Senate
24 September 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 857

QUESTION

JORDAN

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government who represents the Prime Minister in this chamber. In view of the devastation and bloodshed in Jordan, will the Government take the initiative and indicate to the Jordanian Government its preparedness to send whatever assistance might be of value to alleviate the sufferings of innocent victims of the Middle East power game?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am sure that everybody the world over is concerned at what is happening in Jordan, but the question of what can be done by Australia is a matter of Government policy. Although it is perhaps not necessary to take the question on notice, I shall refer the matter to the Prime Minister.

page 857

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities in a position to elaborate further on my suggestion that he might consider licensing travel agents?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I am not able to offer additional information to the honourable senator, other than to assure him that the matter is under continuing consideration. As I told the Senate a few weeks ago, I specifically asked the Australian Tourist Commission for a report on the matter within a certain time. I think that will arrive in a week or two.

page 857

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Leader of the Government concerns the discussions we had recently about the question of the Opposition co-operating with the Government in respect of the order of business in the Senate. Does the Minister not think it rather illogical that he should ask the Opposition to co-operate with the Government in respect of the order of business when the Prime Minister .refuses to disclose the proposed date of the Senate election? If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to point out that nobody will be surprised about the date of the election; it will be either late in November or some time next year. The only people who will be inconvenienced will be those of us in the Senate who are expected to co-operate with the Government in these circumstances, knowing that at any time we may be given 3 weeks’ notice that an election is to be held. Legislation will be rushed through and the people of Australia will be inconvenienced because the matters which should be discussed by the Senate will not be given proper consideration.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

It is traditional and normal for the Prime Minister to announce when proposed elections are to be held and I do not see that the circumstances are any different on this occasion. This practice has continued for the whole time that elections have been held for the national Parliament. AH I would say to the honourable senator is that I am sure that the Prime Minister will announce the date of the Senate election at the appropriate time.

page 857

QUESTION

MV ‘HOWARD SMITH

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is it a fact that the Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd oil/ bulk ore ship, the MV ‘Howard Smith’ was taken to Singapore on 14th August 1970 for normal annual survey and repair work? Because this was not an emergency job and could have been performed efficiently at Brisbane does the Minister agree that it represents a by-passing of first class ship repair and docking facilities at Brisbane for Australian flag ships? Does the Minister have any power of direction in this matter especially when Australian ship repair trades are desperately seeking work?

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

– Senator Gair has addressed a question to me about the motor vessel ‘Howard Smith’ which has been taken to Singapore for normal survey and repair. I imagine that I would need to ascertain from the responsible Minister what facilities exist at Brisbane for repair and maintenance and whether or not at the relevant time they were up to capacity or below capacity. As to the powers of the Minister to direct an Australian flag ship to be repaired and maintained by Australian repair facilities I am not able to say, but .1 shall certainly find out for die honourable senator because I understand this is a matter of concern in Queensland.

page 858

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the Tariff Board report which again implied that the protection afforded secondary industry was too high and also because lack of staff had hampered the Board in conducting a systematic review of tariff needs, will the Government give urgent attention to the necessity to bring the Tariff Board up to effective strength so that a more realistic and up to date application of tariffs, in the interests of the nation, can be implemented?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I take it that the honourable senator is referring to the annual report of the Tariff Board which was put down in this place yesterday and which was put down by the Minister for Trade and Industry in the other place. To ask one at this point of time to express views about the annual report would be completely unreal. It is a very voluminous document. Very properly the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Government will examine the report. It is not possible at this time to make comments about the views expressed in the report of the Tariff Board.

page 858

QUESTION

AVIATION CHARGES

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. He has stated in this chamber that there have been 2 increases in aviation fares within the last month or 6 weeks. According to what one reads, the first increase of 6 per cent was granted on the basis of rises in wages and the second increase of 3 per cent on the basis of increased charges for aviation fuel or kerosene and the increase of 10 per cent in aviation charges at aerodromes. Will the Minister request his Department to give the Senate more particulars of those increases? I do not think it is good enough for the people of Australia to be told that they have to pay an extra 6 per cent for fares because costs have risen on account of wages. Let us have a look at the wages, at the increased fares and the increase in the number of passengers. I think the Minister should give the country the full story which prompted him to agree to the increases as requested by the internal airlines.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– That is a perfectly reasonable request and I shall most certainly accede to it. I want to mention just one or two things to the honourable senator. Late last year, towards the end of November, I read in the Press that there was to be an increase in air fares. That was the first I had heard about this. I then directed some attention to the matter and began to study the situation within the Department. At that time it was apparent that there had been no increase in air fares for 3 years and that there had been a substantial increase in the incidence of costs. The general situation was studied and when the airlines applied for an increase in fares we continued that study. The first increase in fares, as far as I am able to recollect without reference to all the departmental papers or departmental officers, was due to increased costs and increased wages granted in the Flight Officers Tribunal over a period and also late last year. The first increase did incorporate a component for what we believed would be an increase in air navigation charges. Subsequently there was a fuel tax increase and the second increase very largely carried that component. But the matter needs to be looked at, as the honourable senator suggested, in some detail on behalf of those who are interested and I shall obtain that detail for him.

page 858

QUESTION

MV ‘HOWARD SMITH

Senator GAIR:

- Mr President, all I desire to say about the question I submitted to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport is that in the light of his reply to me I am prepared to put the question on notice. Perhaps I should have done that in the first place. I have a further question to ask the same Minister but because of its length I shall put it also on notice.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I thank Senator Gair. I was not worried about its being on notice. I was merely anxious that accurate information be obtained for him, because as I said earlier it is a matter of concern to the people in Queensland who provide repair facilities for ships.

page 859

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government whether he has seen a report in the South Australian Press of a statement made by the Chairman of the Moratorium Committee in South Australia that that Committee would attempt to bring the life of the nation to a standstill in transport, factories, offices and education facilities, and that it would use such means as the occupation of city streets for a considerable length of time to achieve that purpose. What are the powers of the Commonwealth Government to prevent such anarchy and subversive actions from taking place and disrupting the every-day lives of the people?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI have not seen the statement to which the honourable senator refers. If the statement was made in the context in which he gave it to us - and I do not for one moment challenge his presentation of it - I would say it was a very wrong and improper statement to make. I think it does no credit to the organisation which made it. As to who is responsible for maintaining law and order and the conduct of the affairs of South Australia, this quite clearly comes within the responsibility of the South Australian Government. One would hope and assume that it would accept the responsibility of seeing that the laws of that State are obeyed and that no organisation, no matter what it is, should be given an opportunity to bring the city, the community and the life of a people to a standstill. In my judgment such action would, as suggested by the honourable senator, go a long way towards complete anarchy.

page 859

QUESTION

SYDNEY AIRPORT

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On 19th August, over 5 weeks ago, I asked the Minister for Civil Aviation a question about the site for a second airport for Sydney. The Minister advised me on that day that a committee had been at work on this matter for some time and he expected to have a report from that committee in his hands within a month. I now ask: Can the Minister advise how long this committee has been meeting and who are its members? Also, when will the announcement of the site for the second airport for Sydney be made?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– 1! said on 19th August that I expected that committee’s report within about 1 month. I believe it is on its way to me in final form in the bag today. It will deal with the problem of Sydney’s domestic and international air travel. It was set up to evaluate the growth rate and the facilities, to study whether there was a need for an additional airport and, if so, to say approximately when it would be needed, and to indicate a range of possible places where it might be sensible to consider locating it. This has been a very exhaustive study. The committee was set up late in 1968. It met through 1969 and has concentrated very heavily on its work since the end of last year. I think it has met on something like 21 occasions and 16 of those meetings have been held since last December. The work has been done very thoroughly, as far as I can ascrtain.

I now will have to study this report and submit it to the Government. lit would be my wish and my hope that we will be able to confer actively with the State Government on this matter because it, of course, has a vital interest in the whole problem. Having regard to all those factors I am sure the honourable senator will understand the situation. I shall certainly keep him informed as I am able to do so.

page 859

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator Douglas Scott:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the machinery which exists in New South Wales through the Rural Reconstruction Board, and the machinery which probably will be established in other States directed towards the economic restructuring of properties engaged in primary industry, will the Minister press with maximum power to have considerable moneys directed to this specific purpose from this day on?

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

– The honourable senator had expressed his interest in this matter to me and I have obtained information for him. The Rural Reconstruction Board in New South Wales has been operating since 1939, and a similar institution known as the Farmers Relief Board operated between 1933 and 1939. The honourable senator will be aware that the Minister for Primary Industry asked the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to carry out an urgent investigation of the problems of debt reconstruction and farm adjustment in the sheep industry. The Bureau can be expected also, to examine repercussions of debt reconstruction and farm adjustment in the sheep industry on other industries throughout the rural sector. As part of the investigation the Bureau certainly will be considering the kind of approach adopted by the Rural Reconstruction Board in New South Wales as well as the approach adopted by similar institutions in other States. I understand that the Minister expects that the Bureau will be furnishing him with a preliminary report at an early date and that he will report to the Government as soon as possible. Until the Government has had an opportunity to consider the Bureau’s report no statement on the Government’s future line of action can be made.

page 860

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In addressing my question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities I refer to Press statements following the receipt of the report of the Australian Tourist Commission and the comments of the Chairman of the Commission of the fact that if we were to take away the advantages gained from United States R and R travel arrangements in Australia the general advantages to the country by way of tourist earnings would not increase significantly. The Chairman also referred to other important matters including the need to advocate promotional and concessional fares and improved facilities within Australia. Finally he pointed to the fact that governments of other countries gave subsidies to promote travel. Has the Minister or the Government considered those matters, or at least come down with some positive recommendations in regard to promotional and concessional travel and subsidies along the lines granted by other governments?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am pleased that it has been understood by the honourable senator and other honourable senators that our record of travel promotion has been assisted to a large degree by the fortuitous visitation to Australia of American personnel on R and R leave. I think we all are indebted to the Commission for its report pointing out that we must not look forward to that as a continuing factor in tourist travel. With regard to the honourable senator’s reference to the cost and arrange ments for travel, I remind him that on several occasions over the last 18 months I have referred in this chamber to very purposeful consultations I have had with my colleague Senator Cotton, the Minister for Civil Aviation, and his predecessor with regard to air fares. Air travel brings about 90 per cent of our international passengers to Australia and is by far the most important item in cost of travel.

With regard to the other matter referred to - that is to say, developmental projects - I can assure the honourable senator that the matter has been before the Government at intervals of 6 months. It was before the Government twice last year; one item has been before the Government within the last 4 weeks and another item is at the stage of preparation. As the honourable senator would know, allowing time for consultations with various people, it takes 6 or 8 weeks. But these matters are receiving continuing and purposeful consideration by me and the Government.

page 860

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator LACEY:
TASMANIA

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noticed the recent article in the Melbourne ‘Age’ headed Government Acts on National Service Breaches’, in which the Minister for Labour and National Service, Mr Snedden, is reported to have stated, inter alia, that all cases of apparent default were investigated and that action had been stayed pending consideration of a civilian alternative to military service? Could it be that, since the Government, in reply to a question by me - namely, is Australia at war? - indicated that Australia is technically not at war, it is finding great difficulty in avoiding the technicalities of the Federal Constitution in forcing young men to serve in the fighting forces as though Australia was technically at war?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The whole of the backdrop to the honourable senator’s question is in the portfolio of the Minister for Labour and National Service. Whilst the Minister representing that Minister may wish to respond to it, my own view is that it relates to certain incidents associated with that portfolio. I can put it to the Minister for Labour and National Service on notice if the honourable senator would like me to; or subsequently the Minister representing that Minister may wish to respond to it.

page 861

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation indicate whether the increased competition between international airlines operating to and from Australia is likely to affect adversely the prospects of Qantas Airways Ltd continuing to operate a safe, efficient and profitable airline? If so, what steps are being taken to ensure that the Australian airline is adequately protected from an oversupply of passenger aircraft and possible consequent reduction of standards?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This is a question of quite some value. I understand that a publication that is coming out this week deals with the future problems of Qantas in maintaining its business in a viable sense. As all honourable senators appreciate, the Australian community has a huge investment in Qantas and that investment is growing very fast. Equally, I think they appreciate, as we have had earlier discussions on this matter, that a large part of that investment has been built up by Qantas retaining its earnings and running a very successful business financially, in borrowing money and paying it back. These are things which I believe the Senate should know and the Australian public, through the Senate, should know.

The problem ahead for Qantas has to be examined in the general environment of civil aviation internationally. The world’s airlines now operate more than 2,000 jet aircraft. With the highly stretched versions of contemporary aircraft and even larger capacity Boeing 747s coming into operation, as all honourable senators well know, by the mid-1970s, there will be 7,000, as contrasted with the present 2,000, jet airliners throughout the world. The capacity of the new generations of jets coming up is anything up to 3 times that of current types. Therefore, it is quite apparent to us that excess capacity problems reminiscent of the period following the introduction of jets in the early 1960s are expected to be encountered unless there is a dramatic increase in overall traffic. We will have a responsibility, and a continuing one, to try to ensure that Qantas Airways Ltd, our international carrier, in which we have a huge investment, maintains its business in a viable sense. Without support there would be no chance of it maintaining its international status. Equally, the Government has a great responsibility to ensure that nothing is done to delimit in any way the opportunities of people to travel to and from this country, to build up the tourist trade to and from this country and to encourage the flow of people to and from this country.

If one looked at Qantas as a business concern one could say that in its existence it has demonstrated marked technical and operating efficiency. It has demonstrated great courtesy and, as people have said to me, there has always been a magic about Qantas as an international airline. It has maintained high international standards. Equally, it has to live in the fare structure of the international airline operators of countries much bigger than we are, with much bigger fleets and more finance. The critical factor for the Australian people and for Qantas is for it to maintain its market share of the routes it flies and to maintain a good passenger-seat ratio. The only way to do that is for Qantas to be as efficient and as capable as it has been in the past and for it to get adequate help from the Australian community and from the Australian Government and, in airline negotiations with countries wishing to fly into this country by various routes, for the government to be watchful that the interests of Australians are being safeguarded in the fullest sense.

page 861

QUESTION

AIR VICE MARSHAL KY

Senator FITZGERALD:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As Air Vice Marshal Ky, Vice-President of South Vietnam, has been told that it is not advisable for him to visit the United States of America, is there any truth in the rumours circulating in Canberra that he is to be invited by the Australian Government to visit this country again to boost the Government’s popularity, which is diminishing as a result of its support of the war in Vietnam?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I could very quickly point out to the honourable senator that, with 5 Ministers in this Senate dealing with 26 portfolios, it is difficult enough to deal with questions of facts without going into rumours. I know nothing of the rumour. I suggest that the honourable senator should have a more authentic background for his question.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Does the Minister think it is a good thing?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI will not respond to interjections asking me for opinions. I know of no such rumour.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think the thing that should be noted about questions of that nature is that the questioner is responsible for the authenticity of information he gives. We should keep in mind always that the responsibility for the authenticity of the question comes back to the questioner.

Senator Fitzgerald:

– I asked whether there was any truth in the statement that has been circulating. I have heard it and I want to know whether there is any truth in it.

The PRESIDENT:

– That goes back to what I have just stated. The responsibility for the information given that a rumour is in circulation and for what the rumour is about is on the questioner.

page 862

QUESTION

ARMY MAKINE BASE

Senator MAUNSELL:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Now that Cairns has been selected as the site for the naval patrol base, will the Minister for the Army give consideration to establishing the proposed Army marine base in north Queensland so that this area adjacent to our northern neighbours will be effectively patrolled in future?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I understand that the Army has selected 2 possible sites for the establishment of an Army marine base. The first is on the shores of the Brisbane River and the second is at Cairns in north Queensland. At this stage the final decision as to where the base will be located has not been reached.

page 862

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator KENNELLY:

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Civil Aviation, follows on the answer he gave to Senator Rae. I find it hard to understand, if Qantas Airways Ltd is in the position described by the Minister in respect of its fleet of jet planes, how the Government came to allow a second American airline to operate its service into this country?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked quite a proper question, but if he were familiar with the facts of international airline agreements he would not be quite so mystified. There is an agreement as to airline operations between Australia and the United States of America. Australia has such agreements with many countries around the world. This gives us rights to fly into those countries, but they are reciprocal rights. The agreements give those countries rights to fly into Australia. The designation by the United States of a second air carrier to fly from the United States into Australia was perfectly within its province under the terms of its airline agreement with Australia.

page 862

QUESTION

POLICE FORCES

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of the almost Australia-wide campaign of denigration of the police forces of this country? Does he agree that the persistence in this campaign of alleged attacks on unnamed persons by unnamed policemen can result only in an unmerited loss of confidence in the police forces? Does he consider that this is the purpose which certain agitators wish to achieve? Is it a fact that individuals claiming to have been assaulted by members of police forces have an unquestioned right of action against the policemen, concerned, which is an effective remedy available to all citizens? Will the Minister consult with the Attorneys-General of the States with a view to mounting a publicity campaign exposing the dangers of general unspecified attacks on the police of this country?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am bound to say that the honourable senator has asked a very timely and appropriate question. Anybody who has read the sustained propaganda campaign of vilification and denigration of police forces over the last week cannot escape the conclusion that it is a deliberate attempt-

Senator Kennelly:

– I rise to a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Wright, there is a point of order.

Senator WRIGHT:

– to undermine the forces charged with the administration of the law.

Senator Cant:

– The Minister takes no notice of anything. He is an absolute dictator. People rise to points of order and he will not sit down. He disobeys the Chair. He does everything.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will be silent. I would like to hear Senator Kennelly’s point of order.

Senator Kennelly:

– Firstly, I think that it is purely a petty political question, but I will let that pass. Secondly, I think the question is out of order because the police, leaving out the Commonwealth police who deal with the Australian Capital Territory and other Commonwealth territories-

Senator Wright:

– The Commonwealth police were not left out.

Senator Kennelly:

– Wait a moment. In the end you will run out when the pressure is on. That has been your form over the years. I cannot see how the question can be in order when referring to the State police because they are under the jurisdiction of the respective State parliaments. Had the questioner referred only to the Commonwealth policy, the matter would have come within the ambit of this Parliament through the responsible Ministers. I suggest, Sir, with great respect, that the honourable senator has asked a muck raking question that has nothing to do with this Parliament or the Ministers in it. If the Ministers in the States want to check on or disregard the complaints of certain people about the police forces, they are quite within their rights. I would submit to you, Sir, that a question of this nature should not be permitted in this chamber. You know as well as I do, Sir, that the question could not be answered. The State police forces are the responsibility of State Ministers. It is about time questions of this nature were ruled out of order by you, Mr President.

Senator Sim:

– The honourable senator is a bit touchy.

Senator Kennelly:

– I am not a bit touchy. It does not affect me. However, 1 do not want to be a muck-raker and I do not want to see this House used for the purpose of muck-raking.

Senator Young:

– Security is more than muck-raking.

Senator Kennelly:

– Not as far as this question is concerned. The honourable senator has done nothing more than dish up muck in his question. He is noted for doing so. Mr President, I submit, with great respect to you, that questions which do not add anything to the prestige or the decency of this chamber should be ruled out of order because they do not help the people of this nation, whether they be university students, professors or anyone else. Therefore, I ask that the question be ruled out of order.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to speak to the point of order, Mr President. Senator Kennelly referred to muck-raking and attempted to support the dignity of the House. Mr President-

Senator Wheeldon:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. In relation to a question asked earlier by Senator Fitzgerald you informed him and the Senate that honourable senators must authenticate any information which they give in a question that they ask. Senator Greenwood’s question is based on the claim that there is a concerted campaign to discredit the police forces. Would the same ruling apply to Senator Greenwood? Should he not be required to authenticate his statement that a concerted campaign is being undertaken to denigrate the police forces in Australia?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not a point of order at all. I did not call upon Senator Fitzgerald to authenticate the information given in his question. I said that he had to accept responsibility for what he said, which is a different thing altogether. I1 call Senator Wright.

Senator Wright:

– I was about to say that Senator Kennelly was apparently entirely ignorant of 2 facts when he raised his point of order. Firstly, the police forces in the respective States are under a constitutional duty to preserve law and order in respect of Commonwealth as well as State laws. Secondly, the Moratorium campaign out of which the criticism of the police forces arose was a campaign directed against the policy of the Commonwealth Government in Vietnam. It is of the utmost importance to this Government that its policy in Vietnam be not subverted by people on the peace front overriding and subduing the police forces which are bound to maintain law and order in any demonstrations against Commonwealth Government policy. For these reasons, I submit that Senator Greenwood’s question is in order and that, in accordance with my responsibilities under the Federal Constitution, I have a right and an obligation to answer it.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not upheld. The Minister may answer the question.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is quite obvious that the Australian Labor Party is, almost to a man, coming to the aid of a propaganda campaign which I would say any reasonable person must accept as being a deliberate attempt to subvert and undermine the efficiency, courage and resolution of the police forces. It is cardinal to the peace, order and good government of this country that the Commonwealth police and the State police discharge fearlessly their constitutional duty to maintain order, especially in cases of public assemblies of people which are calculated to be enraged by provocateurs from the Labor Party and out of which riot and unlawful violence might occur. Senator Greenwood quite rightly and appropriately states that anybody who has a justifiable piece of evidence to show that a member of the police force improperly committed violence to a person or property has a right of action in the courts. My experience in 40 years of legal practice has been that neither judges nor juries are slow to vindicate individual rights if they have been infringed by an undue exercise of police power.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to a point of order.

Senator Kennelly:

– I want to know what the point of order is. How can a point of order be raised when at this moment no matter is before the Chair? Senator Wright answered a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I had better find out what the senator’s point of order is.

Senator Greenwood:

– The point of order I raise with you for a ruling is this: Question time is currently being recorded for broadcasting. Is it right or wrong that, because Senator Kennelly raised a point of order during an answer to a question which I asked, that question and answer will be excluded from the broadcast? I seek a ruling from you as to the position in that matter.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator is quite entitled to ask me a question, I will give him an answer in due course.

page 864

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. I acknowledge the great responsibility that rests on you for the maintenance of the decorum and the dignity of this chamber. I invite you to study Senate standing order 418. It reads:

No Senator shall use offensive words-

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you asking a question, or what are you doing?

Senator BROWN:

– I am asking a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– You have asked me to study one of the Standing Orders.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes. I am asking you to study standing order 418 which reads:

No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

In the light of that Standing order, I request that you critically examine Senator Greenwood’s address to this chamber last night and in due course inform the Senate at the earliest opportunity as to whether all or any part of that address offended against the said standing order.

page 864

QUESTION

COMMNOWEALTH POLICE FORCE

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral in this chamber. Is the officer in charge of the Commonwealth Police Force subject to the Executive in respect of tenure of office? Is the Minister aware that in South Australia the Commissioner of Police cannot be removed from office without the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament? Is it a fact that under this system the laws of the State may be interpreted and enforced without political pressure or bias? Is not this system the most desirable for the unbiassed enforcement of law and order? If this system does not apply to the Commonwealth Police Force will steps be taken to introduce it?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have not at hand the specific provision which prescribes the tenure of the Commissioner of Commonwealth Police, but the independence of a police force does not depend upon simply the tenure of the commissioner. Every officer, from a constable to the Commissioner, in the Commonwealth Police Force or a State police force has an independent duty established by law to enforce the law and such officer, whether the Commissioner or a constable, is not justified in accepting instructions from any Government to deviate from that duty in any way. The Parliaments of this country put upon the statute book the laws by which every individual in this country is to be guided and, as a corollary of that, the police force is established with a duty, independent of instruction from any political figure whatever, to enforce the law without fear or favour.

Senator Murphy:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. Surely question time is for asking questions and for answering questions. Senator Laucke asked the Minister a very important question, whether we should have the same kind of system as South Australia, where the most undemocratically elected body in the Commonwealth of Australia, that is, the South Australian Upper House, has to agree to the removal of the Police Commissioner.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not relevant to the point of order.

Senator Murphy:

– Is it not the Minister’s obligation to answer the question whether he thinks it is a desirable system?

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not upheld. I tell the Senate once again that the way in which a Minister replies to a question is not my responsibility.

page 865

QUESTION

POLITICAL PARTIES

Senator WHEELDON:

– My question to the Leader of the Government refers to a statement made in the adjournment debate last night by Senator Greenwood in which he referred to the rules of the Australian Labor Party precluding the association of members of the Labor Party with members of the Communist Party. The honourable senator went on to say:

I simply ask whether the Labor Party has dealt with Dr Cairns because he has spoken on platforms with Mr Carmichael and Mr Goldbloom.

In view of the fact that this is a clear indication that Mr Goldbloom is a member of the Communist Party, and in view of the fact that Mr Goldbloom is a respected member of the Australian Labor Party and has been an Australian Labor Party candidate for Parliament, will the Leader of the Government issue an apology to Mr Goldbloom for this unjustified smear which has been made against him within the sanctuary of Parliament?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

It is not my responsibility to sit in judgment on what was said in the adjournment debate last night. Several matters were raised on the adjournment last night. The honourable senator has put his own interpretation upon what Senator Greenwood said and has asked me to make some apology for what Senator Greenwood said. Senator Greenwood is responsible for whatever he said and I certainly do not believe that I should press him to make apologies to the honourable senator or to anybody else. The debate on the adjournment last night was very torrid. I listened to the debate and I did not gain the impression that the honourable senator is now implying.

page 865

QUESTION

LAW AND ORDER

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It relates to the conduct of the Moratorium demonstrations throughout Australia, particularly in Sydney, and is consequential upon the suggestion that the Federal Government has some interest in upholding its position in relation to these matters. Is the Minister aware that a number of well known supporters of the Government’s policy on Vietnam, to wit, Professor Owen Harries and persons such as Richard Krygier of the Association for Cultural Freedom, were responsible for a letter in yesterday’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ in which he stated -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator, you cannot ask a question in that way.

Senator Young:

– Incorporate the letter in Hansard.

Senator MURPHY:

– M the honourable senator would like it incorporated I shall ask that it be incorporated. Is the Minister aware that well known supporters of the Federal Government’s policy on Vietnam, persons who have spoken all over this country in support of it, have expressed the view that the events of Friday’s Moratorium cannot but cause concern to Liberals. They speak of evidence given by persons whom they regard as unimpeachable that the charges of police violence and irregular behaviour have been numerous enough and supported by enough prima facie evidence to warrant thorough investigation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator, you cannot ask a question in that way. You know better than that.

Senator MURPHY:

– Thank you, Mr President, I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of the call for an inquiry into these events by well known supporters of the Federal Government’s policy who have expressed concern at the body of evidence of brutality and breaches of the law by the police, will the Federal Government support an inquiry into the events of the Moratorium in Sydney, an inquiry which has been refused by its colleagues in the New South Wales Government?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

With great respect to the Leader of the Opposition this was not a question but an attempt to get something on the line in a political sense. Everybody here and everybody listening to the broadcast will understand perfectly what it was. It all adds up to some very loose statements about whether I know something about the views of some well known supporters of the Government. Again with great respect to the Leader of the Opposition, he knows that a purely hypothetical question posed in those terms is not in fact a question at all. There are millions of well known supporters of the Government in Australia and the number is growing. The more often we have questions of this nature the greater the number of supporters the Government will have. I think that on reflection the honourable senator will know that it is not a valid question in relation to the responsibility of this Parliament. I am not going to grace it with an answer.

page 866

QUESTION

LAW AND ORDER

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall a dangerous reactionary political epidemic of the 1950s known as McCarthysism which spread in the United States creating an atmosphere of fear and hysteria and which affected the internal stability of that country?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. You have ruled already that questions must not be posed in the form of debate. I ask you, in upholding that point of order, to require Senator O’Byrne to express his question in a proper manner as laid down in Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator O’Byrne will ask a direct question.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I ask the Minister: As this undemocratic type of smear and threat of violence is rearing its ugly head in this country will he do his best to contain and restrain a similar epidemic which will be known as Greenwoodism?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe honourable senator was talking about smear. To incorporate the name of an honourable senator in that way is unquestion-ably intended to be a smear and I will not grace the question with an answer.

page 866

QUESTION

LAW AND ORDER

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government. If we accept the threat of civil violence and the necessary counter measures outlined by him and his miniserial colleagues this morning, how does he reconcile that with the presence of armed guards outside the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and several other embassies in Canberra as a direct result of his Government’s failure to deal with ultra right wing elements, as personified by the Ustashi, the continuation of the presence of guards being a cost on the Australian taxpayer? There is also the matter of Lesic, who the Government will not gaol but to whom it gave a social service pension.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Perhaps I can bring the atmosphere of question time back to some reality by pointing out, as I am sure the honourable senator who asked the question appreciates,

Questions that there is a responsibility to give absolute protection to all embassies in all circumstances. This is basic to international law. It is basic to a way of life not only in the free world but all over the world that when embassies or consulates are established there is a responsibility on the host country to see that all proper care is taken to give them the complete protection of the law of the land.

page 867

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the

Leader of the Government seen a statement atrributable to the New South Wales Premier that a few policemen might have overstepped the mark in last Friday’s Moratorium march? Has the Minister also seen a report that a statutory declaration has been signed by a staff reporter of the Sydney Morning Herald’ that he had seen a policeman punch an arrested person in the stomach inside the entrance to Regent Street Police Station in Sydney last Friday? Has the Minister also seen a statement signed toy 107 academics of the University of Sydney bearing witness to their having observed numerous unjustifiable acts of police provaction and violence and to the making of random unreasonable and indiscriminate arrests? If these statements by the Premier of New South Wales, by a responsible journalist and by 107 academic members of the University of Sydney staff are correct, does the Minister condone this sort of conduct on the part of any police officer against any Australian citizen merely to ensure - to use Senator Wright’s phrase - that Government policy on Vietnam is not subverted?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– - The further this goes, Mr President, the further the pattern is being revealed. The fact of the matter is that any police officer and every police officer has a responsibility. It was pointed out by way of question and answer this morning that a police officer has a responsibility to insist that the law is obeyed. He also has a responsibility to use no more force than is necessary to see that the law is obeyed. If an officer oversteps the mark then there is a responsibility to deal with him. As to that part of the honourable senator’s question about people writing to the Press and giving testimony, I have read in the Press of other people who have given testimony to the

Questions 867 fact that in a very difficult circumstance in New South Wales the conduct of the police was exemplary. Now, you take your pick.

page 867

QUESTION

LAW AND ORDER

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the references that have been made to a learned professor and other liberal - with a small T - minded persons who have called for an investigation into the allegations against the police, and in justice to those gentlemen will the Minister take notice that they did not call merely for an inquiry in regard to the police, they called also for an inquiry simultaneously into the political influences behind the Moratorium which caused the trouble?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I completely agree with the honourable senator’s question. I think the issue started at question time this morning with the question of the need for everyone in Australia to live within the framework of the law. When people set about not to live within the framework of the law a whole series of consequences stem from it. I believe, as was put by way of question this morning, that the whole essence of our way of life and of our democracy is for everyone to accept that we must follow the rule of law and not resort to anarchy to which some people would try to lead us.

page 867

QUESTION

LAW AND ORDER

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– In addressing my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General I remind him that earlier today Senator Laucke asked a question about the police force which was completely out of character with his usual highly dignified attitude in this chamber.

Mr PRESIDENT:

– Order! That has nothing to do with the question.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will ask the question. Can the Minister inform the Senate, whether he in fact framed the question for the honourable senator, and also drafts all other questions relating to law and order which are asked by Government members in this chamber?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I refer to 24 September 1970 standing order 99 which states that imputations may not be made under the guise of a question. There has been an imputation of collusion in the reference to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr PRESIDENT:

– I think there is substance in the point of order. The way in which the question was framed on this occasion was completely wrong but, in keeping with my general practice, I will allow the question to go to the Minister.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am glad, Mr President, that you did not deny me the opportunity to answer that question which contains an imputation without a shred or tissue of fact. I have had no consultation with any honourable senator on this side or on the other side of the Senate who has asked a question in this session. As for promoting any such question, I repudiate the idea completely. For Senator Keeffe’s benefit, since these questions were asked I sent for Dr Lane’s book ‘Australian Constitutional Law’ from the Parliamentary Library. It is an elementary book and that is why I refer to it to assist Senator Keeffe. It states:

The Federal Executive keeps law and order. . . . The ‘Federal Executive relies . . on its own Commonwealth Police Force … In addition, the Federal Executive relies to a great extent on the State police, and it uses the State prisons.

I say once again that it is typical of the murky recesses of Senator Keeffe’s mind that he conjures up the idea that cogent questions from this side of the chamber have to be provoked by a Minister.

page 868

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– Mr President, I desire to make a personal explanation. I wish to refute absolutely Senator Keeffe’s suggestion that there was collusion in respect of my question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! If the honourable senator wishes to make a personal e explanation he should ask for leave and then, when that is given, make it.

Senator LAUCKE:

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– There ‘being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator LAUCKE:

– T wish to explain most forcefully that there was no collusion in respect of the question I asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General. That question was asked directly of him without any prior discussion whatsoever.

page 868

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM CAMPAIGN

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Despite the large number of questions on this subject, I ask: Is it a fact that the only government in Australia to establish an inquiry into all aspects of the Moratorium demonstrations is a ‘Labor government - that led by Premier Dunstan - and that all authorities in South Australia, including the South Australian Police Association and spokesmen for the South Australian Police Department, have accepted the proposed royal commission and the terms of the inquiry. In the light of this information, will the Leader of the Government refute the sort of criticism which he has made of all members of the Labor Party, of having been concerned with only one aspect of the Moratorium demonstrations, and acknowledge that what is being done in South Australia is certainly the basis of a proper inquiry which will produce all the facts associated with the South Australian demonstration?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I do not think there is any doubt in the mind of anybody that the South Australian Government has sought an inquiry. I do not know of any other State government instrumentality that has sought an inquiry. I do not want any more than that to be imported into my answer. It is a straight question and I give it a straight answer. The honourable senator then went on to import into his question a statement in relation to this matter which apparently he attributes to me.

Senator Bishop:

– No, it was not you; it was Senator Wright.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator said it was me.

page 868

QUESTION

LEGAL PROFESSION

Senator KENNELLY:

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question. Is it the usual practice for a person who is admitted to practise to cast a slur on the ability of another member of the profession, as was done by interjection by Senator Rae on Mr Connor, Q.C., who I understand is the barrister assisting the commission appointed by the South Australian Government; or was the question prompted by jealousy or the incompetence of one as against the competence of the other?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The last part of Senator Kennelly’s question - that relating to jealousy - is typical. As such, I ignore it. The reference that Senator Rae made to the appointment of counsel to assist the royal commission in South Australia was a perfectly justifiable political observation. When a royal commission is inquiring into a matter charged with a high political content it is unusual to appoint professional counsel known to be intimately involved in one side of that political issue. It is perfectly proper that a member of the Senate, in the discharge of his duties, should acquaint the public with the political affiliations of people who take professional briefs, with regard to the subject matter of those briefs.

page 869

QUESTION

LEGAL PROFESSION

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government adopt the views which we have just heard from the Minister representing the Attorney-General, which are a reflection upon eminent members of the legal profession whose integrity has been founded on the basis that any counsel engaged on behalf of any client to appear in a case will conduct himself according to the highest tenets of the profession and that he may be called upon to do so whatever political issues may be involved? Will the Leader of the Government repudiate any insinuation that the Government would associate itself with any suggestion that counsel, especially Queen’s Counsel, would act other than in accordance with the highest tenets of the legal profession?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator is asking the Government to pass judgment on an answer given by a Minister to a question. I say quite categorically that I do not intend to respond to the question.

page 869

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary

Industry ask his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry to take up, as a matter of great urgency, the problems arising from difficulties concerning meat export standards at Holman’s Meat Works at Devonport in Tasmania, where 20 per cent of the work force has now been stood down because of the latest attitude to standards and of the consequent problems of export? Will the Minister for Primary Industry endeavour to take steps to resolve this matter once and for all so that all those concerned in this extremely important export industry will know where they stand from day to day?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yes, I will take the matter up with the Minister. The honourable senator will recall that yesterday Senator Lillico asked me a similar question. At the time I informed the Senate that discussions were going on at that moment between officers of the Department of Primary Industry and the United States of America authorities. I will take the honourable senator’s question to the Minister and obtain some information for him.

page 869

QUESTION

LAW AND ORDER

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not a fact that the great majority of Australians are law-abiding citizens? As the rights of this silent majority of Australians are being jeopardised by a few radicals and fellow travellers, who apparently are supported by some members of the Opposition, will the Minister ensure that the Government takes steps to protect the rights of the great majority of Australians to go about their lawful pursuits unhindered by this noisy minority.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I think I should respond by saying first that I believe that the overwhelming majority of Australians are law abiding citizens, and that the vast majority need and want to live within the framework of the laws of the Commonwealth and the States. I believe that anybody who advocates departure from living within the laws of the Commonwealth and the States is, in truth, advocating a form of anarchy. I believe that every government of the Commonwealth and the States will accept its responsibilities. Since the question was directed to me in relation to the Commonwealth I say that the Commonwealth will always accept the responsibility of ensuring that the law abiding citizens of this great country will be protected within the framework of those laws.

page 870

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM CAMPAIGN

Senator WHEELDON:

– My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, refers to the appeal made by Professor David Armstrong and other members of the Association for Cultural Freedom - all supporters of the Government’s war policy in Vietnam - and the call for an inquiry into all the circumstances relating to the disturbances associated with the Sydney Moratorium. Professor Armstrong and his colleages referred to statements made by what they described as unimpeachable sources giving prima facie evidence of unjustified police action against the demonstrators. In view of the latter part of the statement by Professor Armstrong and his colleagues in the Association for Cultural Freedom, and in view of the Minister’s earlier answer, does he believe that these people are members of a conspiracy dedicated to discrediting Australian police forces and destroying law and order in this country?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I certainly have no such belief.

page 870

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM CAMPAIGN

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: As the activities of the Moratorium last Friday have given rise to charges and counter charges and the South Australian Government is seeking to institute an impartial inquiry into activities in South Australia, will the Commonwealth assist the South Australian Royal Commission - the Royal Commissioner is a learned justice of the South Australian Supreme Court and he is assisted by an accepted Queen’s Counsel from Victoria - to examine all the evidence and come to a proper decision by making available to the Royal Commission officers of the Commonwealth Police Force and members of the Commonwealth Security Service who were in Adelaide at the time witnessing the demonstration, as well as films and photographs taken of the activities in Adelaide last Friday by members of the Security Service and Commonwealth Police Force?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

It seems to me that the honourable senator is trying to pre-empt the role of the Royal Commission. It is for the Royal Commission that was set up to seek information, to call witnesses and to do whatever is normal in the processes of a royal commission. I do not think that is my responsibility, or anybody else’s in this Parliament. The Royal Commission has the responsibility to call whatever evidence it thinks appropriate.

page 870

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that members of the Opposition have attempted to extend question time today for more than 1 hour 20 minutes in most unreasonable circumstances. Does this demonstrate that the action of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate yesterday in alleging that the Government was rushing through important legislation such as the Repatriation Bill was pure humbug?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Very properly I would not reflect upon question time in the Senate. The Senate must accept its own responsibility for the length of question time. As far as I am concerned, the consequences of a long question time willbe revealed when I propose a motion a little later today in relation to the placing of business.

page 870

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES

(Question No. 23)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

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

  1. How many students made application for enrolment at each of the universities in New South Wales in 1970.
  2. How many were unable to be admitted.
  3. What were the reasons for their inability to become enrolled.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Admissions to the 3 metropolitan universities in Sydney are controlled by a common admissions centre and applicants for admission to any or all of those universities make a single application in which they may nominate up to eight faculty preferences in respect of any or all of the 3 universities, i.e. a total of up to 24 preferences. The following table shows the number of matriculated applicants who sought enrolment at each university in New South Wales in 1970 and, in the case of the three metropolitan universities, is based on the first preferences of applicants. However, as admissions to the University of New England and the University of Newcastle are in the hands of the inidividual universities, the State total of matriculated applicants shown in the table, 17,090, may include some double counting if applicants for admission to a metropolitan university also applied to the University of New England and/or the University of Newcastle.
  1. As a result of the common admissions centre procedures, it is not practicable to indicate for each university those who did not receive an offer of a place because some who are shown in the table in part (1) of this answer as applicants, by first preference, for admission to one university were admitted to another. The aggregate number of matriculated applicants who did not receive an offer of a place in any University of New South Wales in 1970 is 2,828 but this figure may also include some double counting if the same applicant sought admission to a metropolitan university and also to the University of Newcastle and/or the University of New England but failed to gain a place in any.
  2. The principal reasons for inability to become enrolled were the effect of quotas in the metropolitan universities and the applicants’ failure to gain the requisite minimum aggregate mark in the Higher School Certificate for entry to the faculty or university concerned.

page 871

QUESTION

GEOPHYSICISTS

(Question No. 494)

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. How many geophysicists have graduated from each Australian university in each year since 1964.
  2. What has been the ‘drop-out’ rate from courses in Geophysics in each Australian university in each year since 1964.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The following table shows the number of geophysics graduates from each university in the years shown:

page 872

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 535)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Since the Minister’s communication of 24th August 1969, have non-TOVALOP members operating tankers in the Australian trade, including Ampol Petroleum Ltd, Australian Oil Refineries Co., H. C. Sleigh Ltd, and Howard Smith Industries Ltd, yet accepted their responsibilities and joined TOVALOP.
  2. If some of the above have not accepted this responsibility, does the Government intend abrogating the 1923 ‘Freedom of the Sea Convention’, which would deny port facilities to these operators.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for

Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The companies listed by the honourable senator are all members of the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution as are most other companies operating tankers in the Australian trade. For details of the scheme and a complete list of participating tanker owners, I would refer the honourable senator to the publications issued by the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd which, I understand, are available in the Parliamentary Library.
  2. The Government does not propose to refuse freedom of access to its ports, nor does it propose to cease to be a party to the 1923 Convention and Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports merely for the purpose of inducing tanker owners to join this voluntary organisation. It is looking at other means of dealing with the problems associated with major oil spills.

page 872

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 537)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Health, upon notice:

With reference to Bulletin No. 7 of the Australian International Health and Voluntary Health Insurance Organisation, entitled ‘Comment’, which lists several ways of utilising some of the massive financial reserves held by medical benefits funds, Have any such plans been implemented.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

The Government’s policy in regard to the reserves held by registered medical benefits organisations was outlined by me on 4th March 1970 when I said in the House:

Any excess reserves accumulated by a fund will be used to provide lower contribution rates or to provide higher benefits as the need arises, without increasing contribution rates. Efficiency and economy of funds’ operations will thus be reflected in their contribution rates.

This policy has, in fact, been implemented in the introduction of the new medical benefits tables, and the contribution rates approved for individual registered medical benefits organisations as from 1 July 1970, have taken into account the level of fund reserves. Accordingly, where a medical fund holds excess reserves, these reserves will be utilised to the advantage of contributors during the early stages of the operation of the new Health Benefits Plan.

page 872

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 616)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. In view of the cholera epidemic that is spreading rapidly through several overseas countries, what additional precautions are being taken by the Department of Health to ensure that cholera is not introduced into Australia, particularly by persons entering this country by air or by illegal migrants coming into Australia along the thousands of miles of unguarded northern coast line.
  2. Is vaccine readily available in sufficient quantity to immunise the Australian public if an outbreak of cholera occurs in this country.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. Australian quarantine officers examine reports received regularly from the World Health Organisation advising of countries currently infected with cholera. In this way quarantine officers at first ports of entry are kept informed as to which travellers are likely to have been exposed to the danger of infection. Furthermore, all persons over the age of twelve months arriving in Australia by air from a cholera infected area are required to be in possession of a valid International Certificate of Vaccination against Cholera.

As a safeguard against illegal migrants coming into Australia along the northern coast line, a special reporting system operates around the northern coast of Australia. All lighthouse keepers, and officials at mission stations and settlements report immediately by radio to authorities any suspected illegal landings.

If castaways or people who might have made an unauthorised entry into Australia are discovered they are medically examined to ensure that they are not suffering from quarantinable disease such as cholera.

  1. Sufficient vaccine is available to vaccinate persons who are considered a risk should an outbreak of cholera occur in this country.

The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has already taken action and has trebled its reserve stocks of cholera vaccine. Production is continuing at the normal rate, but can be increased immediately if required.

page 873

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 6.17)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Has the eye disease trachoma been removed from the list of notifiable diseases; if so, why.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

The listing of a disease as ‘notifiable’ is the responsibility of the relevant State or Territory health authority. Cases of trachoma are at present required to be notified in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and m Victoria and South Australia.

In 1965, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended that a basic list of certain diseases should be uniformly adopted throughout Australia as notifiable. The disease trachoma was not included in the recommended list.

page 873

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 690)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Minister forExternal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. In view of a report in the London ‘Times’ of 15th September 1970, that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will soon be the main naval power in the Indian Ocean, will the Minister make a statement to Parliament on the degree of truth in the report, especially that section which alleges that there has been agreement with and support given to the USSR by the United States of America.
  2. As the Government’s policy is directly opposed to a Russian presence in the Indian Ocean, will he treat the matter as urgent.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

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

  1. and (2) I have read the report referred to. I do not propose to comment on a speculative newspaper article, except to say that the Australian Government has no knowledge of any agreement or understanding between the United States of America and the USSR concerning the level of Soviet naval forces in the Indian Ocean.

page 873

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 24)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

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

  1. How many students made application for enrolment at universities throughout Australia in the Faculties of Medicine, Dentistry, Engineering. Law and Arts/Law this year.
  2. How many students were rejected for admission to each of the Faculties and what were the reasons for their inability to become enrolled.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Before providing statistical answers to the senator’s question I should point out that in’ some States there is a common admission centre for a number of universities and applicants for admission to any or all universities concerned make a single application but may nominate up to 8 faculty preferences in respect of up to 3 universities. The figures shown in column (2) of the following table are applications from qualified students to the faculty of their first preference. Column (3) of the table shows the number of qualified applicants who failed to gain entry to the faculty of their first preference. Many of these would have been admitted to another faculty and/or another university. The principal reasons for the inability to become enrolled in the faculty of first preference were the effects of quotas and the applicants’ failure to gain the requisite minimum aggregate mark in the Higher School Certificate for entry to the faculty concerned.

page 874

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 607)

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

How many inward and outward voyages were made by the ‘Australian Endeavour’ during last financial year.

What were the deadweight and/or gross tonnages carried on each voyage.

How many full container loads were carried on each voyage and what was the total number of containers carried on each voyage.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Southbound - 5 voyages; Northbound - 4 voyages.
  2. The only information on tonnage carried per voyage is expressed in freight tons.

page 874

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 687)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minis ter for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has permission been given for the establishment of a light aircraft terminal and maintenance centre at the Adelaide Airport: If so, does the development of this area extend the take-off and landing strips for aircraft closer to the residential area than at present.
  2. From whom did the request for the establishment of this area come.
  3. Where are these facilities provided at present, and why are they now to be transferred to Adelaide Airport
  4. Has the Department of Civil Aviation given permission for this transfer.
  5. In view of the close proximity between the proposed landing and maintenance area and the residential area of Brooklyn Park, which will create additional noise and annoyance to residents, will the present curfew operating for larger aircraft be extended to include light aircraft, and will sound screens be provided around the area.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Approval has been given for the erection of a small terminal for use by passengers on charter aircraft that have long been operating at Adelaide Airport. This approval does not extend or alter the pattern of take-offs or landings in relation to nearby residential areas. There is no approval for the establishment of a maintenance centre.
  2. South Australian and Northern Territory Air Services (SAATAS) requested permission to erect a small passenger terminal. There is no application to erect a maintenance centre.

  3. and (4) These are new facilities in that earlier passengers proceeded directly from their road transport to the aircraft. They are not facilities which have been transferred from some other airport.

    1. The pattern of operations is not expected to alter and there will be no additional noise or annoyance to nearby residences. It follows that there is no cause to review the existing curfew or noise abatement arrangements.

page 875

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

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

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– J wish to refer to the attack which was made yesterday in the Queensland Parliament by the Premier of Queensland upon 2 senators of this chamber, namely, Senator Keeffe and Senator Georges. The attack has been widely publicised throughout Australia. Both honourable senators are familiar with what was said by the Premier of Queensland about them. On behalf of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, 1 wish to express complete confidence in the integrity and loyalty of both honourable senators.

Both of them have long, distinguished and honourable records in the Labor movement and in the public affairs of this country. The suggestion that the activities of these honourable senators will be subject to surveillance by the Queensland Government is monstrous. The outrage is clear from the admission of the Premier of Queensland that the activities to which he referred did not come within the responsibility of the Queensland Parliament but concerned the political activities of both honourable senators in federal matters. It must cause concern that any citizen, regardless of whether he is a member of Parliament, can be subjected to threat and intimidation calculated to inhibit him in the exercise of his political rights. It is an attack upon the fundamental basis of representative democracy for an honourable senator to be accused, under privilege in a State Parliament, of subversion and disloyalty for engaging in legitimate political activities. I note that no-one in this Senate has endorsed such descriptions; indeed, the honourable senator who spoke on behalf of the Government expressly repudiated such descriptions of the honourable senators. 1 think all honourable senators understand the political motivation for such an attack; it was in retaliation for criticism. The attack is a serious infringement of the rights of the Senate and of those citizens who elected the honourable senators to this chamber.

page 875

SITTING OF THE SENATE

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to -

That at the rising of the Senate for the luncheon adjournment the silting of the Senate be suspended until 8 p.m. to enable Estimates Committees C, D and E to meet this afternoon under the timetable as circulated.

page 875

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed -

That Government Business take precedence over General Business after 8 p.m. this day.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– No reason has been advanced for Government Business taking precedence over General Business. General Business is an important part of the activities of the Senate.

Motions to be dealt with ought to be dealt with. The first motion on the books is a matter concerning the defence of this country. Whatever one’s views may be as to how our defence ought to be conducted and what decision ought to be made in relation to it, it is an extremely important matter which has been raised by an honourable senator. He is not a member of my party but nevertheless this matter is entitled to consideration, and it should be considered.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– No discourtesy was meant. 1 thought 1 advanced the argument for this move yesterday.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am not suggesting it is discourtesy, f am suggesting that in the proper conduct of the Senate’s business time should be given to the discussion of matters of General Business. The Government has had the opportunity to conduct its legislative programme in such a way as would not entail interference with the rights of honourable senators to discuss the General Business of this chamber. Simply because the Government wishes to hold up legislation and bring it on late so that it has to be rushed through in a day or two does not seem lo us to be a sufficient reason for deciding (hat General Business should be dispensed with. 1 suggest that the Opposition will not support this motion but will oppose it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to say a few words about Government Business taking precedence over General Business, because from the time I entered this chamber I have been protesting against the taking away of rights of individual senators. think we should guard the rights we have very keenly and see that nothing interferes to take them away from us. At the end of each session it has been necessary to forgo some of those rights, such as conducting debates on General Business and perhaps the incorporation in Hansard of answers to questions on notice. But every time these moves have succeeded in the Senate it has been as a result of a discussion between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition then holds a meeting with Opposition senators for the purpose of putting the proposals and advising senators how they could somehow assist the Government. I take it from Senator Murphy’s remarks today that there has been no discussion on this occasion. Apparently there has been no attempt to seek the cooperation of the Opposition for the purpose of implementing the proposal to forgo General Business, if there is a need to give urgent consideration to some other business. I think this is a discourtesy which we should not accept.

Furthermore, let me point OUt that only on one night a week is it possible for private senators to raise matters of General Business in this chamber. Although it is not in accordance with the Standing Orders, this is because Government Business takes precedence over other business. In fact, General Business is considered by this House on only one night a week. Honourable senators have an opportunity one night a week to bring forward matters of General Business. If we forgo that right then we have no rights as private members of the chamber. I believe we should not forgo that right. If there is an occasion when it is desirable to discuss urgently a matter of Government Business - it should be on rare occasions - whether or not this is done should be as a result of some conference between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition could then report back to senators so that we could consider the proposal and decide whether or nol we should agree to it.

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

– T rise to indicate on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party which 1 lead that we support the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) in his announced programme for this week. We must at all times recognise that Government Business takes precedence over General Business when the circumstances are such as we find today. A very important piece of legislation has to he dealt with, ft is imperative that it be dealt with and decided upon by the Senate. In the event of its being passed it must receive the royal assent for the benefits to be operative from 1st October and for the beneficiaries to receive any additional payments for which the Bill provides. 1 am just as strong a stickler for the rights of members of this chamber as is any other senator. But it is an undeniable fact that the Government - and only the Government - has the prerogative of determining the business sheet in the light of the circumstances as it sees them. It is true that the Leader of any Government will have consultation with the Leader of the Opposition or the leaders of other parties in the chamber with a view to arriving at an amicable arrangement. But this Bill must be dealt with and finalised by this chamber before the weekend. in any case, if the Government’s plan is given effect the Democratic Labor Party will be making the sacrifice because the first item under the heading of General Business is a motion in the name of Senator Byrne of the Democratic Labor Party. That motion deals with defence. That is a very important matter and one which, as all honourable senators know, has occupied the interest of the Democratic Labor Party since it was first established. We of the Democratic Labor Party put the matter of defence and foreign affairs very high on the list of priorities in our platform. We would very much like to have the opportunity to discuss this important question but ‘first things first’ is a very good motto. We are prepared to defer the discussion on this motion by Senator Byrne until such time as we deal with the more important questions that call for our attention.

Senator Keeffe:

– Are you not going to defend Australia any more?

Senator GAIR:

– We will defend Australia and we will discuss this motion when an opportunity offers. I just want to make it clear that my colleagues and I support the Government in its proposal regarding the programme of work for the Senate. It is not of much value to complain about the delay in a Bill reaching this chamber. The Leader of the Government in this place is not responsible in any way for the progress of Bills from another place to the Senate. He cannot deal with them until they reach here, and I suppose they reach here only after they have been dealt with in the other place.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The sitting of the Senate is suspended until 8 p.m. The bells will ring at 2.10 p.m. for the sittings of the Estimates Committees.

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 8 p.m.

page 877

SELECT COMMITTEE ON OFF-SHORE PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– - by leave - I present an interim report from the Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources and I move:

That the report be printed.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

That the Senate take note of the report

The Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources was appointed originally in November 1967 and has been reconstituted on 3 occasions since that date. The duties with which the Committee has been charged involved a comprehensive consideration of the legislation which was enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament and by the Parliaments of the States, and which is known as the petroleum submerged lands legislation. The legislation was passed by the Senate on the express understanding, to which subsequent effect was given, that the Senate would appoint a select committee to inquire into and to report upon its many ramifications. The particular matters in respect of which the Committee was required to report appear in the terms of reference in the various resolutions appointing the Committee. They are as follows:

A select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon -

whether the constitutional conception underlying the legislation is consistent with the proper constitutional responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States;

whether the system of administration established by the legislation is the most effective to fulfil the purpose of adequate utilisation of Australia’s off-shore resources of oil and natural gas;

whether the legislation makes adequate provision for free interstate trade in gas and oil;

whether proper provision is made in the legislation for adequate royalties used in the national interest;

whether the areas of permits confirmed or authorised in the legislation are excessive;

whether proper provision is made relating to renewals to prevent stagnating oil exploration;

whether the legislation makes adequate provision for Australian ownership and/or control or Australian participation in the ownership and/or control of Australia’s off-shore resources of oil and natural gas; and

the provisions of the legislation generally.

The Committee has been meeting regularly with the exception of the periods between sessions of the Parliament when the Committee ceased to exist. Over a period of almost 3 years it has taken evidence from 84 witnesses, including representatives of Commonwealth and State Government departments, oil companies, unions, contractors engaged in the off-shore oil industry, economists, geologists, marine biologists, lawyers and others. The evidence has related directly to the nature and operation of the provisions of the legislation and has comprehended many facets of the oil industry and the environmental situation in which the industry and the legislative provisions interact. The Committee has met on 139 occasions. The Committee believes that it has received all the evidence necessary to formulate ils final report and is well advanced in the preparation of that report. However, the Committee is aware that there has been introduced into, the House of Representatives a Bill for an Act relating to the territorial sea and certain other waters of the sea and to the continental shelf. In the knowledge that it has received a considerable volume of evidence relating to the legal, constitutional and practical problems raised by the issue of where legislative authority lies in the Australian federation in respect of the off-shore waters and sea-bed adjacent to Australia, the Committee considers that a report on its first term of reference would assist parliamentary and public appreciation of that issue.

The Committee therefore has prepared and now presents an interim report on whether the consitutional conception underlying the petroleum submerged lands legislation is consistent wilh the proper constitutional responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States. The Senate will recall that the passage of the petroleum submerged lands legislation through the Commonwealth Parliament coincided with the passage through the Parliaments of the States of identical legislation. It was unique legislation. The legislative scheme was the outcome of co-operative effort over a long period, not only of the responsible Ministers of the Commonwealth and the States, but also of officers of the mines departments of the States and of the Commonwealth Department of National Development, and also of the Parliamentary

Draftsmen of the Commonwealth and the States. Its passage through the Senate was characterised by concern as to whether the Commonwealth was conceding a power which it was not warranted in conceding and as to whether the legislative and administrative scheme was designed lo secure the most effective utilisation of the off-shore petroleum resources. At the heart of the legislation was the lack of resolution of where legislative authority under the Constitution lay with respect to the resources of the sea-bed. The preamble of the legislation discloses the general approach. The relevant parts of that preamble read:

Whereas the exploration for and the exploitation of the petroleum resources of submerged lands- adjacent to the Australian coast would be encouraged by the adoption of legislative measures applying uniformly to the continental shelf and to the sea-bed and subsoil beneath territorial waters:

And whereas the Governments of the Commonwealth and of the States have decided, in the national interest, that, ‘ without raising questions concerning, and without derogating ‘ from, their respective constitutional powers, they should cooperate for the purpose of ensuring the legal effectiveness of authorities to explore for or to exploit the petroleum resources of those submerged lands.

The Bill was then enacted. As a result the Parliament was confronted wilh an agreement between the Premiers of the States and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and joint legislation which was the product of that agreement. The agreement was not ratified by the Parliaments; the agreement was not enforceable in any court of law; the agreement was not amendable except by the unanimous concurrence of all the State Governments and the Commonwealth Government. The joint legislation purported to be an exercise of independent authority by each State Parliament and by the Commonwealth Parliament. Both the Commonwealth and the State Acts were designed to operate separately but to join together in the person of the Designated Authority. The Designated Authority was to be, and in fact in all but one case was, the State Minister for Mines, but he was also a Commonwealth functionary.

In those circumstances the Committee has expressed a conclusion that there were sound, practical considerations favouring the leaving of the questions unresolved at the point of time when the negotiations commenced, and primary amongst those practical considerations was the common desire to facilitate as rapidly as possible the exploration for and exploitation of the petroleum resources off-shore. This was achieved. It cannot be said in the terms of the legal advice which was open to both the States and the Commonwealth in 1962 to 1964 that there was any derogation of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States in the course they followed. The Committee does not accept that on the opinions and arguments available and canvassed from 1962 to 1964 the case for the Commonwealth being able to assert constitutional authority over the continental shelf was unquestionable; nor was the Commonwealth’s case for control over the territorial sea-bed one which it was entitled to assume would be judicially upheld. Equally, the problems of the States in maintaining their claims were not of such little consequence that they could be ignored and, as the States themselves conceded, the amplitude of their claim to powers was such that they required for their complete exercise complementary action by the. Commonwealth. And the Committee states:

The committee accepts that there was reasonable basis for the Commonwealth and the States to regard the legal uncertainty of their constitutional position as justifying their decision to leave the legal position unresolved. Both the States and the Commonwealth, by proceeding independently and expecting a legal challenge and decision in the High Court, were open to the risk that such claims as they made as to their powers would be wholly or partly rejected. Powerful considerations of self-interest would be expected to operate to enable both Commonwealth and States to retain what powers they believed they had. Additionally, they recognised that any course which involved litigation would involve some delay, would inevitably involve further negotiations, would possibly involve further litigation and, while this was occurring, the off-shore exploration activities may have been jeopardised.

The Committee was concerned also with the issue of ministerial responsibility which arose in the course of evidence. The Commonwealth Act is an Act which imposes responsibilities upon a Commonwealth Minister. But the responsibility of the Commonwealth Minister is limited to those decisions which, under the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, are matters of Commonwealth responsibility. But many of the decisions which are made under the legislation are matters of State responsibility in respect of which the decisions are made by a State Minister who is also a Commonwealth functionary. In respect of those decisions there is no accountability to the Commonwealth Parliament. Accordingly the Committee’s conclusions of which there are four are as follows:

  1. The constitutional conception underlying the legislation is inconsistent with what should be the proper constitutional relationship between the Parliament and the executive.
  2. In the context of broad constitutional responsibilities there is a challenge to the exercise of the functions of Parliament in the conception of uniform legislation drafted by the executive arms of seven Australian Governments being presented to the Parliaments as a fait accompli requiring formal legislative approval. This cannot be regarded as strictly inconsistent with the proper constitutional responsibilities’ of the Commonwealth and the Slates as the power always lies with the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and the Slates to reject or amend the legislation.
  3. The Committee does not regard the legisla tion as being inconsistent with the ‘proper responsibilities’ of the Commonwealth and the States because, as a result of the decision to avoid litigation which would have resolved the matter, it cannot say what is the measure of those proper constitutional responsibilities.
  4. The Committee considers that, notwithstanding the advantages to the national interest which the legislation and its underlying conception has produced, the larger national interest is not served by leaving unresolved and uncertain the extent of State and Commonwealth authority in the territorial sea-bed and the Continental Shelf.

The Committee is pleased to state that it reports to the Senate unanimously. I would like to acknowledge the co-operation and assistance over a long period in many sessions of all members of the Committee. On behalf of the Committee I acknowledge particularly the assistance received from the Secretary of the Committee, Mr Bradshaw, from Mr Smith, and from Mr Barry of the Legislative Research Service. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 879

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Debate resumed (vide page 877).

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Senator Murphy, do you want to pursue your point of order?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - That is noi a point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The honourable senator has not raised a point of order. He should have asked for leave to make a statement, because that is the procedure.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The honourable senator will have to move a motion. The motion before the Senate is in order.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I rose before the sitting was suspended for lunch to oppose this motion.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Mr Deputy President, I rise to a point of order. Is there a motion before the Senate?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Yes. Senator Poyser is in order in speaking to it.

Senator POYSER:

– 1 oppose the proposal submitted by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) because I believe this is one of the moves that will take away many of the privileges about which, over the last 3 weeks, we have warned the Senate. The situation Ls that we are only in the fourth week of this session and already the privilege of general business has been taken away from this House on the pretext that there is urgent business to be passed by the Senate. Perhaps there is urgent business, but the Senate is working only 3 days a week as against the 4 days being worked by the House of Representatives. On the planned sittings of the Estimates Committees, 64i hours will be lost to the Senate. The Senate has to discuss the legislation and other matters associated with the Budget, together wilh other matters on which no doubt the Government will wish to legislate. This is the first week in which legislation emanating from the Budget is before this chamber.

The Senate is being asked to forgo something on which I have seen many divisions in my short period in this chamber - preservation of the opportunity to debate the general business of the ordinary members of the Senate. If we give away our right tonight as easily as it appears it will be given away I can see a procedure being adopted in this place until the Senate election, if there is one this year, whereby no more general business sessions will be held because while we are sitting as a series of committees and not as the Senate we will always be faced with this urgency of legislation coming from another place. I believe that the test tonight is whether the Senate shall retain

Its general business format or surrender it. My personal belief is that we are not sitting long enough to deal with all the business that it is necessary for us to consider in this chamber. We leave this place to go home on Thursday nights or Friday mornings when we could well be occupied in this chamber dealing with legislation that comes from another place.

Senator Young:

– Would you like to sit on Friday?

Senator POYSER:

– If Senator Young wishes to interject 1 suggest that he should return to his own seat or forever close his mouth.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! 1 remind Senator Poyser that f can look after the conduct of the chamber.

Senator POYSER:

– In my view the present situation is quite clear. The method of handling the Estimates by the committees today was opposed by honourable senators on this side of the chamber. Every honourable senator knows that the purpose in putting proposals before the Senate for the establishment of the committee system was to defeat proposals which had been placed on the notice paper by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in relation to the setting up of a number of standing committees. On the occasion when those proposals were before the Senate we had the situation that so many Senate committees were to be formed that a ludicrous and silly position was developing.

Now that the committees have been established by a vote of the Senate we have a situation in which 5 of them are meeting, taking the business of the Senate out of this chamber and into rooms in the lower section of this building where there are few facilities for the Press and certainly no facilities to enable the public to listen to the debates. Later it is proposed that we shall have a miniature debate in this place when the Estimates come before us. This miniature debate will be occurring in the place where the major debate should be conducted. If we continue with the proposal to have 64-i hours of sittings by the Estimates Committees and the 40 hours that we have averaged in discussing the Estimates in this place we shall leave no time at all to discuss the important legislation that we will be required to pass before the Senate rises. Tonight we are in the situation where we can vote to retain the privileges that the Senate has or give them away for the remainder of the session. I oppose the resolution and I certainly hope that the Senate will defeat it.

Question put:

That Government business lake precedence over general business after 8 p.m. this day (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s motion).

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 881

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(8.28) - T move:

That (he Bill be now read a second lime. 1 ask for leave lo incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - ls leave granted?

Opposition senators - No.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Leave is not granted.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Post and Telegraph Rates Act in order to adjust certain Post Office charges as outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Bury) in his Budget Speech. The new postal, telegraph and telephone charges will come into force on several dates, but principally on 1st October 1970. This Bill deals with the basic postal charges and the basic telegraph charges. Another Bill will deal with those charges set by regulations and, at the same time, there will be some charges set by administrative action. It is my intention, in this speech, to cover the whole field of charges. The proposed adjustments are detailed in the schedules now available to honourable senators. lt is anticipated that the Post Office trading results for 1970-71 would show a loss of Slim if no adjustment to charges were made. This would result from a postal loss of $3 Om and a telecommunications profit of $19m and is largely the result of increased wages totalling $58m, of which S45m will be a charge against trading operations. In 1970-71 the proposals I am now presenting to the Senate are expected to bring in about $42m and $53m in a full year. There would then be an overall profit of $30m for 1970-71 as a result of an estimated $39m telecommunications profit offset against an estimated $9m postal loss.

Telegraph Services

At the present time, the public telegraph service is operating al a loss estimated at about S5m a year and, notwithstanding the proposed increases, it will continue to run at a loss. The present rate for ordinary telegrams is 36c for the first 12 words and 3c for each additional word. Double the normal rate is charged for urgent telegrams, ft is proposed that an increase of lc per word be made to the basic telegram rate. This will bring the charge for the first 12 words up to 48c, with a 4c charge for each additional word. The urgent telegram rate will be double the new ordinary rate.

Telephone Services

Recurring annual expenses borne by the Post Office in relation to telephone facilities provided are substantially in excess of the revenue from telephone exchange service rentals. Notwithstanding this and the heavy rises in costs in recent years, exchange service rentals and connection fees have not been adjusted since 1964. It is proposed that the existing rentals be increased throughout by $7 per annum and that the one-third reduction in rentals granted to blind persons and certain classes of pensioners be maintained.

The service connection fee will be increased by $10 - from $30 to $40 - for new services and by $3 - from .$2 to $5 - in the case of ‘in place’ services, that is, those services already in the premises when taken over by the new occupant. Rentals on some other miscellaneous telecommunications facilities are also to be adjusted in the light of the need for such services to provide a better rate of return on investment. Intercommunication equipment and private branch exchanges are typical of these services. Variations to the telecommunications tariffs are expected to bring in additional revenue of some S24m in 1970-71 and $28m in 1971-72.

Provision of Lines for Country Telephone Subscriber!!

The Post Office is pressing ahead with the replacement of manual exchanges by automatic equipment as part of its plan to bring the benefits of an automatic telephone service to country subscribers as soon as possible. This makes it necessary to upgrade the private sections of country subscribers’ lines to a standard higher than that acceptable for manual exchange working. Late in 1968 the Government decided that it would assist subscribers by making funds available for the upgrading of the private sections of the lines. Subscribers would repay by instalment and interest would be charged at the long term bond rate with minimum annual repayments of $100 plus interest and a maximum period of loan of 10 years, [n addition to this arrangement, normal maintenance is taken over, by the Post Office, of the private sections of the lines and subscribers are required only to pay for any necessary main items of replacement materials. In spite of these arrangements, persons in the country who are located well out from their exchanges are finding the cost of these private sections of line to be beyond their means. This is particularly true at the moment when rural communities are facing a period of economic strain.

The policy has therefore been reexamined by the Government and it has been decided that the Post Office will construct and wholly maintain all subscribers’ telephone exhange lines from the appropriate exchange to each subscriber’s premises. This will include line plant on each subscriber’s property, lt has also been decided that the Post Office will bear a greater proportion of the cost than it has been responsible for in the past. In future the Post Office will meet the whole cost up to a distance of 15 radial miles from the appropriate exchange, irrespective of the route distance of the line. The present policy has the Post Office providing line on a formula basis depending on the extent of development along the route and, on the average, the ‘departmental section’ of the line has a length of 3i miles.

Where subscribers are located further than 15 radial miles from the exhange the Post Office will still construct and maintain their exchange lines for the full distance. Beyond the 15 miles radius, however, the subscriber will be required, unconditionally, to pay for the line plant at a standard rate of §40 per radial quarter-mile. In the few cases where contributions are required from subscribers, the Post Office will now be able to quote subscribers immediately on application, without the need to prepare detailed estimates of actual line costs. In accepting responsibility for the full costs of maintaining lines beyond the 15 miles radius, the Post Office will regard such lines as being its property.

These revised conditions will be extended to the upgrading or reconstruction of private sections of existing subscribers’ exchange lines as opportunity permits, particularly in association with the conversion of services to automatic operation. The conditions will also apply retrospectively to subscribers who have either provided or upgraded sections of their lines to full departmental specifications in accordance with the policy introduced on 1st January 1969, as announced on 28th November 1968. The Post Office will be in a position to deal with inquiries very shortly.

Postal Service 1 will now turn to the postal service, lt has now been 3 years since the last rise in the basic postage rate. The wage rates payable to staff involved in mail work have risen by an average of 29 per cent in the same period. This has had an adverse effect on the postal service, because some 70 per cent of its costs are associated with labour. Since 1959, the basic postage rate will have risen by 45 per cent compared with increases in postal wage rates of 100 per cent. The Post Office has, of course, been able to absorb some of these increases by improved productivity. In 1969-70, for instance, postal staff rose by only 1.1 per cent, to cope with a 6 per cent, increase in business.

However, with estimated postal losses of SI 9m in 1969-70 and $30m in 1970-71, at current tariffs a general rise is unavoidable if rising costs are to be recovered. It is for this reason that variations in the charges for most postal services are proposed, and at the same time new features are to be introduced with the object of further improving the scope and quality of services available to business and the public generally. These proposed tariffs are expected to bring in $ 18.5m in 1970-71 and S25m in a full year, and thus reduce the estimated postal loss to $9m in 1970-71. Although honourable senators may have seen the statements circulated, setting out in some detail the proposed changes to postal rates, I intend to- briefly refer to the more important of these.

Letters and Postcards

The existing rate of 5c for the first ounce will be increased to 6c; for each additional weight step the incremental charge will also be 6c, instead of 4c as at present. This increase will to some extent be offset by the combining of several weight steps to simplify the rate structure, the number of steps being reduced from 7 to 5. This simplified structure is identical to that recently adopted by the Universal Postal Union.

Other Articles

The rates for the first and successive weight steps, presently 5c and 4c respectively, will be increased to 6c. By introduction of the simplified Universal Postal

Union structure, the effect will be to reduce the number of weight steps from 5 to 4 by combining the present steps of 8 oz to 12 oz and 12 oz to 16oz.

Publications Registered at the GPO

The concessional rates on registered newspapers and periodicals posted in bulk require special attention because of the substantial difference between present concessions and normal printed matter rates and the resulting considerable loss involved. Half the estimated postal loss in 1969-70. about $9m, is lost on 158 million copies posted by the 7,600 registered newspapers and periodicals. Between1/2c and 1c is charged on about 75 million copies, and the overall average revenue is only 1.7c from all newspapers and periodicals posted in bulk.

These concession rates represent, in effect, a substantial subsidy to the publishing and printing industry and to manyorganisations, ranging from religious, charitable and welfare organisations to social and recreational clubs. The fostering of a strong publishing and printing industry in Australia is important but this function is not appropriate to the Post Office. Again it is not the role of the Post Office to support religious denominations, charitable bodies, educational, scientific and technical institutions and the like, however desirable helping the activities of these organisations may be. Thus it is proposed to continue the action taken in recent years to reduce the content of the concession. The existing general rate for registered Australian books, newspapers and periodicals of 5c for the first 6 oz and 4c for each additional 6 oz will become 6c for the first 6 oz and 5c for each additional 6 oz. Newspapers and periodicals published by Commonwealth and State government departments and authorities will no longer be eligible for the general and bulk rates of postage for registered publications, but will pay normal printed matter rates.

Religious, charitable and welfare organisations, publishing registered newspapers and periodicals, consisting mainly of news, information and articles about their activities or about religious, charitable or welfare subjects; similarly educational, scientific, technical and agricultural organisations whose principal object is the dissemination of knowledge, whose publica tions consist mainly of news, information and articles on such subjects, will pay 6c for each 12 oz, on the total weight of the consignment, subject to a minimum per article charge of1c. This means that a registered newspaper or periodical of the above type weighing up to 2 oz will be only lc postage per article still, compared with 6c at normal printed matter rates. These days lc pays for only 15 seconds of a postman’s or mail sorter’s time, and any item must be handled a number of times between posting and delivery.

Newspapers and periodicals consisting in the main of news, information and articles about country subjects will pay the same rate of 6c for each 12 oz on the total weight of the consignment with a minimum per article charge of lc. Other registered newspapers and periodicals, including those published by professional, business, union, commercial, social, recreational and motoring organisations and associations will pay the following rates:

For delivery from the office of posting - 11/2c first 2 oz 1/2c each additional oz.

For delivery elsewhere - 2c first 2 oz 3/4c each additional oz up to 6 oz 3/4c each additional oz thereafter.

The registered publications will still enjoy a substantial, though reduced, concession.

Discussions are being held with the New Zealand Post Office regarding the posting of registered publications to New Zealand at the domestic rates of postage. The Universal Postal Union Convention requires such special arrangements to be agreed to by the country of destination. Also from 1st July 1971, Australia will have to pay New Zealand an amount towards the cost of its internal handling of our mail, just as we in turn will be paid by other countries for our external handling of their mail in those cases where we receive more than we send. The amount payable to New Zealand per lb of mail will not be much more than the bulk rate. There will be a further statement on postings to New Zealand in due course. Similar conditions, which have applied on postings to Fiji will become invalid when Fiji becomes independent. The usual overseas rates will apply to Fiji as there are no logical grounds for treating Fiji differently from other countries in the area. The only other major postal administration still providing a domestic bulk rate for newspapers and periodicals is the United States of America, which incurs an annual loss of millions of dollars on this type of mail.

Bulk Pre-sorted Mail

The postage rates for letters, other articles, and registered books posted under the bulk pre-sorted mail service will also be increased and will generally maintain the present relativity, in absolute terms,’ with full rates. The Post Office is benefiting from the economies of higher mail volumes and compliance with preparation, pre-sorting and other conditions as many customers are taking advantage of these lower rates. Discussions are still being held with the New Zealand Post Office regarding the rates of bulk presorted mail to New Zealand.

Oilier Postal Adjustments

Amendment of Postal Regulations or executive action will bring about other variations, details of which are set out in the statement available to honourable senators. Included in the variations is the commission on money orders, the minimum for which is to be raised from 1 5c to 30c as a result of the substantial loss incurred on this service. In many cases postal orders provide a suitable alternative to money orders at less cost to both the customer and the Post Office. To widen the appeal of this service, additional $9 and SIO postal orders will be introduced as soon as possible. There also needs to be an adjustment and regrouping of postal order fees to cover the small loss experienced on these items and to simplify counter operations. For parcels posted to places within 30 miles, thic rates will be increased by 5c each, and to cover costs the charge for lighter weight intrastate parcels will be increased by the same amount.

In 1968, when the fees for the clearance of private posting receptacles were adjusted, it was indicated that they did not cover costs. This service is very expensive to provide; parking problems in inner capital city areas also accentuate the difficulty associated with this facility. Hence a doubling of the fees is proposed as a further step to place this facility on an economic basis, except that clearances on holidays will cost the same as clearances on Sundays. There will be a rise in fees for the registered post, cash-on-delivery post and messenger delivery services. These special services are particularly labour intensive and tariff increases for them are required to cover costs.

The Tokyo Congress of the Universal Postal Union in 1969 made a number of changes to the categories and tariff structure of the international post which have been embodied in the new structure:

  1. fewer and larger weight steps for heavier items;
  2. merging of the sample and phonopost categories into the small packets category; and
  3. abolition of reply paid postcards.

For British Commonwealth, Asian and Oceanic countries, the basic letter rates for overseas surface mail are being increased by 2c to 7c, and 9c for other countries. Even after the introduction of the payments by other countries of amounts towards the costs of our internal handling of international mail on 1st July 1971, the substantial loss incurred would continue to exist. Comparative international rates to overseas countries, expressed in’ Australian currency are:

Britain: Se (4.5c for British Commonwealth countries)

Canada: 10c (5c for British Commonwealth countries)

France: 13c

Germany: 12c

United States: 12c.

The Universal Postal Union Convention fixed the relativity of the upper weight steps to the basic rates. The increase in the international letter rates will have relatively little effect as far as the general public is concerned, as its most common form of surface communication overseas is greeting cards, which may be sent at the 6c printed papers rate proposed, and aerogrammes, which will shortly be increased in writing area by more than 20 per cent and arc unchanged at 1 0c.

New Services

As part of the Post Office programme for meeting the changing postal needs of the business community, government organisations and the public at large, 2 new services are to be introduced. From 1st October 1970, a service known as ‘Printpost Direct Bags’ will be introduced. Under this new international service, printers and publishers who have bulk consignments of printed matter for the one address will be able to send them by surface mail in direct bags at 30c per 21b, provided they weigh between 22 lb and 60 lb. At present, such consignments must be broken up into separate packets and parcels.

An air parcel service will also be introduced. Up to this time, the Post Office has not provided a competitive domestic air parcels service as the normal airmail fee of 3c per ounce has been added to the surface parcel rate to arrive at the airmail parcel rate. Compared to the airlines’ parcel service, this has resulted in such high rates that virtually no business has been forthcoming.

A new air parcels tariff has been developed which is tied closely to distance, lt is proposed that in each of 4 zones based on air route distances there will be a ‘per lb’ basis of charging, with a minimum charge. The zones and tariffs proposed are:

Zone I (0-500 miles) 20c per lb: minimum charge 80c.

Zone 2 (501-1,000 miles) 35c per lb: minimum charge 90c.

Zone 3 (1,001-1.500 miles) 45c per lb: minimum charge 90c.

Zone 4 (1,501 miles and over) 65c ger lb: minimum charge 90c.

Except for very heavy parcels in Zone 4. these charges are cheaper, and in many cases much cheaper, than the present charges for airmail parcels. In Zone 4 the very heavy parcel charge is fractionally higher because the new rates per lb have been expressed in multiples of 5c for ease of calculation, lt is proposed that the new service will be introduced progressively, commencing with the capital cities and the larger provincial centres served by air. The service will go into operation on the 1st January 1971. Other routes will be included as the necessary arrangements are made. On routes not included for the time being in the zones the present airmail fee of 3c per ounce, rounded off to 50c per lb will be applied to parcels for which air conveyance is required. Priority Paid parcels will be charged an additional 30c.

As an integral part of the community, Mr Deputy President, the Post Office is subject to the same pressures in relation to wage increases and rising costs as is any other business. Awards announced last year will add $58m to the total Post Office wages bill and this is more than 10 per cent of the total wage payments to staff. In such a situation it is not possible to absorb costs and, unless the Post Office is to totally disregard business considerations, increased charges are inevitable. No-one can deny that prices generally in the community are trending upwards and a look at individual charges for well known services over the past .10 years shows this pattern of increase. Labour charges for repairs to home appliances, motor vehicles, etc., have gone up by more than 60 per cent - taxi, rail, bus and tram fares have averaged increases above 40 per cent and some daily newspapers have raised their prices by 40 per cent. Typical fees for professional services also show rises of from 40 per cent to 60 per cent. Post Office charges have risen in the same period, but against the backdrop of the business and professional fields, the rises have been moderate.

Converting the Post Office to a statutory authority is in some quarters held to be the solution to its financial problems. However, the British Post Office, which recently changed from Deparament of Stale to corporation status, finds itself faced with similar problems to those of the Australian Post Office. In Britain, the charges for some local and trunk call charges have been increased this year with the object of the telecommunications service achieving a financial return of 10 per cent before interest on net assets. In Australia, the return on net assets, before interest in the same field in 1969-70 was only 5i per cent. Business telephone rental in Britain has been increased from SA34 to $A52 and the service connection fee of $43 has been increased to $54. The object of these increases in Britain is to ensure that the telecommunications service conducts its affairs on the lines of an efficient commercial undertaking seeking an adequate return on invested capital, to ensure an adequate investment programme to effect improvements in the service and so that its capital investment programme should be of sufficient stability to permit effective long term planning.

The problems being encountered by the American Telephone and Telegraph Co., operators of the Bell telephone system, are probably known to many honourable senators. There has been a decline in the quality of service given in a number of major American cities as a result of the company’s efforts to keep pace with rising demand in the face of increasing costs. As a result, massive quantities of capital are now required to meet expanded demands for service and much of the new capital required in 1969 was raised by debt financing which, at the end of that year represented some 39 per cent of total Bell system capital. The Australian Post Office has 98 per cent of its capital financed by long term debt.

On the postal side, the proposed basic postage rate of 6c compares favourably with rates in overseas countries, more particularly when allowance is made for the much greater density of population and the reduced distribution costs of other countries when compared with Australia. Rates in other countries, expressed in Australian currency are:

Britain: 4.5c with an increase to 6.3c proposed

Germany: 7.3c

Canada: 5c

United States: 5.4c with an increase to 7.1c proposed

France: 6.4c

Sweden: 9.5c.

Rapid increases in wage rates in a highly labour intensive operation is the common experience of the Australian Post Office and the overseas administrations. The United States Post Office deficit now exceeds$A1.6 billion annually, the British postal service lost $A37m in 1969-70, and the Canadian Post Office lost $A47m last year.

I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 887

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(8.55) -I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Deputy President,this Bill proposes to increase those charges forPost Office services which require an amendment to the postal or telephone regulations. Except for the proposed air parcels service which is expected to be operational on 1st January 1971, these will generally apply from 1st October 1970. The Bill also amends the Post and Telegraph Act to provide that Government publications are deregistered from 1.9th August 1970, and will no longer be eligible for concessional rates. I have dealt with the reasons for the decision to increase certain of the Post Office rates when speaking on the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill. The more significant changes to be made have been outlined, including those in this Bill which vary telephone rentals and connection fees and postal charges other than the basic postal rates which have been set out in the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill. There is no need for me to again cover these matters, andI commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 887

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

(8.58)- I move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

I hope that that situation will not eventuate.I anticipate that we will be able to dispose of the Repatriation Bill and of the accompanying Bill tonight. If we do I will move so that we do not have to sit tomorrow. I have to provide for the contingency of the Senate not passing the Bills, so I have moved accordingly.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition opposes this motion. Th’e Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed that we would not sit on Friday and arrangements have been made accordingly. It is not proper to break those arrangements at this late hour. Previously the honourable senator indicated that the Senate would not sit on Fridays, so honourable senators entered into all kinds of arrangements in their home States and elsewhere. After the suspension of the sittings, at 8 p.m., General Business should have been called on. Instead, it was stated that the Repatriation Bill had to be passed. The Government chose to introduce 2 Bills and to have the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read her second reading speech. A lot of time was occupied in those second reading speeches. If the Repatriation Bill were urgent; it should have been dealt with immediately. These other non-urgent Bills should have been stood over. Instead the Government took this unnecessary course and broke the arrangements to which I have referred. If the Leader of the Government in the Senate wants the Senate to sit late tonight, he will insist upon that being done, but it seems to us to be a very unsatisfactory way of conducting the business of this legislative chamber and we will oppose the motion.

Question put:

The Senate divided.

Thatthe motion (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s) be agreed to. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 888

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– Mr Deputy President,I ask for leave to make a statement to correct something I said before the division.

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

Senator MURPHY:

-I said that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) had not made certain arrangements, in the sense that he had indicated to the Senate that we would not be sitting on Fridays. I would like to correct that to the extent that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson did indicate to me in writing that this eventuality might arise, that we might need to sit on the Friday. I understand that he also mentioned this matter to the Senate yesterday.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– As a possibility.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes I was in error in informing the Senate that he had broken the arrangement of which he had spoken to the Senate.

page 888

REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 September (vide page 841). on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman:

Thatthe Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Bishop had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add ‘, but the Senate is of opinion that the pension rate for the TPI exservicemen, the general rate pensioners and war widows would not have been allowed to decline nothwithstanding the proposed increases, in relation to average weekly earnings’.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– by leave -I ask for leave to move that in conjunction with the Repatriation Bill, with which we are dealing, we also deal with Notice of Motion No. 1 in the name of Senator

Bishop. I also ask for leave to make a slight variation to the motion on Senator Bishop’s behalf so that it will read:

Thai there be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare the following matter - All aspects of Repatriation, including the operation of the Repatriation Act. lt is relevant to the same issue as the Bill and would save a further discussion.

Senator Webster:

– No.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– We would need to have 2 votes.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. there would be another vote afterwards. I ask for leave to move a motion along those lines.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I want to be perfectly clear on this matter and I would like to speak to it. If the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) is merely saying that he wants to have a concurrent debate but have separate votes, that is one thing.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is right.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– If thai is all he is doing, he is streamlining so that instead of 2 debates there will be 1 debate, but 2 votes. I do not see any objection to that procedure, but I do not want to get a vote on the Repatriation Bill involved with other matters.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hull) - ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– Then I move:

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I presume that Senator Bishop will ask for leave to move an amendment to his proposed amendment.

Senator MURPHY:

– 1 have moved a motion that the matters be dealt with concurrently If the Senate agrees to that, it is a simple matter of Senator Bishop’s moving his motion, which will take a couple of minutes, and then we will proceed in the ordinary way. If the Senate would agree to that procedure, and it has been adopted before in various matters, there would be no difficulty in this procedure enabling the issues to be dealt with together.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– by leave - I find myself in some difficulty. I sought the leave of the Senate yesterday to have the Repatriation Bill and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill debated together, which was agreed to. Senator Bishop then led for the Opposition on both Bills. I remember that he drew the attention of the Senate to the fact that in the other place the Opposition moved an amendment criticising the inadequacy of the repatriation legislation and proposing the appointment of a joint select committee to inquire into all aspects of repatriation. Senator Bishop said that the Opposition would not be moving in this chamber for the appointment of a senate select committee as this aspect would be dealt with under a separate heading. 1 find myself in a little bit of difficulty now because the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has sought to introduce a third motion into the debate tonight.

Senator BISHOP:

– by leave - Mr Deputy President, the intention of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) is to short circuit the debate on the motion which is on the notice paper concerning reference of all aspects of repatriation to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. The Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) has indicated that a proposal for the appointment of a joint select committee was put forward in the other place but it was defeated. The Senate has on a previous occasion carried a resolution for the appointment of a Senate select committee. Therefore, the Opposition decided thai it would proceed on the basis of the notice of motion which is on the notice paper. The Leader of the Opposition has proposed a cognate debate, which would save a lot of time. I do not wish to debate the merits of his proposal now. It seems to me that the arguments for and against have been put. The Leader of the Opposition’s proposal would be time saving. Anyway, it would bc open to an honourable senator during the course of the debate on the repatriation legislation to move a motion similar to the one which the Opposition has proposed. This would prolong debate. As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition’s proposal would be time saving and I will not take up any more of the time of the Senate canvassing it. However, I suggest to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) that he accept it.

Senator MURPHY:

– by leave - Mr Deputy President if the terms of the proposed motion were to be dealt with during the course of this debate the formal motion could be moved at the end of the debate, this would save the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) being placed in any difficulty. If the Senate deals with the debate on the repatriation legislation on the basis that it is also considering a motion which will be moved by Senator Bishop at the end of the debate, there will be no need to do anything about the motion at this stage. It is on that basis that I put the motion I have proposed.

Question resolved in the affirmative. .

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I spoke on this legislation last night for only a very brief period because I rose just prior to the stipulated time for the adjournment of the Senate. A number of things have arisen since thenwhich I want to canvass. The introduction into the debate of the terms of the motion on the notice paper in Senator Bishop’s name has widened the scope of the debate. I. am amazed at the attitude that has been adopted by the Government in relation to the Repatriation Bill. Yesterday we almost had to conduct a mopping up expedition in this chamber because of the crocodile tears which had been shed by Government senators, who claimed that the passage of this Bill was being delayed. In the debate which took place just prior to the suspension of the sitting this morning concerning whether the Senate would pursue its normal course of debating general business this evening, a fairly important resolution on the notice paper was scrubbed. A lack of sincerity on the part of the Government is shown by the fact that the Leader of the Government in the Senate was to come into this chamber and, at very short notice, move that the Senate sit tomorrow. I have no objection to the Senate sitting 5 or 7 days a week if it is necessary to do so, but I think it is most unfair to require honourable senators, some of whom have entered into other commitments tomorrow–

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) Order! Senator Keeffe, I think you should come back to the terms of the legislation which is before the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am speaking to it, Mr Deputy President. I believe that what I have raised is relevant to the allegation that the passage of this Bill is being delayed by the Opposition. The Government has, at short notice, adopted the very petty attitude of saying that the Senate will sit until this Bill is passed. This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that the Government has shown any interest in the welfare of ex-servicemen or repatriation benefits. The Government is only adopting this attitude because it is not having any success with its law and order policy.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Government senators are not showing much interest in repatriation now.

Senator KEEFFE:

– They never show any interest in repatriation. No doubt one of the reasons why the Government is trying to push the repatriation legislation through the Senate is to ensure that the minimum time will be allowed to debate this very important matter. The Government does not want a public exposition of what it is doing to the ex-servicemen of this country. One of the Government’s ways of overcoming this problem is to ensure that there is a minimum of debating time so that the legislation will be disposed of as soon as possible. In other words, the repatriation problem is being pushed under the carpet. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is interjecting. He makes some shocking interjections. I will not answer him. He will have an opportunity to make a speech afterwards if he has the moral courage to stand up and do so. The notice of motion on the notice paper states:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare the following matter - All aspects of repatriation, including the operation of the Repatriation Act and of the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act.

The Senate has on several occasions carried resolutions in this chamber for the establishment of a Senate Select Committee to inquire into such matters. After having a look at the names of those honourable senators who have voted against the establishment of such a committee one must wonder where the interest in the problems of ex-servicemen lie because it certainly does not lie in the hearts or the minds of a majority of the Government senators. I hope that the Government will rethink its attitude towards repatriation and that it will give serious consideration to the establishment of a committee on repatriation. I hope that honourable senators opposite will at the appropriate time vote in favour of the setting up of such a committee because it would be one way in which the shortcomings of the Repatriation Act could be examined. It would also be a way of examining the shortcomings of the Government’s overall attitude to repatriation and ex-servicemen generally. I will have more to say on this matter as the debate progresses.

In order to bring honourable senators up to date with the terms of the amendment which has been moved on behalf of the Opposition I shall read it. The amendment states:

At end of motion add: but the Senate is of opinion that the pension rate for the TPI ex-servicemen, the general rate pensioners and war widows should not have been allowed to decline notwithstanding the proposed increases, in relation to average weekly earnings.’ lt is my intention later this evening to give documentary evidence of how compensation payments to ex-servicemen have slipped far behind. 1 will be very critical of the Government. I shall be passing some very pertinent remarks. 1 hope that those honourable senators who have a pornographic turn of mind will not endeavour to twist my remarks in the same manner as they did when the Senate was discussing the social services legislation.

I refer to the second reading speech of the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman), who represents the Minister for Repatriation in this chamber. He said:

This Bill now before the Senate provides for higher war compensation payments by way of increases in the rates of pension for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen- and so on. Then I made reference to his notes on the Sixth Schedule where he said:

The Sixth Schedule is to be amended to provide an increase in the special compensation allowance.

For many, many years this Government would never admit that the payment of war pensions was in fact compensation. But since the introduction of this section of the Schedule the Government is prepared to admit that it is a special compensation allowance. Then the Minister goes on to say:

This allowance is payable as additional compensation to those seriously disabled ex-servicemen whose actual incapacity is assessed at from 75 per cent to 100 per cent of the general rate. The increase will be SI per week at the 100 per cent rate scaling down to 75c per week at the 75 per cent rate. The new rate of allowance will range from $6 per week for those whose actual incapacity is assessed at 100 per cent to $4.50 for those so assessed at 75 per cent.

I want to elaborate on this in a moment also. Then the Minister makes reference to the Third Schedule. He stated:

The Third Schedule will be amended to provide increases of 60c per week for the first child of an ex-serviceman, who dies from war causes, and 75c for the second and subsequent children. For a double orphan, that is a child who has also lost the other parent, the increase will be $1.85 per week.

Then he went on to give the details of the pension. For the average youngster today, 1 suppose even those in the lower income group, 60c a week is about the amount of pocket money he receives, but here is this benevolent Government granting an increase of 60c a week to a child who will never know its father. And the Government looks upon this as adequate compensation. I would say that is a very hypocritical attitude to adopt in relation to the needs of those people in the community who have no one to fight their causes for them.

At the end of the second reading speech are listed the amounts that will be paid under this special compensation allowance. We find that the 100 per cent general rate is $12 a week. The special compensation allowance is $6, making a grand total of $18, which in the old currency would have been £9 per week. At the 75 per cent rate the amount payable is $9, plus $4.50 special compensation allowance, a total of $13.50 per week. Only those people who are seriously incapacitated would come within this category. If any honourable senator has had to deal with some of these applications he would know that trying to get this special compensation allowance out of the Department is like trying to get blood from a stone. I suppose in recent times I have had success with about 2 per cent of the cases in which I have tried to get this allowance. I hope the Minister when he replies will be able to tell this Parliament how many cases are involved, how many applications have been received and how many applications granted. These are figures that I think ought to be exposed to the light of day. This allowance was brought in as a political measure a Budget or two ago and it has been utilised as political bait ever since. It certainly does not help the people concerned very much at all. But all of that great range of pensioners - and later when the figures are given honourable senators will see that the number is extensive - those who have given something of their lives, and the physically, mentally or otherwise damaged who come into the 75 per cent category and below, have not received lc increase for many, many years.

The Queensland sub-branch of the Incapacitated Returned Servicemen’s League sent me a very biting telegram which 1 will read to honourable senators later. I will now return to an examination of the pensions that are payable as set out in the Repatriation Commission’s annual report covering the period 1969-70. For those honourable senators who want to refer to the report, the statistics of the main activities of the Department are listed on page 3. For the period 1968-69 there was a total of 600,979 war pensioners. Apparently the figure for the year 1969-70 is 585,307. This is a decrease of almost 16,000 pensions payable. Yet we find that the overall percentage increase for repatriation pensions and benefits is less than the percentage increase in the defence vote of this country. In other words, the Government can find money to kill but it can never ever find money to rehabilitate, to compensate and to look after those who have served in previous conflicts, and even in the current conflict. Many young fellows are coming back, from Vietnam who, through red tape or for some other reason, or perhaps because of non-entitlement, are having their pensions held up. There is more than 1 case of a young widow who has had to live in pauperism until such time as her compensation came through. There are many instances of servicemen who at the time of discharge have their payments held up and who are struggling. If the Department or the Minister or anyone interested wants to have a look at some of my files for documentary proof of. these claims, they will be available at any time.

Now, of course, we have these extensive service pensions payable. We find for the year 1968-69 slightly more than 67,000 people were entitled to service pensions. This has increased for the financial year 1969-70 to 74,420, an increase of 7,000 odd. Of course, this increase is merely a book entry, if we come down to tin tacks, because the service pensioner, apart from a couple of minor fringe benefits, does no better than the age pensioner who is on the same rate of pension. So that if the Government says it cannot afford to pay these pensions it is pulling the wool over nobody’s eyes, least of all the eyes of the Opposition. The percentage increase in the rate of expenditure for the Department is insufficient to justify the case that the Government has put up. .1 say that rather does it boil down to hard, cold political issues. The Government is adopting an attitude to a very large section of this community that it does not care about, except for those from which it thinks it may be able to buy votes in a political campaign. It is significant that the Senate election will be held this year. Wherever it can the Government is trying to buy votes. But it has not used ils last election bait to the degree of compensating those who probably are not greatly affected, because many of them, generally speaking, would be able to continue in fairly normal employment. I .refer to that vast number of people receiving a general rale pension of 75 per cent and lower. Tn the days of a Labor Government when the standards for these things were set, the standards which the Government has failed to maintain over the intervening years, it was looked upon as a form of compensation for injuries suffered, lt was looked upon as some sort of return to both the men and their families for the time that they had devoted, in most cases, during the early years of their lifetime to the service of this country. [ mentioned a moment ago that I had received a telegram from the Queensland sub-branch of the Incapacitated Returned Servicemen’s League. This is a copy of a telegram which was forwarded to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and two or three others requesting - move for payment of all meagre pension increases to be made retrospective to 1st July. Will you assist and also express ‘disgust at no increase in general rate war pension.

Every member of this sub-branch is in receipt of a pension, and they are the people most affected. I would suggest that the Minister attend a meeting of this subbranch or one of their social functions. He would see with his own eyes the disablements that these men have suffered. The other point raised in the telegram is that payment ought to be made retrospective to the 1st July. That is a very valid point. It is significant that the Government has adopted by practice and custom an attitude of always making pension payments at the latter part of the year. In this case payment will be made on 1st October. In other cases it has been much later. It is equally significant that when the Government fixes taxes or increases taxes they virtually operate from the day of the Budget. Smart business people are able to get in for their cut because they apply the sales tax or the price increase on stock which they have bought at reduced rates. When it comes to dealing with ex-service and other pensions the Government finds it convenient to postpone for as long as possible the payment of any lousy increase it makes.

I take this opportunity to point out that it is the Department’s cheese paring policy - and the Minister’s too if the cap fits - to pare down expenses in remote areas. In some parts of my State of Queensland a repatriation officer is never seen. In other places he is seen at infrequent intervals. We have struggled for a long time to have a full time repatriation officer established in north Queensland, a thousand miles north of Brisbane. But all our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. I do not care if the Government does not want to put the officer in Townsville. Cairns or Mackay is equally suitable. By having this officer in north Queensland thousands of ex-servicemen will be given an opportunity to call and talk about their problems. It is all very good for the Department to say: Our officers visit the bigger provincial cities at a fairly regular time.’ This is true. Many ex-servicemen are unable to take time off work to have an interview with the repatriation officer. Many never hear that the officer is in town. It is true that the local sub-branch of the Returned Services League is advised and the advice goes on the notice board in the club rooms. This is some concession. But it is not enough. Every man should receive some sort of notification which is of a more intimate nature. I can see the notice on the board in my club if I want to go there. I do not often have the opportunity to go there. But if there were a regular officer at a regular address with a regular phone number the lives of more ex-servicemen would be saved.

I have seen people in the remote parts of Australia who say: ‘We have not got the time to visit a repatriation officer.’ In many instances they do not have the financial resources to pay their fares and probably overnight accommodation in a small country town to see the repatriation officer on one of his infrequent visits. I again ask the Department to re-examine this question of establishing a full time office not only in my State but in every other State where it may be applicable. I think there is only one regional office in this country outside the capital cities. This is a shocking indictment of Government policy. World War II veterans grow older. Most of us have now passed 45 years of age and many of us are in the 55 and 56 age group. These are the people who now need assistance most. As one grows older one’s physical desire to receive treatment probably weakens. Certainly no sacrifice is made to receive treatmerit. There is a tendency to put it off until tomorrow. The attitude is: I will see the doctor some time. Eventually that person’s health deteriorates and no pension is any good at that stage. Probably the only pension he receives is an ex-service burnt out diggers pension and a funeral allowance.

I will quote a couple of cases to show the inhumanity of some sections of the Department. 1 am not abusing the employees in the Department. This starts right at the top of the tree. The onus and the moral responsibility fall right on the Minister. Of course in turn the Minister is answerable to the Government, or vice versa. I do not care which way one puts it. I want to quote the Webb case. It is a very pathetic case. This lady has given me permission to use not only her name but also her address. She lives at 42 Adam Crescent, Montmorency, Victoria. The post code is 2094, if the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) would like to send her a kind letter. Mrs Webb states in her letter which is only a few weeks old:

My late husband was almost continuously in Heidelberg from early January till he passed away, lt appears, though 1 received no notification of this naturally, that my husband was being assessed for care and management following my appeals for assistance in my own’ predicament . . .

This man was a World War I veteran. His wife was also getting on in years and neither of them enjoyed good health.

Senator Webster:

– What was the name?

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mrs Webb.

Senator Webster:

– Kathleen Webb?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes. lt is obviously a case well known to the honourable senator. It is a pity he did not do something about it. The letter continues: . . and the Department’s refusal to appreciate the need for constant care of my husband.

He was admitted again in early February after 3 days at home suffering what I was. led to believe was kidney trouble on top of the rest. He was allowed home for a fortnight with his admission arranged for further investigation ‘ on 13th March.

Prior to ibis 1 was assured my husband was not ill enough to need any special care beyond my capabilities, and ‘care and management’ was refused. So little did they realise his condition quite obviously, that he was subjected to treatment quite beyond his capacity to withstand, and his condition rapidly deteriorated. The subject of care and management then had to be faced.

On my request that my husband could be allowed, if possible, to return home that we might discuss this together, I was then notified that he was too ill to be allowed home, but that his admission to a nursing home would be arranged.

I knew by this that he would never live to get there.

He was sent to McLeod. still deteriorating. 1 was warned there of the seriousness of his condition. On 3rd of June he was transferred from the heated wards of McLeod to the freezing conditions ward 4 verandah Heidelberg. 1 was told there that my husband’s condition was deteriorating, and yet apparently he would nol dic quickly enough.

If I did nol tell you, there were two 1st World War veterans on that infamous verandah. One survived the other by a matter of days only. What else could one expect.

I am willing to co-operate in any way I can to bring to the notice of the Government the treatment meted out to these men.

Mrs Webb goes on to say:

For my part, I have no wish to lay claim to assistance by Repatriation, and the wives would be far better served, with corresponding benefit to the ex-servicemen themselves were we not expected to remain somehow in perfect health till we became widowed.

Mine is not the ordinary grief of the widow whose husband’s time has come. Tt is the grief of a woman who herself is too done, and whose time is running out, who on begging for the help refused her with her own problems for some assistance with the care of- her frail victim of war so long ago, realises what her own inability to cope has done to him.

What kind of mentality is at work to make those in control at Repatriation seek to rehabilitate nien whose urgent and pressing need is geria-trie care.

How could Heidelberg have come to any kind of conclusion that a boy coming om of the 1st World War on a 100 per cent pension, could have the condition of his lungs and heart rehabilitated now?

Am 1 not entitled to feel bitter and unable to rid myself of the conclusion that it was never Heidelberg’s intention to allow my husband to put them to the expense of ‘care and management’. How well they have done. From $42 odd, they have saved themselves $20 a week haven’t they; and certainly no fear that 1 will cost them one cent.

Whatever the background to the case may be it is a pathetic story. I accept it as genuine. That lady has seen fit to sign her name to that communication. I do not have permission to use the gentleman’s name although I have permission to expose his case. I shall- refer to it as case A. This was a nian who served, overseas during World War II. He developed a particularly nasty type of dysentery. In recent times he developed, cancer of the bowel. Over a long period of time the Australian Labor Party has strongly advocated, as do all exservice organisations, that it ought to be the Government’s responsibility to accept cancer in all cases as war caused whether or not there is proof. I. submit with respect that the Government could well re-examine its conscience on this matter. At this time nobody knows the origin of cancer. Nobody knows why it is caused. I have seen sectional figures relating to the incidence of cancer. I have not seen complete figures, but the sectional figures reveal that ex-servicemen as a group are more prone to cancer than other people. lt might bc an interesting statistical exercise for the Minister to bring out a complete review of this aspect to .see whether this trend can be established. But even if figures do not prove this to be so. one would think that as a matter of concession the Government would acknowledge cancer for repatriation purposes in cases where people have given so much of their health and their lives.

When compared with the total number of diseases which cause early death or major incapacity the incidence of incapacity from cancer is not high. One would think that the Government would examine this aspect to see whether a repatriation benefit could be granted, whatever the cause of the cancer and whether it involved the payment of a pension to the widow if the ex-serviceman passed on or the granting of a pension of a TPI pension if the ex-serviceman found that his employment had to be terminated as a result of his contracting cancer. I do not blame the Department for this situation; the Department acts under the Minister’s instructions. What else can it do? In fact, officers of the Department have said that. In the case of this man there is no proof that the cancer was caused by the disease which he contracted while on war service. The matter went to the Repatriation Board and then went on appeal to the War Pensions Assessment Appeal Tribunal which decided, after careful consideration of ail the medical evidence and other considerations, not to attribute the contracting of cancer to war service. It may be said that the case can be re-opened if there is additional evidence, but what is the use of doing that? This man is in a hopeless situation: he is in a position where he cannot win. 1 have details here of another case, the details of which I shall not go into this evening because to do so would take me the best part of an hour. However, I have permission to use this man’s name and in this case I think the refusal of compensation or pension is a clear indictment of this Government’s policy. The gentlemen to whom I refer is Mr Ronald Carr of 29 Prosser Street, Toowoomba, Queensland. This man served over a lengthy period of years in the Royal Australian Navy. Apparently he was a man of good conduct. He held a senior rank in the Navy and gave everything that he had for a long time to the service of the Navy. He did not serve in wartime but after suffering from a coronary, he was discharged and went back to a job. Then he was told that the Department of Labour and National Service would look after him and that everything would be all right. He was given no compensation or repatriation benefit - nothing crf this sort. It did not matter that he had given 15 or 20 years of his life in one of the Services. One cannot gel compensation if certain people think that one is not entitled to it. No benefit of the doubt is applied. That provision is just a big joke. There was a time when the appropriate section of the Repatriation Act allowed an ex-serviceman to have the benefit of the doubt, but that provision no longer applies. I challenge the Government to cite one case where the benefit of the doubt provision has been applied recently. The Government wants to cut down on its expenditure on repatriation so that it can increase its expenditure for purposes of war.

Mr Carr was told by the Department of Labour and National Service that he could have a job as a railway porter, but when he began at that job he was told: ‘Here are some 56 lb boxes of butter; you can lift those around.’ What man who has suffered a major coronary could take employment of that nature? From that time on he was dumped by everybody. It is significant to note that at the first examination by naval doctors they could see that his coronary had been induced by the nature of his service, but when he came before a board on which one of these doctors served his claim was rejected because, they said, he was not entitled to a benefit. The result was that apart from the normal payments which were due to him at the end of his service he received no compensation and no repatriation benefit. I have a very damaging file on this case and I propose one evening before this session is finished to produce this material because I think it is one of the greatest scandals that I have ever seen.

Senator Webster:

– What is wrong with tonight?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I have not the time to deal with it tonight. I have a limited time only and 1 have other scandals to expose, apart from this one, and probably I shall not have another opportunity to talk about them.

Senator Webster:

– People will call you a scandalmonger.

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 do not think this is the time for facetious remarks. If Senator Webster thinks that the disabilities of an ex-serviceman are something to joke about, this shows his lack of patriotism when ho is not prepared to go to Vietnam

Senator Webster:

– I think some of your comments are worth joking about

Senator KEEFFE:

– You have asked for it and you are getting it. and if you say anything else you will get it again. I propose now to refer to another case in which 1 have not permission to use the man’s name. The letter relating to this case is available to departmental officers and to the Minister if they want to look at it. This case involves a man in Western Australia who receives a 60 per cent general rate pension for a disability and who needs physiotherapy for disabilities from which he suffers. 1 hope that the Department will look into this case. This man’s wife wrote to me in these terms:

As a member of many women’s organisations I could never understand the complaints re the Department and their offhanded attitude to the patients because usually I meet wilh most courteous attention.

However, she went on to state that, on that particular day, so that her husband would not lose lime from his job, she decided lo go along to the Department to make an appointment for him. She found it so difficult to find the appropriate section of the Department that she had to visit that she was compelled to seek aid from the lift driver, who was the only one who showed her any courtesy. She went on to say that there should have been two physiotherapists in attendance but only one was on duty. She was so confused that she did not know what she was doing. When eventually she saw the physiotherapist he told her that a lamp only should have been used for treatment, yet the man’s own repatriation doctor had said that he needed physiotherapy. There was a conflict of opinion. By this time everyone was becoming completely fed up. This lady continues in her letter to refer to the occasion when she visited the Department. Also present at that time was a man who had come from Northam, which apparently is 60 miles from Perth, only to find that his appointment was not listed and that the repatriation doctor knew nothing about him. She states:

He had a train to catch back at 4.40 p.m. and when I left around 4 they were still trying lo sort things out.

She goes on then to mention that the notice on the door of the physiotherapist’s waiting room read:

Don’t come in, sit and wait.

But then at the bottom of the notice and in smaller printing the sign read: ‘You will be called in.’ I do not blame this lady for being very upset about the manner in which her husband was treated and the manner in which she was treated. Again, this is not the fault of some employee in the Repatriation Department; the responsibility lies with whoever is in charge and this is where the blame must be sheeted. It comes right back to the Minister. She goes on to state in her letter that she oan understand now why her husband cannot bc bothered applying for any increase in his 60 per cent rate pension. His attitude is that it is just a waste of time and that when his complaint worsens he will not notify the Department even but will accept treatment from his local doctor. But this is the sort of thing that is happening all the time.

The Government does nol have human attitudes; its only interest is keeping the expenditure of the Department as low as possible. In fact, because of the Government’s altitude, the National Capital Development Commission would have more opportunity of getting money from the Department of the Interior than an exserviceman would have of getting satisfaction in his repatriation problems. I propose now to refer to another case. Again, if anybody wants to look at the details of this case they may do so. This case concerns an exserviceman ‘ who is getting on in years and who has suffered from indifferent health. He has tried to get a repatriation pension. This man had served in the Darwin area, which was a theatre of war after a certain period, but because he was in the area outside this period, although he is qualified lo wear a returned from active service badge and is qualified for membership in the Returned Services League, he is now denied the service pension which is paid to burnt out diggers. The Department said in a letter to him:

To qualify with service in Australia only, he had to serve for 3 consecutive months in the Northern Territory, north of parallel 14.5 degrees south latitude on or after 19th February 1942 and before 13th November 1943.

The letter continues:

As your service in the Northern Territory commenced in 1944-

  1. think it began very early in that year - you do not have service in a theatre of war for service pension purposes.

The departmental officer then expresses regret. That is the stock answer. He is probably quite genuine in his expression of regret because in my dealings with repatriation officials I have found the majority of them helpful; but they are completely hamstrung by the shortcomings of the legislation and the absence of a desire on the part of the Government to amend the Act whenever shortcomings are brought before it. it wants to keep pushing things under the carpet.

I make a final appeal that before this Bill passes through this chamber and comes into law the Government examine the amendment moved by Senator Bishop on behalf of the Opposition and also the motion on the notice paper which asks that there be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare all aspects of repatriation, including the operation of the Repatriation Act and of the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act. There is a whole series of things, apart from the few instances 1 have mentioned, that ought to be exposed to the light of day and would be if the Government had the political intestinal fortitude to have them exposed to the light of day. There are numerous cases on the files in my office, as 1 am sure there are on the files of every other member of this chamber and every member of the other place, too. They are hopeless cases under the terms of the present Act. But in many instances only a minor amendment of the legislation is neded. That will not cost the country a fortune, but it will give justice to those people who most need it. 1 conclude with that plea for those 2 requirements that we have put forward.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– lt is not my intention to speak at length on this Bill; but I take advantage of it to highlight to the Australian people the niggardly treatment that is handed out by this Government to men and women who have given their utmost in the service of this nation when their service has been required. We have a situation today in which young 20-year-olds, very often against their will, are being taken away from their homes and their family life, thrown into the Army, conscripted to serve in Vietnam, wounded in action, brought back to Australia and awarded a total and permanent incapacity pension if their case warrants it. Then for the rest of their lives, on the standards of this Budget, they are expected to live below the poverty line that exists in Australia today.

In this legislation the magnificent and beneficent sum of S38 a week is being awarded to the totally and permanently incapacitated war pensioner. As a result of the Budget and this legislation, he receives an increase of $2 a week. So, a young man who has been conscripted by this Government to serve in Vietnam, who is gravely wounded and who comes back to Australia, even if he is given a TPI pension, is expected to live for the rest of his life on $38 a week. The minimum wage awarded by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to workers in industry today is $42.50 a week. Even under the Government’s own health legislation, if anyone has an income less than $42.50 a week he does not have to insure; the Government will insure him under the voluntary health insurance scheme.

The Government, in giving a mere $2 a week handout, is awarding to these young kids who have been wounded in the service of this country an amount miserably below the poverty line. Let us consider it on another comparative basis. What are the average weekly earnings of the male worker in industry today? They arc $63 or $64 a week.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– They are $65.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are now $65 a week, as my colleague Senator Donald Cameron reminds me. Yet the Government is expecting the TPI pensioner who has served this country at the request or the instigation of this Government to live on a miserable $38 a week.

Let us look at other matters that one sees in the annual report of the Repatriation Commission. Frankly, I have the greatest of respect for officers of the Repatriation Department for the manner in which they treat members of the Parliament in regard to the cases that are refered to the Department by members from time to time. 1 only wish that the appeal tribunals, particularly the entitlement appeal tribunals, would give the same consideration to the cases that come before them, having regard to the onus of proof that is imposed upon the Repatriation Commission under the statute.

At page 70 of the annual report of the Repatriation Commission for 1969-70 we see that, as regards the 1914 War, the total number of appeals to entitlement appeal tribunals for action was 2,313; the number allowed was 138; the number disallowed was 1,492; the number referred back to the Commission and allowed was 9; and the number withdrawn or lapsed was 72. So, whereas 147 were allowed, 1,492 were disallowed. Can anyone tell me that at the stage of life at which these men are - these men served this country at Gallipoli and in France, Egypt and New Guinea in the 1914 War - and having regard to the onus of proof that rests on the Repatriation Commission, the law of averages is 10:1 against their having an appeal allowed?

As regards the 1939 War, the total number of appeals for action was 13,397; the number outstanding at 30th June 1969 was 3,907; the number lodged during the year was 9,490: the number allowed was 1,361; the number disallowed was 7,456; and the number referred back to the Commission and allowed was 103. There the ratio was more than 4:1 in round figures. It appears to me that the older one becomes in the service of one’s country and the more difficult it becomes for one to prove one’s case, the more difficult it is for one to receive any assistance from the Repatriation Commission.

As regards special overseas service - this covers the men in the hostilities in which this country is engaged although the Government refuses to declare the war to be a war - the number of appeals outstanding at 30th June 1969 was 65; the number lodged during the year was 166; the total for action was 231; the number allowed was 50; and the number disallowed was 87. These are the appeals of young kids who have been conscripted by this Government and set to the jungles of Vietnam, often against their will. They are expected to come back to Australia and make application for a repatriation allowance; but in their case the ratio is about 14:1. Therefore, on those figures alone, apart from the individual cases that one has brought to one’s attention from time to time, I say that the entitlement appeal tribunals are not honouring their obligation under the

Act to give the benefit of the onus of proof to ex-servicemen who have served this country when it has needed them most.

There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. A case is about to be formally referred to me. It has been referred to me by telephone. It is the case of a man who has been trying for many years to obtain justice at the hands of the Repatriation Commission. He lodged claim after claim and made appeal after appeal. He is now in the twilight of his life and is some 72 years of age. He had been receiving a Service pension but he is now receiving a war pension for wounds or injuries he incurred during the course of his service with the 1st Australian Imperial Force. Now, because of the amount he has received by way of war pension, his Service pension apparently is to be reduced. The information I have came over the telephone and I have asked the people concerned to send me the papers.

I was always under the impression that a man received a benefit - for want of a better term - by way of compensation from the Repatriation Commission for service to this country. Now it appears that a man in such a situation, who is either in receipt of a Service pension or an age pension and then subsequently receives a war pension, is to have his Service pension or age pension reduced corespondingly in order to meet the demands of the means test.

I believe that there are so many anomalies and injustices under the present repatriation scheme that the Opposition’s move to have repatriation refered to a standing committee of this Senate is in the interests of ex-servicemen, in the interests of this country and in the interests of this Parliament. I certainly support the proposition proposed by the Opposition this evening.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I did not intend to speak on the Repatriation Bill (No. 2) which is now before the Senate. I was more interested in Notice of Motion No. 1 relating to an inquiry into repatriation which has now been coupled with this debate. I intended to speak to Notice of Motion No. 1. I will speak briefly to the Bill because I believe that Senator Bishop and other honourable senators on the Opposition side of the chamber have been able to point out to the Senate the lack of attention and consideration that has been given to ex-servicemen in the Budget.

I believe it is now very important that the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare . should examine the whole question of repatriation, lt is true that I would have preferred the establishment of a select committee of the Senate to do this job in accordance with the resolution carried by the Senate on two occasions but refused by the Government. I would prefer that course to be taken because the issues relating to the operations of the Repatriation Commission are extremely broad. I think an examination in depth of the Repatriation Department would result in it being modernised and streamlined. Because the Government refused, on the two occasions that that resolution was carried by the Senate, to put this matter up for investigation by a select commitee 1 wholeheartedly support the motion before the Senate tonight.

I do not think there would be one honourable senator in this chamber who has not on numerous occasions dealt with cases which he believed in his heart should not only receive sympathetic consideration by the Repatriation Department but which should in fact result in the applicant being granted the benefits to which he was entitled under the Act. Senator Keeffe mentioned a number of cases tonight. If I had the time f could duplicate them three or fourfold from the cases T have in my files. When an ex-serviceman comes into my office to put up a repatriation case I generally feel that I cannot do any good for him. This is the first reaction. I think that Christmas Day has arrived when 1 win I case out of the many about which I make representations to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten).

The repatriation appeal tribunal system needs a very close examination. One of the frequent complaints 1 receive about the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals is that people who appear before them feel that they have not been given a reasonable hearing. They believe that their cases have not been given the close attention that they deserve. I raised this matter only a fortnight ago with the Minister. The man involved in the case travelled about 150 miles to appear before a tribunal. He firmly believes that the tribunal made its decision before he entered the room in which it met. He told me, in substantiation of his belief, that one of the tribunal members left the room with him, descended with him in the lift and left the building at the same time. Yet the next day he received a rejection notice dated the day of the hearing, lt was mailed to him at his home. No-one will ever convince him that the decision was not made prior to his appearing before that tribunal. If tribunal members are not sufficiently interested to remain and consider the evidence then you would think that at least they would be decent enough to wait until the man concerned left the building before going on their private way. No-one will ever convince that man that his hearing was fair or the matters he put before the tribunal were considered.

Senator Greenwood:

– Did the Minister reply to your inquiries about that matter?

Senator POYSER:

– Not as yet. I have asked for the case to be investigated but have not yet received a reply. The point I am making is that I believe that an examination in depth would find many instances of ex-servicemen who feel that their appearance before tribunals has not been considered in a correct and proper manner. I have other examples, as, no doubt, have other honourable senators, of the lack of sympathy extended to many elderly pensioners, particularly those with total and permanent incapacity and those receiving the 100 per cent pension and who are hospitalised in the late years of their lives, f know of cases of men in their 80s who receive either a Service pension or a TPI pension and who are entitled basically to full medical and hospital benefits but whose illnesses have been declared to be chronic and who have had all payments taken from them at the time when they have a few weeks to live. We find that the Repatriation Department does this.

Quite recently the Minister upheld representations by me relating to an elderly gentleman who died in Warrnambool hospital. The position now is that the Repatriation Commission has agreed to reverse the decision made in this matter. This has relieved the worry of this poor woman whose husband, a TPI pensioner aged 85 years, had been admitted to hospital. She knew he would never come out alive. That man was advised by the Repatriation

Department in a roneoed letter - and that type of letter also is a disgrace to the Department- of the simple fact that he had been declared chronically ill and that no further hospital and medical benefit payments would be made. That letter was sent to this man, aged 85, who had been a TPI pensioner for years and years.

Why not have an examination in depth into these things? I think the Minister clearly realised when that case was put before him that the action taken was most unjust. All these matters should be examined in depth. The Returned Services League would then be able to put very clearly before a select committee the reasons why it wants urgent amendments to the Repatriation Act. More importantly, the people who feel that they have been aggrieved could appear personally to give evidence. I feel that that is most necessary. A type of ombudsman obviously is needed at repatriation level at this stage of history because there are so many people who feel they are not getting a fair crack of the whip. Also, the Senate has agreed with submissions by the RSL relating to medical treatment for all persons over 70 years of age who served in the First or Second World Wars. It amazes me that the Government will not agree to this proposition. Very little cost is involved. When the position is assessed, many of these people would already have this entitlement because they receive a service pension or because they receive an age pension. There are a few left over in this aged group. If one looks at the lists in RSL clubs one sees the dwindling list of membership every year because of the death rate among both First and Second World War veterans. The cost would not be great, but it would give some recognition to those mert who fought for their country.

The widows and dependants of those who died should be given some recognition. Many veterans died from injuries they received, which were not recognised - and I believe this to be a fact - or illnesses they contracted which were not recognised by the Department of Repatriation. I believe this to be a fact also. In the last 5, 6 or perhaps 7 years of their lives ex-servicemen over 70 should be entitled to this benefit. In the Senate the Opposition has sought, by resolution, that all persons Over the age of 70, irrespective of which war they fought in, should have this type of benefit extended to them. There would be very little cost in comparison with the total Budget of this nation. I do hope that the Senate will, in its wisdom, if a vote is taken tonight or if not tonight tomorrow, carry the amendment referring the matter to a committee. I believe that if a committee Ls set up we will get back from the committee a report that will substantiate that the many things about which we have spoken tonight show that the Act needs a complete review and that perhaps an entirely new Act may be required. Certainly the present Act needs many urgent amendments.

The benefit of the doubt has been referred to by honourable senators on this side of the chamber. I want to add my voice and my views to the belief that the benefit of the doubt provision is not being followed in the spirit in which it appears in the Act but that in fact it is being carried out in direct contradiction to the intention of the Labor Government which inserted this clause in the Act after the Second World War. Let us get to the position where we can examine these things properly and in depth. After we have examined them in depth we should ensure that the proper legislation giving these men their entitlements is carried through both Houses of Parliament.

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

– in reply - This Bill will be implement the Government’s Budget proposals in the repatriation war compensation field. The long title of the Bill shows that it is a Bill to amend the Repatriation Act 1920-1969, as amended by the Repatriation Act 1970, so as to provide for increases in the rates of certain pensions and allowances and for additional Repatriation Boards and to appropriate the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of certain payments resulting from those amendments. In other words, the purpose of the Bill is to provide for pension allowance increases and to provide for the appointment of additional Repatriation Boards. But during the course of the debate honourable senators have taken the opportunity of ranging across the whole Repatriation Act and of referring to treatment and various other aspects of the repatriation setup. I will not take a great deal of the Senate’s time traversing the speeches or referring to the Bill, other than what I have said. In the short time that I intend to take I would like to reply to some of the points made by various speakers.

I refer firstly to some of the points made by Senator Bishop who opened the debate for the Opposition. He referred to the increases in allowances as being totally inadequate. I point out that there always have been critics of the Repatriation Act, either directly because of the insufficiency of the rates or indirectly by seeking to widen the condition of eligibility. 1 think this is a good thing because it certainly will keep the Department of Repatriation people on their toes to see that they do everything possible to assist the people involved. I remind Senator Bishop that representatives of the Returned Services League again had the opportunity of appearing before the Cabinet subcommittee on repatriation and of pulling their case to various members of the Ministry before consideration was given to the Budget. This is an opportunity that the RSL and some of the ex-servicemen’s organisations enjoy each year. 1 do not think that many other organisations in the community can avail themselves of this kind of opportunity. Senator Bishop also referred to the fact that in past years the Opposition had supported the submissions of ex-servicemen’s organisations. He proceeded to refer to the RSL war compensation plan. This year’s RSL war compensation plan repeats the request that was made for the first time in 1969 for an independent non-parliamentary committee of inquiry to completely review the principal Repatriation Act and its provisions. In the last few years there have been requests for 2 separate kinds of inquiry - the non-parliamentary inquiry or committee of review and a parliamentary committee.

Honourable senators will note that last year the Senate expressed an opinion that there ought to be a Senate committee of inquiry into repatriation matters to commence not earlier than 1st January 1970. However, no formal move to set up an inquiry has yet been made, I remind the Senate that in 1967 there was a formal motion in the Senate for the establishment of a committee. At that time the Minister and the Government opposed the idea and the motion was not successful. In short, the Government has not favoured either form of inquiry. As a general observation, the League’s case, as presented in the plan, does not of itself justify an inquiry. It recites a series of changes in social standards and medical science, the strategic situation and the economy and it identifies a number of areas of repatriation activity which it would like to see examined. However, it offers no evidence that the first group of factors has not already been taken into account sufficiently in advances made in the system: nor that the parliamentary review committee is the only or even the most satisfactory way of considering specific issues.

If the League’s request were granted, the principal pension rates would rise as follows: The totally and permanently incapacitated rate would rise from $36 to $42.40, an increase of $6.40 a week; the general rate 100 per cent pension would rise from $12 to $21.20, an increase of $9.20 a week: the war widows’ pension would rise from Si 5 to S21.20. an increase of $6.20 a week. The League suggests these rates as an interim measure pending an examination of compensation payments by its proposed special committee. Senator Bishop reminded the Senate that on 3 occasions it supported what the Opposition put forward. The facts are that on a number of occasions the Senate has indicated that there should be a select, committee to examine the repatriation system and its recommendations to the Senate at the conclusion of the debate on the 1969 Repatriation estimates suggested that it commence its inquiry not earlier than 1st January 1970.

In 1969 Senator Drury moved that at the end of the motion for the second reading of the Bill certain words bc added. The Government’s attitude in this matter has been quite clear. The late Senator McKel-lar, when Minister for Repatriation, went into some detail in the debate in 1969 on Senator Murphy’s motion that a Senate, select committee be appointed to examine repatriation matters. In explaining why the Government did not favour the appointment of such a committee Senator McKellar stated that the Government’s view then was that there was already a continuing opportunity for review by Parliament, through the introduction of amending legislation, notices of motion and speeches’ during the adjournment debate, and by the administration itself.

Senator Bishop then referred to the 1943 Committee and said that the RSL and the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers’ Association were using the 1950 review. The 1943 Committee was primarily concerned with adopting the then Repatriation Act to meet the needs and conditions of servicemen of World War IT. The same circumstances had not recurred. In 1950, almost as soon as the Government assumed office, it conducted a review of repatriation affairs generally. As I have just said, there is continuing opportunity for review of the system to be conducted by Parliament and by other means.

Senator Bishop referred to the case put forward by the Returned Services League for extending repatriation hospital, medical and pharmaceutical benefits. In the past few years there have been numerous requests from organisations and individuals representing ex-servicemen for the provision of free treatment and services for veterans of the Boer War and World War I. Proposals have varied from hospital treatment of the acute phase of an illness to full medical and hospital treatment services; and from treatment for all of the veterans to those who served overseas.

Those people who are disabled through war service and on existing means test standards are judged to be needy are already entitled to medical and hospital treatment. Thus the proposal to extent treatment facilities to Boer War and World War I ex-servicemen would benefit only those veterans who are neither seriously incapacitated because of war service nor in financial need. Senator Bishop also referred to the funeral grant. This has always been a grant towards the cost of a funeral and has never been intended to cover the full cost. A number of other speakers raised matters in this debate but time is short and I cannot reply to all of them.I have replied to the more important points raised by Senator Bishop. The Government cannot support the proposed amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Bishop’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 25

NOES: 21

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 902

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator

Bull) - 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 902

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1970

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 September (vide page 741), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 903

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND WELFARE

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I move:

It is not necessary for me to debate this matter as the merits of the motion were canvassed in the debate on the Repatriation Bill.

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

– The Government is unable to support this proposition. Therefore it will oppose the motion.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 25

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 903

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator

Bull) - Order!I inform the Senate that a letter has been received from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) appointing Senators Willesee and Devitt as members of the Estimates Committees C and E respectively in place of Senator Keeffe.

page 903

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Tuesday next at 3 p.m.

Senate adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 September 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700924_senate_27_s45/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant