses at universities, colleges of advanced education and technical colleges The courses being taken by scholars range from the final years of secondary schooling to research studies leading to postgraduate degrees. The total number of students receiving assistance under these schemes in 1970 is 61,000 and scholarships expenditure in the last financial year was in excess of $32m.

The Government regularly reviews the adequacy of its scholarship schemes both in terms of the number of awards available and the scales of benefits provided. An increasing proportion of the appropriate age group is completing secondary schooling and proceeding to tertiary studies and scholarships available have for some years been increased in almost every Budget. The number of students holding Commonwealth university scholarships has risen by 50% from 20,570 in 1966 to 30,510 in 1970. Nevertheless, as I have mentioned, there is an increasing proportion of secondary school students obtaining matriculation qualifications. The continuing high standard nf competition among these students for open entrance awards has made it apparent that there are many applicants of high quality at this level who merit assistance. To meet this demand the Government has decided to provide a further 1,000 open entrance university scholarships for 1971, bringing the total number of these awards to 8,500. Taking into account the 4,000 later year awards also available, new Commonwealth university scholarships available in 1971 will now total 12,500. In addition, of course, the Government will be providing 2,500 new advanced education scholarships in 1971.

Over the years the Government has also had regard to the level of benefits payable under the 2 tertiary schemes - both for scholars at universities and at colleges of advanced education. Under these 2 schemes all compulsory tuition and other statutory fees are paid on behalf of each scholar. In addition, a living allowance is payable subject to a means test. At present the maximum rates of living allowance are $620 a year for scholars living at home and $1,000 a year for scholars living away from home. The Government has received representations that a further increase in benefits is desirable, and has studied a detailed report on this matter prepared by the National Union of Australian Univer- sity Students. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) expects to be able to make an announcement on this matter before the end of this year. The growth in university enrolments at the undergraduate level has increased the number qualifying for the desiring to proceed to postgraduate training in research. The Government recognises the value of these studies in providing a flow of highly qualified personnel into academic careers and into positions of responsibility in industry and to meet the need has established a Commonwealth postgraduate scholarship scheme. To date more than 3,800 students have received assistance under this scheme and at 30th June this year there were 1,730 holders of these awards. The Government has decided to increase by 50, to 700, the number of awards available in 1971 under the Commonwealth postgraduate awards scheme.

Within recent years there has been an important new development in universities not only in Australia but in Britain and New Zealand in the form of the provision of high level specialised courses related directly to the needs of industry, commerce and government. These courses are at postgraduate level and generally lead to a Master’s degree; they arc normally of 1 year’s duration, although in some cases they extend over 2 years. They cover a wide range of fields, such as applied science, engineering, education, business administration, hospital administration, building science, architecture and economics. The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee has proposed that the Commonwealth provide assistance for students taking these courses. The Government agrees that this is now the appropriate time to give additional encouragement to students to take these courses.

The Government has therefore decided to establish a scheme of postgraduate awards for students undertaking full-time study leading to a Master’s degree by course work. In 1971, 100 of these new awards will be available. They will be tenable at Australian universities and the benefits payable each year to holders of these awards will be the same as those now provided under the existing Commonwealth postgraduate awards scheme. Students will hold the awards for the duration of the courses which they enter, normally from 1 to 2 years. It has also been decided that the number of awards available each year under this new scheme may be increased to 125 in 1972 following the establishment of a national school of business administration. I will be saying something of the proposed school of business administration later.

The benefits at present payable to holders of Commonwealth postgraduate awards comprise a living allowance at the rate of S2.350 per annum and, where appropriate, a dependants’ allowance at the rate of $450 per annum and contributions towards the cost of thesis preparation, travel between cities and settling into new accommodation. As with university and advanced education scholarships the Minister for Education and Science hopes to be able to make an announcement on allowances before the end of the ear. Taken together, changes in the scholarship schemes are estimated to cost $ 1.69m in the financial year 1970-71 and S3. 13m in the full year 1971. The total expenditure on the Commonwealth scholarships schemes is expected to rise from $32.21m in 1969-70 to an estimated $37.39m in 1970-71 and $39.45m for the full year 1971. When the effect of the new measures are fully operative, the total cost of the schemes is expected to approach $50m per annum.

Territorial Education

This financial year schools and technical colleges in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory will together receive almost $30m. This expenditure is necessary to meet the need arising from a rapid expansion of enrolments. In 1969 enrolments in government primary and secondary schools in the Australian Capital Territory were 50% above those for 1965, while the comparable increase for the Northern Territory was 60%. These rates of increase are well above that for Government schools in the 6 States which rose by 14% over the period.

Honourable senators will be aware of the decision of the South Australian Government to withdraw, over a period of 5 years, from the staffing of Northern Territory schools. We hope to be in a position later in the year to outline to Parliament the steps we believe are necessary for the Commonwealth to take as a result of this decision. We are working closely with the South Australian authorities to ensure that the interests of pupils and teachers are safeguarded.

The Government is conscious of the need to provide for a wider range of educational facilities in the Northern Territory and with this in mind it has accepted the recommendations contained in the first report of the planning committee which was established last year to advise the Government on the development of a community college in Darwin. I believe that the college will provide great assistance to developing industries in the Northern Territory and will also enable the technical and professional knowledge of Territory workers to be regularly updated. Significant expenditure on the College will not be incurred in this financial year, but as honourable senators realise, the development of the College has substantial implications for the future financing of education in the Northern Territory.

Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education

The proposed Commonwealth expenditure during the financial year on universities and colleges of advanced education reflects its support for the continued expansion of tertiary education facilities. Grants to colleges of advanced education are expected to total almost $40m, which is more than 75% above the figure for 1969-70, while those to universities will total approximately $11 Om, as compared with just under $94m during the past financial year. With respect to the colleges, a significant development for which funds will be provided in the current financial year is the provision of residential accommodation at institutions in country areas. We are supporting the construction of these facilities at colleges in Toowoomba and Rockhampton in Queensland, Wagga and Bathurst in New South Wales, Bendigo and Ballarat in Victoria, the Roseworthy Agricultural College in South Australia and at the Kalgoorlie School of Mines in Western Australia. Residential accommodation will also be provided at the new Agricultural College at Orange in New South Wales, which will be commenced during this financial year. This provision will enable colleges in country areas to be viable institutions and serve regions rather than particular cities.

I would like to take this opportunity to mention briefly the recent inquiry into the future provision of postgraduate education in business management and administration in Australia. The report of the Committee which undertook this inquiry has recently been made public. Among the Committee’s recommendations was the establishment of one national school of the highest quality. The Committee considered that it would be unwise at this juncture to attempt to establish more than one national school because of the scarcity of first class teaching staff and the heavy capital and recurrent costs involved. It recommended that this national school be placed in the University of New South Wales. It proposes that the school should aim at a 2-year full time course producing approximately 70 Master of Business Administration graduates annually and should conduct annually two or three executive programmes of 8 to 10 weeks duration. The school should also conduct a small Ph.D. programme and maintain a significant output of research. The Commonwealth accepts the Committee’s recommendations in principle and is proceeding to discussions with industry and with the New South Wales Government and the University of New South Wales, concerning the establishment of a National Graduate School of Business Administration.

Other Developments

During the autumn session I gave the Senate details of the new Commonwealth assistance for education research. Under the programme support will be given for research projects, for the communication and application of research findings and towards measures for the training of research personnel. This will be the first year of the new scheme and a sum of $250,000 has been included in the Budget for this purpose. This will also be the first full year of the new Commonwealth measure for assisting the education of migrant children. Honourable senators will recall that details of the scheme were announced early this year by the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch). Under it, assistance will be given in meeting the salary costs of teachers employed to teach migrant children in special classes and the necessary supervisory staff; special teaching courses for teachers in the method of teaching English as a foreign language; the provision of approved capital equipment of the language laboratory type for special classes; and, the provision of suitable teaching and learning materials. The estimated expenditure on the child migrant education programme during this financial year is $ 1.64m out of an estimated expenditure of $4m on migrant education generally.

Nation-wide Survey of Education Needs

It will be recalled that the Australian Education Council, which comprises the 6 State Ministers for Education, has, during the past year been involved in a survey of educational needs over the next 5 years. Independent schools have also been involved. The Commonwealth has cooperated in the survey, in particular in respect of the future educational needs of the 2 Territories.

The results of the survey of needs of government schools were discussed at a special meeting of the Australian Education Council which the Minister for Education and Science attended in late May. The Ministers agreed to submit the findings of the survey to their respective governments.

The States’ needs in education formed a part of the Premiers’ Conference and Loan Council discussions and reference was made to the survey. As a result of the new agreement for financial assistance grants from the Commonwealth, the States will receive almost $800m more during the next 5 years than would have been provided under the previous agreement. These additional funds will greatly improve the capacity of the States to meet their responsibilities in the field of education. The Commonwealth is prepared to discuss the information disclosed by the survey of government schools and teachers’ colleges against the background of the intentions of the States themselves. These talks would be most appropriately at the Prime MinisterPremier level. Consideration requires to be given also to the needs of the independent schools, which are being assessed separately, and for which detailed material is not yet available. As to the publication of a report of the survey, I understand that the State Ministers are to meet on Friday of this week to discuss this matter and it is expected that a report will be released shortly after that.

Total Commonwealth Expenditure on Education

Details of Commonwealth expenditure oh education from ‘ 1966-1967 to 1970-1971 are set out in a table which, with the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– by leave - I wish to make a short statement on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). Education is in a state of crisis and the Budget has done nothing to meet pressing and urgent needs in many areas. For instance, studies have shown that there is a sharp increase in the retention rates; that is, the number of 16 year olds staying on will increase by 50% between now and 1975. This will make even more critical the teacher shortage. Teaching is a low status profession and large numbers of young people are refusing to enter it because of the shocking conditions, The major problems will arise, according to experts, in the senior forms of secondary schools because of the serious lack of trained teachers. This is rapidly getting worse and the proportion of teachers with tertiary qualifications is falling throughout Australia. In one State, Queensland, it is as low as 23% and even the best State in this regard, South Australia, has only 45% of teachers with tertiary qualifications. The sharply rising retention rate will greatly emphasise the lack of qualified teachers. This is also the most expensive area, with pupils in senior forms costing about twice as much to teach as primary level pupils.

The Government is not recognising any of these pressing problems and its spokesmen still talk, in terms of class sizes instead of recognising the problem in terms of age groups. In New South Wales the Government recently offered 12,000 scholarships, but because of the depressed conditions of teaching less than 5,000 have been taken up by teacher trainees. It has been estimated that over the next 5 years Australia will need 25,000 to 30,000 more teachers. Where will they come from while these conditions persist? In Victoria, 4-day school weeks for secondary classes are under active consideration because of lack of teachers. Commonwealth aid, in the form of science grants, is being wasted because schools lack facilities to house the equipment sent blindly to the schools. Imported science teaching aids are being stored in sheds. The States are so starved of funds that the proportion of State budgets going to education is now levelling off which is a scandalous position. It is estimated that only 29% of the total revenues available to the New South Wales Government goes to educa tion. The only thing to do to meet the crisis is for the Federal Government to intervene and finance the States in a crash, programme for buildings, facilities and teacher training.

Australia spends only 4.4% of its gross national product on education - one of the lowest percentages anywhere in the Western world. This is a national disgrace and the minor concessions to education in this Budget will have practically no effect at all in meeting the massive problems confronting this country in education.

page 101

QUESTION

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I ask leave to make a statement relating to Notice of Motion No. 2.

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

Senator DEVITT:

– On 21st May this year, when I gave notice of motion for the disallowance of the amendments to the Military Financial Regulations contained in Statutory Rules 1970 No. 46, I stated that I was giving notice in order that the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances may have time to pursue further investigation into provisions of these regulations which were causing concern to members of the Committee. Since that date the Committee has discussed these points of concern with officers of the Department concerned and, to overcome the Committee’s objections, the regulations have been amended by Statutory Rules 1970 No. 102. In view of this, I now withdraw Notice of Motion No. 2 Business of the Senate, standing in my name.

page 101

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is it the desire of the Senate to rearrange the business?

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

– At this point of time I do not want to rearrange the business. I propose to do that when we meet tomorrow morning. I should like to make an explanation, by leave, in relation to this matter.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Is there any objection? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– It is intended to attempt to take off the business paper certain Government items which have been caught up by effluxion of time and to make a more realistic business paper. Before I do that, I think it would be proper for me to have discussions with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair). Tomorrow morning I propose to remove from the business paper some items which, quite clearly, are no longer relevant because certain things have happened since the original ministerial statements were made.

Senator Byrne:

– Would the Minister care to indicate them now by number?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– No. But I certainly will give them to the honourable senator’s leader and to Senator Murphy. Some honourable senators might have some views on the suggested removal of certain items. Someone might want to speak on them, even if briefly. I am not being arbitrary about it. I simply want to tidy up the business paper by mutual consent. Tomorrow we meet at 11 a.m. After 8 p.m. tomorrow is General Business. If it is the will of the Senate to proceed to General Business after 8 p.m. tomorrow the Government parties and I certainly would have no objection to it. It will be a question of proceeding on the business paper or rearranging it if desired. I think the first one is in the name of Senator Byrne. Perhaps he may wish the Senate to consider this matter. On the other hand if it is not thought appropriate to deal with genera] business after 8 p.m. tomorrow the Senate could rise late tomorrow afternoon. It is not proposed that the Senate sit on Friday.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– by leave - Senator Byrne interjected while the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) was speaking about the notice paper. I would remind Senator Byrne that this action is taken from time to time. I think the Leader of the Government will follow the general procedure and confer with party leaders who in turn will confer with members of their parties. If any honourable senator desires to move any of the notices on the notice paper, there will be no problem.

We can look into this matter between now and 11 a.m. tomorrow. As for the remainder of what the Leader of the Government said, we will have to see what happens tomorrow.

page 102

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I move:

I have a subsequent motion to move in relation to Notice of Motion No. 3. In the absence of and at the request of Senator Wood I move:

I ask leave to make a statement relating to this postponement.

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

Senator DEVITT:

– In relation to the postponement of Notice of Motion No. 1, I would like to inform the Senate that a report relating to the regulations concerned has been tabled in the Senate. I have requested this postponement in order that honourable senators may have an opportunity of studying the report before considering the motion. In relation to the postponement of Notice of Motion No. 3, I would like to explain to the Senate that following discussions between members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and officers of the department concerned, amendments to the regulations concerned have been prepared and have been submitted to the Executive Council for approval. Those amendments overcome the objections of the Committee. In order to allow these amendments to be promulgated I am now asking for this postponement. Perhaps I should add briefly that so far as the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is concerned, in relation to Notice of Motion No. 3 it appears to the Committee that its requirements about the regulations will be met. The terms of the information submitted to the Executive Council will meet the wishes of the Committee. I understand it is a machinery matter which will eventually come through by way of gazettal and will be tabled in the normal course of events.

Senator Byrne:

– What happened about Notice of Motion No. 2?

Senator DEVITT:

– The wishes of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee about these regulations have been met and I have asked for it to be withdrawn.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - The question is:

That consideration of Notice of Motion No. J be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The question now is:

That Notice of Motion No. 3 be postponed until 27th August.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 103

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

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

[10.35]- I move:

This is a machinery motion following upon a prior resolution of the Senate. I take it there is no need for lengthy debate about the estimates committees. With the very good offices of the Senate staff I have worked out certain proposals relating to meetings of the estimates committees. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter and the Government Printer have said that it would not be possible for more than 3 of these estimates committees to be sitting at any one time unless their staffs were increased. Three committees could be sitting concurrently. A timetable would have to be arranged so that when 1 committee cut out another could sit. What I have worked out has no bearing on the notice of motion 1 have moved, which is merely a mechanical proposal. The timetable has been carefully examined in relation to possible hours of sitting. I propose later to circulate copies of these proposed hours to party leaders. This timetable is not arbitrary and may be subject to criticism and alteration. We will be confronted with this problem of time not only with these committees but also with the standing committees. The Senate will be faced with a critical period during which we will see how these procedures will work. The Government parties believe they will work and I believe they will work. 1 feel sure that the Opposition will give every support to see that the committees function.

The Senate is breaking into a new field. A high degree of co-operation and assistance will be required in order to iron out any difficulties that may confront us. At this point of time I do not want to speak at great length. I believe that every honourable senator understands the principle behind the formation of estimates committees. The idea is to do the work in the committee room in a more relaxed way. The Minister and officers concerned will be able to give information. The proceedings will bc recorded in the daily Hansard and will be open just as they are here in the Senate. I imagine that this system will lend itself to more supplementary questions. In the past when dealing with the estimates honourable senators have asked questions and then have received answers about which they may have wanted to make further inquiries. The workings of the estimates committee will make for an easier obtaining of information. When the committees report back to the Senate perhaps the Estimates debate which will ensue will tend to be concentrated on particular items rather than as has happened in the past when honourable senators have sought information about a series of minor matters. This has taken up time which perhaps could have been used more effectively. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) may wish to make a comment. If anything arises, I will be happy to respond. I believe that these estimates committees need to be put into operation. This is a challenge to us all. I believe that we will meet it and that this will help parliamentary process and the practice of the Senate.

Senator Willesee:

– You mean to have three sittings simultaneously.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Yes, three of the five.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

(10.41] - The Senate has already agreed to the proposition to set up the estimates committees. The machinery provisions proposed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) seem to me to be sensible. I cannot find any objection to them. We are prepared to accept them.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I speak on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. We support the motion. It seems to provide for proper representation as between the existing political groups in the Senate and also for any possible development in the political distribution in this chamber. We hope that, with the co-operation of all concerned, this committee system, which is a tremendous pioneering project in the operation of the Senate and parliamentary government in this country, will operate successfully. I make only one comment. We are living in a state of experimentation. First of all, we are making an experiment with the sitting hours of the Senate. Consideration is already being given to whether we should sit for 2 consecutive weeks. This proposal has to be fitted into that programme and into other programmes. Therefore, I believe that a good deal of understanding, goodwill and reciprocal sacrifies will be necessary if this system is to be operated successfully. I believe that every effort will be made by honourable senators to see that it works effectively. This is a challenge to the Senate and to senators. I am sure that both will meet the challenge effectively.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 104

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES

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

[10.44] - I move:

It will be recalled that the circumstances in the case of the standing committees were rather different from those in the case of the estimates committees. Originally we had 2 motions for the appointment of standing committees. The motion in the name of Senator Murphy was carried by the Senate. Subsequently he moved a procedural or consequential motion to which Senator Byrne moved an amendment. Finally, divisions were taken and both Senator Murphy’s motion and Senator Byrne’s amendment failed to pass, the votes being 23 all in each case. So, we are in a situation in which no consequential motion has been passed or moved.

Therefore, I have presumed to prepare a consequential motion and to move it tonight in the hope that we will be able to resolve the matter and proceed to the establishment of standing committees. This again will be an historic departure from the traditional procedures of the Senate. It is designed to give the Senate a certain role in relation to the handling of matters in committee. It is proper to say that we have had quite a number of Senate select committees which have done good work. In addition to our statutory committees we have a number of Senate select committees currently operating. Because of this and having regard to our capacity to make this new technique function successfully and to the vital need to get it off the ground in such a way that it is a success and does not fail because we have not done enough hard work in the preparation of it, the motion is framed in the way it is. Somebody once said that time spent in reconnaissance was time well spent. We have spent a lot of time in reconnaissance on this matter.

For those reasons I have moved, in paragraph (1) of the motion, that the actual establishment of the total number 3f committees, including the appointment of senators to the various committees, be done over a period of not less than 12 months, but that initially the Senate appoint only 2 of the committees. I have chosen 2 of the 7 committees that were nominated originally in Senator Murphy’s motion. Paragraph (2) of my motion therefore reads:

The two such Committees selected for first establishment shall be - the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare; and the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade.

Then, those 2 committees, having been established by procedures much the same as those for the estimates committees in relation to members and the responsibility of leaders to appoint them, will report to the President who in turn will report to the Senate by the commencement of the 1971 parliamentary sittings as to their operation. It is presumed that the other 5 committees would then be appointed, and away we would go on the work of thenation in the committee sense. It is proper to say that by doing it this way we have a. chance to move into this procedure with a. degree of caution that we would not be able to exercise if we established all 7 committees immediately or at the one time.

The other paragraphs of the motion areprocedural, although perhaps I should, point out that there are provisions to deal. with 2 aspects of the operation of standing committees. When we are dealing with a Bill and it is felt, in the wisdom of the Senate, that it should be referred to one of the standing committees, that will be done under standing order 1 96a, which is already in our Standing Orders. So there is no difficulty about that. But when the matter to be referred to a standing committee is not a Bill - it may be a ministerial statement, a document that has been tabled or some other piece of information which has been published and which the Senate wants to refer to a standing committee - the machinery provided in my motion is for it to be done after notice. Paragraph (11) provides protection in that, notice having been given, the matter must come on and have priority on the next day of sitting, so that it can never be said that the Government or some group in the Senate is seeking to kill a notice of motion simply by not bringing it on.

There is 1 other point that I feel bound to make clear. Paragraph (11) gives precedence to notices for references to committees. However, if such a motion was not disposed of 2 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the Semite, the debate would be interrupted under standing order 127. Then the resumption of the debate would not have precedence subsequently; it would be an order of the day in the usual way. I know that that tends to weaken what I have said about setting out to put in a safety valve. I have discovered that because of standing order 127 the safety valve perhaps is not as strong as it should be. It refers to a period of 2 hours from the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate. If question time went for an hour and a half, we would be in difficulty. But I am perfectly willing to find some form of words that will knock that difficulty out of the way so that the position can be quite clear and positive.

Senator Willesee:

– We could amend the Standing Orders.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

We could use that method. Acting in good faith, I want to make it clear that it is not intended that that provision should be allowed to stand in the way. We would want to have it quite clearly written into the procedure, that if an honourable senator gives notice that tomorrow he will move that something should be referred to a committee, that resolution will in fact be brought on and dealt with in the normal way. I know that Senator Murphy has a view on this matter and perhaps Senator Byrne, who has been acting on behalf of his Leader in this matter, may want to say something. I suggest that, even if we were to sit a little past 11 o’clock in order to finalise this matter, it would be better to dispose of it tonight. That is all I will say at this point. I will wait to see what is said in the debate.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– This is not quite the same as the last matter we discussed. I believe that, while much of the motion is quite acceptable, some of it is not. On the last occasion when the matter was dealt with 2 motions were put forward. The Senate was deadlocked. Each motion was put forward on the basis of establishing 7 committees. The question as to whether 7 committees should be set up - whether the system should be established - was resolved clearly by the Senate on 1 1th June last. I believe that there has been a departure from the spirit of what the Senate determined on 11th June. I must say I expected that in accordance with the conventions in the Senate the will of the Senate would be obeyed and that there would not be an attempt made to depart from what was decided then, that 7 standing committees be established.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Immediately?

Senator MURPHY:

– Immediately. The proposal to establish only some committees was put up then and rejected. I realise that there have been some changes. One of the Government senators who supported us is away. A senator has been appointed to fill the Senate casual vacancy in New South Wales. Of course, at the time when the Senate was deciding these matters previously it did not do so because of any surprise move by the Opposition. The legitimate decision of the Senate then was that 7 standing committees should be established immediately. I regret that because of the changes in the voting power tonight, and presumably for a few days, the Government has decided to do this.

Senator Gair:

– Senator Little is absent and he is not paired, unlike others who are absent and are paired.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank Senator Gair.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Senator Wood’s pairing takes 2 votes away from us.

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator Wood ought not to be paired for this vote. However, if we do have a vote we will find out that the Government is taking advantage of the position tonight. All I can say in regard to that is that I regret it, and because of it in the future we will not regard this as being something which should be binding upon us. Indeed, however much we may have bowed to the conventions of the Senate in the past in regard to these important matters, I serve notice on the Government now that so far as I am concerned, if we think that any changes are desirable and we have the capacity to make them, we will do so.

Senator Wright:

– I cannot hear you.

Senator MURPHY:

– I said that I am not disposed to accept this as a proper way to approach these matters. But we cannot do anything about it so we will bow to it. 1 suggest that, because of our opposition to clauses (1) and (2) which I think depart from what the Senate decided previously, they should be put separately. Maybe there is a point that they are inconsistent with the previous decision of the Senate, but I will not pursue that matter. I will simply ask that the 2 clauses be put separately. We can put the motion without those 2 clauses, and then we can put those 2 clauses. If we are defeated, as I presume we will be, then we will be defeated. I would like the opportunity - in fact, I think I am entitled to the opportunity as a matter of right - to vote against the 2 clauses.

As to the other matter of how references will be made to the committees, I think this is a very sensible procedure. We entirely agree with it. It provides an easy, efficient and I think quite elegant method of referring matters to the committees. I am pleased to see that this clause has been included in the motion. Therefore, we support the motion with the exception of clauses (1) and (2). We oppose clauses (1) and (2). We would ask that the motion be put with he exception of clauses (1) and (2), and then that clauses (1) and (2) be put together separately from the other clauses in the motion.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The history preceding this motion which is now presented to the Senate is very well known to honourable senators. Actually, there was a motion which emanated from the Australian Democratic Labor Party regarding the limitation on the number of committees immediately to be established. The attitude of our Party was defined then, and I do not think it is necessary to redefine it. We were embarking upon a unique experiment in parliamentary government in this chamber. It was an embarkation, an exercise, which should be approached with the greatest prudence and caution. We must not forget that whatever our particular interests might be in this matter, the establishment of a host of committees will be accompanied by the expenditure of considerable amounts of public money. For this Parliament to embark immediately, as an experiment, on the establishment of 7 committees, with the attendant administrative setup and the attendant costs, may have been something that would be quite unwarranted and unjustified.

Senator Murphy makes the point ; quietly and clearly ; that he considered that his initial motion for the establishment of 7 committees had received the endorsement of the Senate and that the immediate bringing into life of 2 of them was a departure from that principle. I cannot agree with Senator Murphy’s proposition. I think that the object of this is, as distinct from Senator Murphy’s original proposition, that the principle for the establishment of 7 committees was defined in Senator Murphy’s motion. To give any of these committees life, that is to give them administrative setup, activation was subject to my proposal which is now, to some extent, embodied in the motion before the Senate. Therefore, with respect, I cannot agree with Senator Murphy. He may have his own interpretation of the meaning to be given to his own resolution. I find myself unable to agree with that.

To my way of thinking and to the thinking of our Party, it was a definition in principle with some spelling out of the number of committees. But this is activation of 2 of them. I think, as I said earlier when speaking on the establishment of the estimates committees, that the wisdom of the proposal is now becoming apparent. There are 3 propositions before the Senate. There is the proposition to alter the sitting hours generally in the Senate. That in itself is an experiment in the procedures and in the time to be occupied by this chamber. We now have the establishment of estimates committees. That again is a pioneering exercise by this chamber. We are going to grasp on to these 2 periods of experimentation. This third one is the establishment of a number of standing committees. I think that in those circumstances, apart from anything else, prudence dictates that we should embark very quietly on this in a process of gradualism. Therefore, without further ado, I support the motion. I do not see it as a departure from the spirit or the text of the resolution originally proposed by Senator Murphy and adopted by the Senate. I make the point that even though only 2 committees are to be established it will be open to any senator other than a senator appointed to any one of those committees by his Party, or any number of senators, to attend and with the consent of that committee to participate in the discussions of that committee. Therefore, in the period of experimentation all senators will have an opportunity to serve and to be identified actively with the standing committees. It will be a period of training for honourable senators.

Debate interrupted.

page 108

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 108

STANDING COMMITTEES

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– This is, in a complete sense, a suitable mode of experimentation. There will be 2 committees. This will give an opportunity for the administrative staff of the Senate to see what staff are necessary, for Hansard to see what is necessary, for the Budget costs to be estimated and to be projected into the final establishment of the totality of committees. Yet all senators will have an opportunity of participating and of learning the practice of the standing committees and the processes under which they will operate. In these circumstances I consider that the resolution before the Senate has everything to commend it and I in turn commend it to honourable senators.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– When standing committees were first suggested it appeared that there was complete unanimity of purpose and concord. I am disappointed that Senator Murphy should be unhappy about the motion that is before us. I had some misgivings about the establishment of these committees originally, but I have set those aside so that we may get the committees established in accordance with what appeared to be the general wish of the Senate. Having looked at the business of the session as prepared for us by the Clerk of the Senate, I find it difficult to understand Senator Murphy’s suggestion that the Senate had adopted his particular principle. Having read pages 15, 16 and 17 of the booklet prepared by the Clerk, which are those to which Senator Murphy referred, I find that it was Senator Murphy’s motion which was negatived. So there was no adherence to his particular point of view. I feel that with the present committees, the constitutional committees we have, and the involvement of senators now in the estimates committees and standing committees, senators who are not involved in official work of the Senate - such as Ministers, leaders of the Opposition Parties and the Whips - will not be moving to take part in the committee work. I think therefore that senators who are already very fully involved in committee work will probably be shouldering a great deal of the burden which is apparently being decided upon generally by the leaders of the parties. However, I agree with Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s suggestion that at the present time 2 committees should be set up, and I suggest that the Senate should vote on that matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Are we now about to vote for the adoption of this motion or will we be voting, as Senator Murphy suggested, on paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and so on?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I suggest that the President might put the first 2 paragraphs. This would meet Senator Murphy’s objection. I suggest that we vote separately on the first 2 paragraphs and that if we succeed on those 2 we might carry the balance on the voices.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We are to vote on the first 2?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the wish of the Senate that I put paragraphs 1 and 2 first and then the balance of the paragraphs later?

Senator Murphy:

– I think you would have to put them separately afterwards.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– We could deal with them separately afterwards.

Senator Murphy:

– You would have to put the others first and then paragraphs 1 and 2 because the operative parts, paragraphs 1 and 2, do not mean anything by themselves.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Equally, you could not have the others taken by themselves.

Senator Murphy:

– They do stand by themselves.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– In my view they do not. Senator Murphy wants a vote on paragraphs 1 and 2. Therefore I think that in all fairness to him we should vote on those 2 paragraphs.

Senator Murphy:

– Well, if you insist on putting them first, put them first.

Question put:

That paragraphs 1 and 2 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 21

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the remainder of the motion be agreed to.

Senate adjourned at 11.12 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 August 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700819_senate_27_s45/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant