Senate
30 September 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 965

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting or on such later day as the matter comes on for debate 1 shall move:

That sections 6, 16(3), 17, 20, 46, 48(2), 49 (1), 51. 53, 54 (3), (4) and (7). 55, 58(2), 61 (2), 62 (3), 63, 64 (2) and (3) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 28 of 1970 and made under the Scat of. Government (Administration) Act 191.0-1965 be disallowed. ] ask for leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– This is the last day for the giving of notice in relation to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. Some representations were made at a very late hour last night, and this notice is given in order to hold the position in relation to the matters which previously concerned the Senate, lt is not intended to proceed immediately on this matter but rather that some discussion should take place.

page 965

QUESTION

PAYROLL TAX

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I ask Hie Leader of the Government: In view of the fact that the Premier of Victoria has raised the question of the legality of the payroll tax by his argument that one crown cannot tax another crown, what is the position of a semi or half-crown? I allude to semigovernmental authorities. Would the Minister’s advice be to follow the action of Sir Henry Bolte?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Appreciating very much the light touch in relation to the half-crown, 1 indicate to the Senate that the Prime Minister a short time ago made a statement in the other place regarding the statement made by Sir Henry Bolte on the Budget proposals in Victoria and its implication in regard to payroll tax. If a copy of the statement has arrived before the end of question time, as I hope ft will, I propose to table the statement in this place. 1 am seeking to obtain it as quickly as I can, and I will certainly table it as soon as it arrives.

page 965

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– Some time ago I asked the Minister for Air to make available to senators the regulations governing the use of VIP planes. He advised me that the regulations were being examined with a view to possible changes. I now ask him: Has the review been completed and, if so, what are the regulations now in force in regard to the use of VIP planes?

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

– The review has been completed and I now can inform honourable senators in relation lo the rules. It will be recalled that during the last session questions were asked concerning the conditions governing the use of Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft. At the time I indicated th..t the general rules were under review and that when that review was completed I would inform the Senate of the position.

On 2 1st May 1969 the late Senator McKellar outlined to the Senate the general procedures regarding the use of RAAF VIP aircraft. Following on the review that I have mentioned, the general rules relating to the use of RAAF VIP aircraft for VIP and VIP party travel purposes are now advised as follows:

Members of the British Royal Family, the Governor-General and the Prime Minister are their own approving authority and are responsible for approving persons travelling as members of their party. For other persons, only 3 approving authorities can approve VIP and VIP party travel in RAAF VIP aircraft. These are the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Air. Providing a flight is authorised by the Governor-General, the Prime Minister or the Minister for Air, the following may have the use of a VIP aircraft:

Other Federal Ministers;

The Leader of the Opposition in the Commonwealth Parliament and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition;

Persons of similar status and importance who may be visiting Australia from countries overseas;

Serving officers of the rank of Air ViceMarshal and above and equivalent ranks in Australian and other forces, and other persons of like status and importance.

In the case of the VIPs referred to immediately above, the Minister for Air will normally be the approving authority and will be responsible for approving persons travelling as members of the VIP’s party. In considering whether approval should be given, the Minister for Air will take into account:

  1. the availability of VIP aircraft;
  2. the availability of other forms of transport at or near the time of travel;
  3. the importance and necessity of the flight requested; and
  4. the status and importance of the VIP making the request.

Where the Minister for Air entertains doubts as to an application he is to consult with the Prime Minister for decision on whether an aircraft should be provided.

Subject to the above, in general, VIP aircraft may also be provided:

  1. for use by parliamentary delegations or for parliamentary committee purposes, where it can be shown to be more efficient and effective to use a ViP aircraft, e.g. the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works travelling on official committee business; and
  2. for use under emergency or special circumstances, where the approving authority considers that such use of a VIP aircraft is justified.

In each instance the travel in VIP aircraft by members of a VIP party is subject to the approval of the approving authority concerned.

When an aircraft is approved for VIP travel, the other passengers carried as members of the VIP party will normally be limited to the VIP’s wife, his personal staff and departmental officials connected with the official party, or in the case of a visiting foreign dignitary, senior members of his country’s diplomatic mission in Australia. Approval to travel as a member of a VIP party could relate to travel on the VIP portion of the flight, i.e., whilst the VIP is on board, or whilst the aircraft is positioning itself to pick up the VIP concerned or is returning after completion of the particular VIP flight.

Persons accompanying a VIP on a VIP aircraft may also include:

  1. where a Minister or Leader of the Opposition is using a VIP aircraft to visit a particular area, it Is in order for him to be accompanied by the local Federal member for that area;
  2. on special occasions or on visits to remote areas, approval may be given for a VIP to be accompanied by representatives of news media.

In the event of the composition of the VIP party being changed, a further application to the approving authority concerned is to be made prior to travel. The existing arrangements also provide for RAAF VIP aircraft to be supplemented by use of Department of Civil Aviation aircraft as necessary in order to meet a VIP aircraft travel commitment approved under the above rules.

In informing the Senate of the above arrangements I wish to state that from time to time there will be exceptions to the general procedures and arrangements applicable to VIP aicraft travel. In other words, the rules arc not inflexible and whilst they are administered and operate within the general arrangements that have been outlined, it will be necessary from time to time for the approving authority to exercise his discretion in approving VIP travel, taking into account the circumstances associated with the request for travel.

page 966

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and refers to the public statements made by the former Chairman of the Defence Committee and Secretary of the Department of Defence, Sir Henry Bland, which strongly contest the present policies of the Government in defence procurement and organisation and question Australia’s commitments to the purchase of sophisticated equipment dovetailed into United States policies, equipment and designs. Sir Henry Bland also recommended the priority of an Australian competence in less sophisticated weaponry and the Australian manufacture of equipment, including aircraft. 1 ask: Is it a fact that similar recommendations were made by Sir Henry Bland when he occupied the position of Chairman of the Defence Committee? Does the Government intend to take any notice of the recommendations or te consider what has DOW been stated publicly?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Like the honourable senator I read what appeared in the Press in relation to a statement made by Sir Henry Bland who was formerly the head of the Department of Defence and prior to that was head of the Department of Labour and National Service. That was the only reference I have had to Sir Henry’s statement. Some of the matters on which he expresses a view relate to the disposition of departments. For instance he suggested that instead of having the Department of Defence, 3 Service departments and the Department of Supply the number of departments should be reduced to, I think, 3. This is a matter of judgment. I am sure that none of us could be expected to make a comment about it on the basis of something that we read in the newspaper this morning.

Some of the other matters referred to by Senator Bishop are consistent with my own knowledge of views expressed by Sir Henry Bland. He was moving towards implementing those views in the Department of Defence. They were consistent with my views and those of the Government. Wc were in agreement that there should be a far greater Australian component in the weaponry in our defence complex. As late as yesterday I issued a Press statement which indicated that Australia was entering upon the manufacture of certain types of bombs which previously we had to purchase. Likewise we had to acquire licences to manufacture in this country equipment connected with the fire power of the Mirage which previously we had to import. This is a continuing process. What Sir Henry has said, as I read it, as to what we are doing, is completely consistent with the Government’s approach.

With the aircraft industry there is a far more complex problem because as I indicated here earlier at some length there are certainly some fields in which we have, beyond a shadow of doubt, a capacity to manufacture. The capacity to manufacture is noi the issue; the problem is the filling of the order book. What 1 would like to do - and 1 am sure Senator Bishop will agree that it is essential that 1 do this - is to obtain a complete report of what Sir Henry Bland said. The Minister for Defence and I will have a good look at it and if we think it appropriate we will make some further comments about it.

page 967

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– In the rules laid down by the late Senator McKellar, the President and the Speaker were not specifically included, although I understand, Mr President, that you have used a VIP aircraft on occasions, lt is always within the prerogative of the Minister for Air to grant you or the Speaker use of a VIP aircraft. In regard to the committee proposition, I referred to the Public Works Committee only by way of illustration. In the past I have given other committees the use of a VIP aircraft, and I will continue to do so while I am in the job. With reference to the local member, under the old rules the local member was allowed only to fly into his electorate and around it. Now he is allowed to fly into and out of his electorate.

Senator Murphy:

– The expression ‘Federal member’ does not include senators?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The only senators included under the rules laid down are the Senate Ministers.

Senator Poyser:

– Not even the Leader of the Opposition is included?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No.

Those are the rules laid down, and I cannot go any further than that.

page 968

QUESTION

TAXATION ZONE ALLOWANCES

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has consideration been given by the Treasurer to amending the zone allowance deduction provision of the income tax law by reducing the eligibility period from 6 months to 5 months in a taxation year to enable school teachers in the zones, whose teaching year extends from February to November inclusive, to become eligible? At present a school teacher in Western Australia can be teaching in a zone allowance area for 10 months in a calendar year and receive no deduction.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONAs the Senate knows, from time to time honourable senators very properly raise the question of examination of zone allowances. My answer has always been that this is a matter that the Treasurer examines every year at Budget time when he is making up his mind as to what the Budget will be and what will be the result of any representations in relation to allowances. But in this instance Senator Wilkinson brings out a particular case which has particular reference to the occupation of the person or the type of work he does. I will undertake to have that referred immediately to the Treasurer.

page 968

QUESTION

PROFILES OF POWER

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. By way of preface I refer to the excellent Australian Broadcasting Commission television programme Profiles of Power’ - a weekly presentation of personalities from different sections of public life in Australia - and the fact that comments made during this programme are given considerable publicity in the daily Press. In view of the wide and growing interest in this programme, will the Postmaster-General endeavour to have the ABC arrange for the same programmes to be screened in Tasmania as in other States, even if this would mean having 2 programmes in the first week in order to synchronise them. At present Tasmania is a week behind Victoria and New South Wales.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I thought it was 100 years behind.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 would like to let Senator O’Byrne know that I did sot make that comment. My reply to his question is that I shall take this matter up with the Postmaster-General.

page 968

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service inform the Parliament of the wage rales and working hours for Aboriginals employed in the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory who are not members of the North Australian Workers Union?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I shall ascertain tha facts required by the honourable senator and inform him.

page 968

QUESTION

APPRENTICES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science been drawn to an account of the annual report of the Victorian Apprenticeship Commission which says that it will be necessary progressively to modify apprenticeship in order to make it more attractive? In view of the claim in the report that many additional facilities will be required in the next few years, as well as what it describes as substantial additional Government money provided to the Education Department’, can the Minister say whether the Department he represents hew: has plans for improving the area of. apprenticeship in the future and whether or not State Departments of Education are seeking Commonwealth assistance?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have not seen the report of the Victorian Apprenticeship Commission and I am not aware that State departments have made any application to this quarter for financial provision. However I remind the honourable senator that the Minister for Labour and National Service, whom I represent also in this House, some 3 or 4 months ago tabled a report that had been made by a most comprehensive mission which had visited Europe and collected information as to the existing practices of apprenticeship in many European countries. That was accompanied by a comment that advanced procedures needed a good deal of study in this country. That report is under active consideration by the Minister at the present time and in due time will be expressed in the form of a decision to be announced in Parliament.

page 969

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL AFFAIRS

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the increasing complexity in the operation of the public account and in view of the more intense scrutiny of financial papers and departmental accounts which will result from the operations of the Senate estimates committees, will the Treasurer consider the compilation of a handbook for the information and guidance of senators and members on the nature of the public account, the operation of the various funds and the mode of presentation of (he figures in the financial papers?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– It is true that for consideration of the appropriation and estimates department by department, quite a number of departments produce a handbook which has proved to be very helpful to the committees and in point of fact they have saved time. Honourable senators, in their study of the various appropriation items, have been able to obtain information and follow the pattern of procedures. We are all very grateful for it. What Senator Byrne suggests, however, is a consolidation of all that information into a handbook which would give a more comprehensive and broad outline of these matters. I think that idea has merit because when the Budget papers are brought down we are all given a very significant pile of various documents, all of which have to be read in relation to one another. I think it would be very valuable if all these things could be drawn together and published in a handbook. I certainly will put the proposal to the Treasurer.

page 969

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

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

– That seems to me to be a highly appropriate question to direct to the Minister for the Interior without any further comment by me.

page 969

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration noted a Press report that a Jamaican engineer and his wife, residents of the United Kingdom, were declined assisted passages to Australia? Having regard to our evaluation of non-Europeans with technical skills who are accorded entry to Australia, would not an engineer, irrespective of colour, meet that criterion of entry and be eligible for an assisted passage?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator has referred to Jamaican born Mr Jan Allen, a British citizen, about whom there has been some comment in the Press. The best information I can give the honourable senator is contained in some notes I have. They state that Mr Allen did not apply for assisted passages for himself and his family. His application was for entry only. A careful review of the record shows that the possibility of the family receiving assisted passages was not raised or discussed at the time of his application or selection interview. The requirements for the granting of assisted passages are different in a number of respects from those for entry into Australia. It is a matter of general policy that eligibility for assisted passages is separate from the basic policy relating to entry. As a general rule, assisted passages are granted only to persons of European descent. The honourable senator’s question may have contained a comment which requires the provision of further information. If that is so, I will endeavour to get it for him.

page 969

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Air. It relates to the statement that the Minister, has just read. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives have a right lo request the use of VIP aircraft, can the Senate reasonably expect that where there is within the Parliament a recognised political party, the leader and deputy leader of that political party will have a similar right of request to one of the three approving authorities for use of a VIP aircraft? Will the Minister tell the Senate why senators are specifically excluded from flying in VIP aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– 1 have just read the rules relating to the use of VIP aircraft. Those are the rules and I have no further comment to add.

page 970

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator MURPHY:

– Will the Minister for Air tell us whether it is intended in the ordinary application of the rules relating to the use of VIP aircraft that Senate Ministers should be able to use VIP aircraft during the coming Senate election campaign, and that that right would be denied to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, as well as to the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and perhaps his Deputy Leader? Will the Minister tell us whether that is the way the rules are to be operated? Will he also tell us where the rationale lies in an approach that the Government should authorise a set of rules permitting that course to bc followed for its own Ministers in election campaigning while refusing equal rights to the Opposition?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that each application to use a VIP aircraft is judged on its merits. If an application accords with the rules and an aircraft is available, the application will be approved.

page 970

QUESTION

NURSING HOME SUBSIDY

Senator POYSER:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask: What criteria are laid down by the Department of Health in relation to granting or refusing to grant the additional subsidy of $3 a day payable by the Commonwealth to certain patients in registered nursing homes? Are applications for the subsidy accepted or rejected by layman public servants despite the fact that applications in all instances must be supported by evidence submitted by a doctor?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The points which the honourable senator has raised in his question are important. Therefore, I think I should obtain a detailed reply from the Minister.

page 970

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who represents the Prime Minister in this chamber. By way of brief preface I wish to say that some time ago I inquired of the Minister whether he would ascertain what stage had been reached in consideration of the request which had been made on 4th September last by the Premier of Tasmania to the Prime Minister for assistance in construction of a rail link between Launceston and Bell Bay. Has any further information been made available to the Minister?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I think the information that I have in front of me is the information I gave to the honourable senator some time ago. lt is true, as the honourable senator has indicated, that the Premier of Tasmania has made representations. These representations are still under consideration by the Commonwealth Government. That is the only information I have on this matter at present.

page 970

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator KENNELLY:

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate study the Standing Orders to see whether it would be possible for the important statement which was made by the Minister for Air earlier this afternoon in reply to a question by Senator McManus to be debated by the Senate? Will the Leader of the Government provide an opportunity for the Senate to discuss this important statement because I, like my colleague from Victoria, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, hate to be classified as a second class citizen in this country?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONMy excursions into the Standing Orders on a number of occasions in the past have not done me much good. Therefore, I approach an examination of the Standing

Orders with some diffidence. I agree with the honourable senator that the Minister for Air has, in reply to a question, given some information on a matter which is of particular importance to the Senate. I am sure that there must be some means within the framework of the Standing Orders whereby this matter can be brought on for further discussion. It would not be for me to bring it on in this way, but I can see no reason why an honourable senator could not raise this matter on, for instance, the motion for the adjournment of the Senate or the first reading of a money Bill if he wanted to. However, 1 am not inciting honourable senators to talk about this very comprehensive statement. As I have indicated, I approach the Standing Orders in a very reserved manner. However, the Standing Orders provide quite a lot of ways whereby honourable senators can bring up matters of importance if they wish to do so.

page 971

VIP AIRCRAFT

Mr President, in my search for egalitarian sympathy amongst the Ministry I should like to ask this question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate: If a motion for disallowance of the regulations in regard to the use of VIP aircraft were to be moved in the Senate would it provide an opportunity to debate the equality of members of the 2 Houses of the Parliament?

It is not my understanding that we are dealing with regulations in the legal sense. This is another matter. If somebody moves for the disallowance of regulations this is, in the normal course of events, a vehicle for debate in the Senate. As I understand the situation, we are not now dealing with regulations. The Minister has simply, in response to a question, set down the guidelines under which he operates.

page 971

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is the Minister aware that the proposed increased postal charges in Australia will mean to the. publishers of a publication entitled ‘The Plain Truth’, which is published by the Ambassador College-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This matter is currently the subject of debate by the Senate, is it not?

Senator MILLINER:

– Yes, it is a matter which is still before the Senate, but I think the Minister should be made aware of the facts of this matter, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator may finish his question.

Senator MILLINER:

– Thank you, Mr President. Is the Minister aware of the fact that the prospective increased postal charges in Australia will mean to the publishers of the publication entitled The Plain Truth’, the Ambassador College, an associate member of the world wide Church of God, increased expenditure of approximately $35,000 a year - a 240 per cent increase on existing charges? Is the Minister aware that this extra postage expenditure may result in the organisation transferring its printing and publishing to New Zealand or to some other country? Is the Minister aware that should this happen it will mean a loss to Australian paper makers of $150,000 a year, to ink makers of $20,000 a year and to printing houses of $500,000 a year; a total of approximately $670,000 a year loss of revenue to the printing and allied trades and to Australia? Is the Minister aware that the firm claims that should it publish and post in New Zealand it would be charged 5c to post the publication to Australian subscribers as against the anticipated 12c postage if posted in Australia to New Zealand subscribers?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I have to take a point of order. This matter is currently before the Senate. When the question was first posed, it was marginal whether it should have been asked at all. You, Mr President, raised some query about it. The honourable senator has gone on not to ask a question but to make a speech. He made a speech on this yesterday.

The PRESIDENT:

– Has the honourable senator finished his question?

Senator MILLINER:

– No, not yet. Is the Minister aware that the firm claims that it can post a million copies of its publication in the United States of America with the equivalent expenditure of money required to post 52,000 copies in Australia?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am not aware of the points which have been raised by the honourable senator. As every honourable senator is aware, the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill is presently before the Senate for debate. 1 will endeavour to obtain what information I can concerning the points raised and give that information to the honourable senator during that debate.

page 972

QUESTION

RURAL AIR SERVICES

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I express my concern at the moment at the standard or possible standard of rural air services. ..fs the Minister aware of reports that suggest that earnings of airlines in the United States are falling drastically? ls the Minister aware that, whilst a situation exists in the United States in which the volume of traffic carried last year rose by more than 10 per cent, earnings showed the greatest decline in the airline industry’s history? Can the Minister assure the Senate that he and his Department arc alert to this position and to the possibility that like problems may arise in Australia? Is the Minister satisfied that the anticipated increased cost of fuel and the airport charges proposed by the Government will not affect adversely rural air services which commuter and small private airlines now provide?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I most certainly am aware of the very dramatic fall in profitability of airlines in the United States of America, particularly those engaged in the domestic traffic. I am not able to confirm precisely the honourable senator’s figure of a 10 per cent growth rate, but 1 know that the figure is of that order. The figure I saw was about 9.3 per cent traffic growth last year. I am equally conscious, as he mentioned, of the fall in the profitability of the airlines. I think the honourable senator probably will find that this is because of what 1 would describe as excess capacity in airline business in the United States. To some extent this flows out of excess manufacture of aircraft in that country. This same effect is felt internationally, but as yet not quite so dramatically.

I can assure the honourable senator and the Senate as a whole that the Depart ment of Civil Aviation is very conscious of this problem and is watching it ali the time, lt is for that reason that the commuter air service was introduced into this country some years ago. There has been a dramatic improvement in commuter air services in Australia over the last 2 or 3 years, both in the volume of traffic that the companies have been handling and in the quality of their services. Only one of these services has been reported as having any kind of financial problem, namely, Masling Airlines. The evidence which is available to me so far, which is only newspaper evidence, states that the airline part of that company’s business is satisfactory but that the balance of the business has been giving trouble. I do not think that in any sense the increases in fuel charges and airport landing fees have had any substantial effect on the profitability of the Australian internal airline system.

page 972

QUESTION

BLINDNESS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that a number of electronic devices which would change and in fact revolutionise the lives of blind people have been discovered recently; that one device from England is termed an electronic eye and that another device demonstrated recently at Sydney Airport by a blind American girl enabled her to read? Can the Minister advise whether the Department of Health is making any investigation in this field to make possible this wonderful mechanism 10 the blind citizens in our community? I shall make available to the Minister, if she requires it, the material that I have on this subject.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– J, like Senator Fitzgerald, have read of some of the wonderful new things which are being done to assist those who are blind. I noted the very same points which were mentioned by the honourable senator and which were published in a newspaper some time ago. I am unable to say what the Department of Health is doing about this or whether it is making any particular arrangements, but I shall certainly take the matter up with the Minister for Health and obtain for the honourable senator all the information that I can.

page 972

ESTIMATES COMMI1TEES

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKMr President, 1 wish to address a question to you for the purpose of information. Will you undertake to inform the Senate at a time that is appropriate to yourself whether or not in the new committee system we have for examining the Estimates the chairman of an estimates committee, if he is so directed by the committee, may report to the committee of the whole that estimates in Document A under an appropriate division should be disallowed by the Senate in order to redress a grievance?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I shall be pleased to make these inquiries and in due course to advise the Senate.

page 973

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services inform the Parliament who authorises the payment of child endowment to a person other than the mother when the child is temporarily in the care of another person but where an authority for the collection of child endowment has not been authorised by the child’s mother or its legal guardian?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall have to obtain that information from the Minister for the honourable senator.

page 973

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator MILLINER:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Have the Commonwealth Government and Queensland Government determined the formula to be applied for the rebate of rates for farms in drought stricken areas? Can the Minister indicate the brief details of the formula referred to and advise which Government, Federal or State, is responsible for the application of the formula?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator indicated his interest in this matter earlier in the week and so I have obtained the following information for him: On 4th. May 1970 the Prime Minister advised the Premier of Queensland that the Commonwealth was prepared to accept as an approved drought relief measure half the cost of rates payable in 1970 by graziers who have experienced drought for more than 2 years in the 2 droughts of 1965-67 and 1969-70 and who are demonstrably in need of such assistance. The formula for eligibility for rate grants in Queensland is as follows: Primary producers whose properties are located in shires which (a) were or are to be declared drought stricken in 1970; (b) have been declared drought stricken for 12 months over the period from 1st January 1969 to 30th June 1970; and (c) have been declared drought stricken for at least 2 out of the past 5 years.

As individual properties are not declared drought stricken - drought declarations are made on a shire basis - the Queensland Government has listed 36 shires which meet the aforementioned formula. Since this formula did not cover the case of the individual property owner outside these shires who otherwise met the general criteria and was demonstrably in need of assistance, an alternative test of eligibility was agreed upon in which individual property owners must meet the following conditions: Firstly, that the property is in a shire which was declared drought stricken for 2 years in the last 5 years and was drought stricken in 1970; secondly, that a property owner’s personal equity in the holding, including stock, had been reduced by drought to less than 25 per cent of its market value; or, thirdly, that the income earning capacity of the holding had been reduced by more than 50 per cent due to drought. Public companies are not eligible for this grant. The State Government is responsible for the administration of all drought relief measures.

page 973

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing. I refer to today’s newspaper report of the Minister’s speech of yesterday when she emphasised that self help is the way to the ownership of a home. She is quoted as saying that all those home seekers who can afford to save to own their own homes should save. Can the Minister explain, for the benefit of the average Australian worker who is saving for a home, how to beat rapidly rising land and housing costs? Is she aware that a national housing conference in Sydney last August was told that the price of an average block of land around Sydney had risen by $1,000 in the past year, that is, by $20 a week? Will the Minister say how the ordinary low income earner can beat this land price spiral as well as save for a home when building costs are rising constantly? Will she also inform us how self help can prevail against a Government policy of pushing interest rates to the highest possible level? Will the Minister tell us how she can reconcile these facts with her advice to home seekers that self help is the only way to acquire a home?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Of course, Senator Murphy has not quoted all of my speech, nor, as is obvious, has he read all of it. if he had, he would know that I recorded in that speech my concern about the high cost of land and the costs that people have to pay in acquiring a home. 1 also said that this Government, as the Opposition well knows, has brought in legislation to reward young people for saving to purchase their first matrimonial home, and that the homes savings grant scheme which we have of course has played a very important part in helping young Australians to acquire their own homes. We see that young Australians are saving for bornes in the acceptable forms which are required by the homes savings grant scheme, because since the inception of the scheme the Government has paid out in grants $78,667,303. I remind the honourable senator that that means that young Australians have saved three times as much as that to acquire that amount in the form of this tax free gift which is made available.

So the “ Government is assisting young people and encouraging them to save, it is important that they save also in those areas in which savings are used to assist other people to obtain their own homes, such as all the areas of acceptable savings which we cited in the homes savings grant scheme. These, of course, include the savings banks and building societies. I believe that the mere fact that so much money has been paid out and so many young people have been assisted in this way does show that young Australians are saving for their own homes and are indeed able to do so. We wish them all well.

page 974

QUESTION

BIRD SMUGGLING

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. In view of recent statements by customs authorities on the mounting world wide ramifications of bird smuggling, with Holland appearing to he the hub of operations, has the Australian Government approached the Dutch Government asking the latter to declare such trade illegal?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 understand that Senator Muvihill has asked a number of questions in relation to this matter. The information that I have received in response to his questions is that no representations have been made.

page 974

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Air. As a matter of equity in terms of (he representation of the Australian people in this House, will the Minister review the rules that he stated today in regard to the use of VIP aircraft with the object of making VIP aircraft available to the leaders of the official Opposition in the Senate, seeing that they represent the majority Party here?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The rules have been looked at thoroughly. I have just laid down the new guidelines and I have nothing further to add.

page 974

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. On what date will the annual report of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board for the financial year 1968-69 be presented to the Parliament? On what date will the annual report of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board for the financial year 1969-70 be presented to the Parliament? If the annual reports to which I have referred cannot be made available, can the Minister advise how the Fund’s investments totalling $367,626,462 as at 30th June 1969 are invested or employed?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I do not have the information. I shall obtain it as quickly as 1 can for the honourable senator.

page 974

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator MURPHY:

– The Minister for Air will recall the occasion on which documents relating to the use of VIP aircraft* were brought into the Senate. Will he bring into the Senate and table the same kind of documents covering the period from the .date of the information in the documents tabled previously to the present time, together with the written applications that were made for the use of the aircraft? In those cases where an application was not made in writing, will he bring into the Senate any notes or memoranda covering requests for use of the aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I recall the situation to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. I will look at the matter and bring to the chamber whatever information I can obtain.

page 975

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– In view of the potential hazard to civil aircraft in Australia of clear air turbulence, willthe Minister for Civil Aviation state what steps have been taken to install detection equipment in civil aircraft in this country? What consideration has been given to making passengers keep seat belts fastened during the whole flight?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It is almost impossible for a pilot or a navigator to detect clear air turbulence. As a rule, if there is any uneasiness being demonstrated in the air the pilot, as I think all honourable senators will recall, will direct, as a wise precaution, that seat belts be fastened. As far as I am able to ascertain - I have done a little work on this - there is no instrumentation in an aircraft which permits clear air turbulence to be detected. The head of the United States Federal Aviation Administration was in Canberra yesterday and he spent some time talking to me. This is one of the things that we discussed. The United States does not have anything more advanced than we have to enable clear air turbulence to be detected. Part of this particular issue, although it is not quite the same thing, is the pattern of turbulence behind 747 aircraft, and techniques are beingdeveloped for aircraft which are likely to be taking off, landing or flying in the wake of the 747s. That is clearly established. Clear air turbulence, which is really like a hole in the sky, has so far proved extremely difficult to detect in advance.

page 975

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator McMANUS:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Air. Would use of a VIP aircraft purely for the purpose of electioneering be deemed an approved use of such aircraft? If approval were given for the use of an aircraft for such a purpose would permission be given for the person using the VIP aircraft to be accompanied by a candidate who was the local member for the electorate in which the aircraft was being used?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I am not going to answer questions like that. I must see the application first and take full account of all circumstances.

Senator McManus:

– There is no reason why the principle could not be affirmed.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am telling the honourable senator what I would do. I want to see each and every application first, see who is travelling on the aircraft, see whether there is a civilian aircraft flight available at the particular time and so on.

page 975

QUESTION

TELEPHONE COSTS

(Question No. 421)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. With reference to a report of a survey conducted by the New South Wales Department of Decentralisation and Development, the survey known as the Industry Location Survey, (a) was this survey carried out as one of a series being undertaken in pursuance of Commonwealth/State consultations on decentralisation; and (b) was one of the principal findings of the survey that trunk telephone costs and inconvenience were a major source of concern to country firms and that firms were more vocal about this matter than any other item covered by the survey.
  2. Does the high cost of the telephone service tend to accentuate the isolation of country communities.
  3. What steps has the Department taken to review telephone trunk line charges in country areas, in order to assist the States to achieve decentralisation of industry.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. (a) Yes.

    1. Yes.
  2. Country firms generally find it necessary to make more trunk line calls than comparable city firms. Although country exchange line rentals are lower than in capital cities, some country firms, particularly those in the more remote areas, may be disadvantaged because of their greater dependence on the trunk line service. At the same time it should perhaps be mentioned that the report of the Industry Location Committee indicated that the estimated telephone cost differential, which is 35c per $100 of sales higher for country firms was considered less than that attributed to freight.
  3. Requests have been made on numerous occasions by decentralised industries for a reduction in telephone trunk call charges, but the conclusion has been reached that in a situation of continually rising costs, the Post Office is just not able to effect any reduction in these charges. The loss of revenue which would result from granting reduced trunk rates to decentralised industries cannot be ignored; it couldwell be of such substantial proportions as to make it necessary to offset it by increasing charges for other services. Such action could scarcely be considered equitable to users of Post Office services as a whole.

page 976

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 601)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Were three members of the Gurindji tribe employed on Inverway Station in the Northern Territory for 5 months in the first half of this year; if so. was the payment to each of the three men (Gerry Ngalgardji,Inverway Georgie and Mainu) $50 per month, less tax, and is it a fact that they have not received payment for the fifth month.
  2. Will the Minister take appropriate urgent action to ensure that the men concerned will receive back payments at the correct award rate, and that all arrears in wages are paid.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) 1 have directedthat an Inspector of my Department investigate the matters raised in the honourable senator’s question insofar as the relevant award’ has application to matters raised in the question. In light of what that investigation revealsI shall provide a further reply to the honourable senator’s question.

page 976

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

(Question No. 651.)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in recent Australian press statements: that some of the five American inspectors checking sanitation standards in Australian export meat works are swayed in their decisions recommending export licences for some killing establishments by grounds other than cleanliness, as shown in the case of one factory where such an inspector demanded and succeeded in procuring the removal of nude pictures from an office wall.
  2. Will the Department make appropriate representations to the American Government to ensure that only sanitation standards will be taken into account when export licences are granted.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. It is a fact that one of the American Veterinary Reviewers raised objections to nude pictures on walls within an approved meat export establishment in Victoria. However, there is no evidence that such incidents are included as reasons for removal of meatworks from the United States list of approved establishments.
  2. Yes. If and when considered necessary.

page 976

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

(Question No. 668)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What studio facilities are available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission at Newcastle.
  2. Was equipment installed for the Australian Broadcasting Commission at Newcastle and subsequently transferred to Canberra; if so, what was the cost of the equipment and its installation,and what was the cost ofthe transfer of the equipment to Canberra.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. One small radio production studio and two radio network studios with aucillary equipment.
  2. No.

page 976

QUESTION

POSTAL CHARGES

(QuestionNo. 677)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. In view of the statement by the National Roads and Motorists Association, that the costof posting its journal ‘Open Road’ to its 940,000 members will be increased from approximately $100,000 per annum to$275,000 per annum. as a result of increases in postal charges announced in the last Budget, is it not unfair to ask any organisation to absorb increased costs of this nature, amounting to a 175 per cent increase in a few weeks.
  2. Because this journal devotes much of its space toroadtraffic problems and has as its objective the welfare and safety of the motoring community of New South Wales, will the Postmaster-General be prepared to reviewthe rates of postal charges for this and similar organisations.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. and (2) The annual loss on registered newspapers and periodicals postedin bulkis about $9m, half the estimated Postal loss in 1969-70. Automobile clubs have been in receipt of a substantial concession over a long period, and while the activities of such clubs may be useful, it is not the role of the Post Office to support these and similar organisations. The Government believes, therefore, that the substantial loss on registered newspapers and periodicals should be reduced and that those using Post Office facilities should pay an appropriate postage rate. Even the rates proposed are well below normal printed matter rates and represent a substantial concession.

page 977

QUESTION

POSTAL CHARGES

(Question No. 686)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Will the proposed new postage rates increase the postage account for the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland by approximately $42,000 a year.
  2. Will the Postmaster-General investigate the possibility of classifying the journal in category A, which would involve an increase in postage rates of 20 per cent and not more than 100 per cent, as now proposed.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Postmaster-General has already received representatives of the Automobile Associations and, after discussion, indicated to them that it was not possible to vary the Government’s decision in this matter. Motorists’ service organisations have been in receipt of a substantial concession over a long period and the rates proposed are still well below normal printed matter rates.

page 977

QUESTION

DRUGS

(Question No. 696)

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

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

Has there recently been a major theft of dangerous drugs from a pharmaceutical wholesaler involving the fantastic amount of 4 million doses; if so, when will details be supplied as to how the theft occurred, how such a large quantity of this specific drug was accumulated by the wholesaler and what steps are being taken to recover the drugs.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes. Twenty kilograms of amphetamine powder in several forms (approximately 4 million therapeutic doses) was stolen on the night of 15th September 1970 from a pharmaceutical wholesaler’s premises situated in a Sydney suburb.
  2. Thieves gained entryinto the premises by forcibly removing locks and chains on the exterior of the premises and the security room where the drugs were stored.
  3. The drugs had been forwarded from Melbourne to Sydney as surplus stock and were being prepared for export overseas.
  4. The matter is under active investigation by the New South Wales Police Department which is keeping the Commonwealth Narcotics Bureau informed of developments.

page 977

QUESTION

TRADE QUALIFICATIONS

(Question No. 523)

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

  1. Will the Minister confer with the various State Ministers for Labour and industry on the recognition they give to RAN Personnel with such grades as Stokers, Leading Stokers, etc., who return to civilian occupations and who seek Labour and Industry tickets as Stationary Boiler Foremen.
  2. Does South Australia accept RAN experience, in full in such grades and issues Boiler Attendants’ tickets with a minimum of delay; if so, will the Minister have a comparison made of such procedures and those adopted in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.
  3. Will the Minister attempt to have the States adopt a uniform approach to this matter, using the South Australian arrangement as a model.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. No. See answer to question (3).
  2. South Australia does fully accept the RAN experience of certain members of the Engineering Branch and affords recognition by means of Certificates which may be issued in respect of the ranks indicated hereunder:

This acceptance of RAN experience would of course allow the issue of certificates with less delay than would be encountered in other States which require the applicants in most of the lower ranksto pass an examination before a certificate is issued. The Navy isaware of the many variations between State authorities, and a comparison of procedures has already been drawn.

  1. The Minister will approach his colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service with a view to seeking Commonwealth uniformity, and the adoption of the South Australian standards if these are agreed to be the most desirable.

page 978

QUESTION

DEATHS OF CHILDREN

(Question No. 561)

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

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

  1. In view of the fact that, during 1969, at least 1,500 children under the age of five were taken to hospital with poisoning as the result of the ingestion of medical tablets and capsules, why are the Minister and the Department of Health so dilatory in taking any action which would have helped prevent these accidents, as this problem as first brought to their notice in September 1968.
  2. How many deaths have occurred since 1968 as the result of this laissez-faire attitude of the Minister and his Department.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. I completely reject the claim that my Department and I have been dilatory in this matter which, as the honourable senator is well aware, has been the subject of serious and responsible consideration by Health authorities in Australia and overseas.

On 5th August last, my Department wrote in the following terms to retail pharmacists throughout Australia.

The latest available statistics from the National Poisons Service are a clear indication that accidental poisoning of young children continues to be avery real problem in Australia.

It is realised of course that the main remedy to this problem is in the hands of parents and there can be no adequate replacement of strict parental care in ensuring that dangerous substances are kept in secure places away from children. However, I am sure everyone would agree that any supplemental measures which might prevent accidental poisoning should be given our closest attention.

One such measure was the subject of a recent recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council and concerns safety closures for dispensed medicines. Council made the following statement: “Council continues to be concerned at the incidence of poisoning in young children. During 1969, 3,615 cases of poisoning in children under the age of 5 years were reported to the National Poisons Service, 40 per cent of which were due to tablets and capsules. Council recognises the need for increased education in the prevention of acci dental poisoning, stressing in particular the need to keep all poisonous substances, whether drugs or preparations for household use, in places inaccessible to children. Council commends the use of tablet containers that cannot readily be opened by young children.”

You are doubtless aware that there are containers of the types referred to by Council available in Australia for packing dispensed medicines. These are competitively priced in relation to the more conventional containers and therefore, insofar as pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions are concerned, fall within the allowance provided by the Commonwealth for reimbursement of container costs.

I believe that the problem of child poisonings should be of very real concern to us all and in bringing the Council statement to your notice I would urge you to give serious consideration to this problem and to the feasibility of implementing the Council recommendation concerning the use of safety closures for dispensed medicines.’

This letter produced, amongst other things, a number of replies expressing doubts about the particular container in which the honourable senator has shown most interest in the past. I understand that at least one of these correspondents forwarded a copy of his letter stating his doubts about the efficacy of the containers, to the honourable senator.

  1. None.

page 978

QUESTION

GRAIN SILOS

(Question No. 626)

Senator MILLINER:

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

Would the Minister have printed the following recommendation of the International Labour Organisation, in its publication Guide to Safety in Agriculture, and have it placed in a conspicuous place adjacent to existing silos and those constructed in the future:

No person should enter a silo containing grain unless he is wearing a safety belt with a life line attached and another person should watch from outside at the top of the silo and thus be in a position to assist in pulling the worker out in case of danger, openings on the top of silos should be covered with gratings to prevent anyone falling in accidently, and silos should be provided with fixed ladders.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The regulation of safety procedures for people concerned with the operation of grain silos falls within the responsibilities of State Governments.

I will write to the appropriate Ministers in the States drawing their attention to the honourable senator’s suggesion. My Department has received the ILO Guide to Safety in Agriculture, and sent copies to the State Labour Departments.

page 979

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 628)

Senator CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Asthe District Council of Streaky Bay in South Australia and residents at Poochera and Streaky Bay were informed, in a statement by the Postmaster-General, appearing in the ‘West Coast Sentinel’ in June 1969, ‘that the TV Station at Ceduna will service country west of Penong and east to Poochera and Streaky Bay’, and as the statement was subsequently shown to be technically incorrect, will the Postmaster-General now consider a priority claim for the Streaky Bay and Poochera areas of Eyre Peninsula for future installation which will provide a satisfactory - TV reception to the residents in that area.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

Unfortunately a statement was attributed to me in the ‘West Coast Sentinel’ which was quite contrary to any statements I have made regarding the likely coverage of the national television station authorised for Ceduna. As the honourable senator is aware the Streaky Bay and Poochera areas will not benefit fromthe Ceduna station because of the considerable distance involved.The Australian Broadcasting Control Board is continuously examining ways and means of extending the television service, but it would not be appropriate to single out the areasthe honourable senator mentions fromthe very many areas which desire television. In fact I cannot say what the prospects are for the provision of television in any particular additional areas at this stage.

page 979

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHT RATES

(Question No. 649)

Senator CAMERON:

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

Does the Government, through either the Department of Shipping and Transport or the Australian National Line, identify which overseas shipping consortia intend to initiate action to determine higher freight rates on Australian Primary exports.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Changes in freight rates for Australian exports are arrived at commercially between representatives of the Conference concerned and representatives of the shippers of Australian export cargoes carried by that Conference. Customarily, a conference gives some months’ notice of increases it is seeking to representatives of the cargo interests and negotiates or discusses the matter with them.

Where there is a shipper body for a particular trade established under the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, the Conference serving that trade is obliged to negotiate changes in rates of freight with the shipper body. This is the situation in the Australia to Europe trade, where the Australian National Line is a member of the Conference, and the Australia to Singapore/West Malaysia trade, in those cases, an officer ofthe Department of Trade and Industry, designated by the Minister for Trade and Industry, is present at such negotiations and reports on the conduct and progress of the negotiations to, the Minister.

In respect of other trades, including the Australia Japan trade where the Australian National Line is also a member of the Conference, there are as yet no shipper bodies established under the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. The usual custom in such trades is for the Conference concerned to discuss rates of freight directly withshippers, including where appropriate represen-. latives of primary producers’ organisations.

page 979

PAYMENT OF PAYROLL TAX

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I have just received a copy of a statement made by the Prime Minister relating to the payment of payroll tax. I cannot circulate copies as I have only a copy of the Hansard report of the statement. Honourable senators will understand that when I use the. first person personal pronoun it refers to the Prime Minister. The statement reads:

I received approximately 2 hours ago a copy of Sir Henry Bolte’s Budget Speech and I have noted the statement in that speech that it is not the intention of the Victorian Government to seek an appropriation from the Victorian Parliament for the purpose of paying payroll tax to the Commonwealth. Sir Henry Bolte indicated that exclusion of provision for the payment of payroll tax to the Commonwealth would, mean a reduction of about$9m in the payments side of the Victorian Consolidated Fund for 1970-71 and, I interpolate, it would also of course mean a reduction of $9m in the amount of receipts into the Commonwealth revenue. Payroll tax has been imposed by the Commonwealth continuously since 1941. Therelevant provision of the Commonwealth law concerning payment of this tax by the States has since that time - 1 94 1 - remained unchanged. The relevant Commonwealth Act - the Payroll Tax Assessment Act 1941-1969- provides that an employer for payroll tax purposes includes the Crown in the right of a State.

The payment of financial assistance grants by the Commonwealth to the States has, since introduction of the payroll tax in 1941, allowed for the payment of payroll tax by the States, and all the States have in fact paid payroll tax since 1941 in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Act. If they had not paid payroll tax then their reimbursement grants would have been less. At the June 1970 Premiers Conference, when Commonwealth-State financial relations for the period of 5 years commencing with 1970-71 were discussed, I made plain to the Premiers that the Commonwealth proposals were on the basis that there were no significant changes in the financial relationships between the Commonwealth and the States during the 5-year period. I indicated in particular that under the proposed arrangement we would expect that the States and their authorities would continue to pay payroll tax. The actual words used at the Conference were:

If we are to provide such a substantial increase in revenue assistance and in resources available to the States it should be on the basis that there are no significant changes in the financial relationships between the Commonwealth and the States during the period of the agreement. In particular, we would expect that the States and their authorities will continue to pay payroll tax and that the distribution of tax resources between the Commonwealth and the States will remain unchanged.

Although the Premier of Victoria made plain that he did not regard his Government as having agreed to the financial arrangements that resulted from the Conference, there was no indication by him or any of the other Premiers that they proposed not to continue to pay payroll tax. On the other hand, as I have indicated, there was a clear and unequivocal intimation from the Commonwealth that the continuance of the payment of payroll tax was a key part of the offers made by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Budget for 1970-71 was accordingly formulated on the basis that payroll tax would continue to be paid by the States to the Commonwealth. This was allowed for in the Budget estimate of payroll tax collections and also in the provision for the payment of Commonwealth grants to the States. If Victoria or any other State or States were not to pay payroll tax there would thus be a direct and significant effect on the Commonwealth Budget. The Government is therefore unable to accept the position taken by the Victorian Government as stated in Sir Henry Bolte’s Budget speech. My Government will, therefore, consider what course of action it should take in relation to Sir Henry Bolte’s statement in order to see that the Commonwealth Budget is not impaired. I move:

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

- by leave - I am without the benefit of having notes before me on this matter, but I was struck by one or two points in the statement. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), seemed to me to make the point that the Commonwealth Government will be down by $9m that it expected to be paid and should be paid by the Victorian Government as payroll tax. A little later the Minister said that this would affect the reimbursements to the States. It therefore appears to me that there is some sort of agreement whereby on the one hand the payroll tax is paid to the Commonwealth and on the other hand is paid out by the Commonwealth.

I have raised this point in the hope that perhaps a later statement will enlighten us on it. Am I to understand that under this agreement, arrangement or understanding the money was expected to be paid by the Victorian Government, and on that understanding the Commonwealth Government has already made arrangements for reimbursements to the States? If so, this seems to be further justification for a complete re-evaluation of Commonwealth and State financial relationships. Payroll tax seems particularly to justify a re-examination as it has been the subject of so much criticism in this Parliament over the years.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Senator Willesee, do you wish to seek leave to continue your remarks?

Senator WILLESEE:

– No, Sir. I asked for leave to make a statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wright) adjourned.

page 980

OVERSEAS POSTAGE RATES TO NEW ZEALAND

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - In my second reading speech on the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill on 18th August 1970 I advised the Senate that the posting of registered publications and bulk pre-sorted mail to New Zealand at the domestic rates of postage was under discussion with the New Zealand Post Office. The Universal Postal Union Convention requires that such special arrangements should be agreed to by the country of destination.

The New Zealand Postal Administration has now advised that it does not wish to continue the special arrangement whereby domestic bulk rates of postage are applied to bulk consignments of registered publications and pre-sorted printed papers posted to that country. However, the New Zealand Post Office has agreed that the new domestic bulk rates applicable to the categories of mail concerned should be permitted to apply up until 31st December 1970 and that the domestic individual item rate on registered publications could continue indefinitely. This means that as from 1st January 1971 all registered publications posted to New Zealand will be required to pay the individual item rate of 6 cents for the first 6 ounces and 5 cents for each additional 6 ounces. Other types of printed papers posted in’ bulk will be required to pay the normal overseas printed papers rate.

The postcard and greeting card airmail rale to New Zealand and its Territories, New Caledonia, New Hebrides, Loyalty Islands and Wallis and Futuna will be 7 cents per half ounce from 1st October 1970 to accord with the surface postcard rate to these countries.

page 981

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 September (vide page 961). on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Willesee had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘the Bill be withdrawn and that in the opinion of the Senate a Joint Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the desirability and practicability of removing the Australian Post Office from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board and of establishing a public corporation to manage the business of the Post Office’.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Prior to the interruption of this debate last night I was addressing myself to the terms of the amendment moved by the Opposition. As 1 said last night, one cannot overlook the statement which the Minuster for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) made on behalf of the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) in her second reading speech that, on the one hand, the telecommunications activities of The, Australian Post Office are operating at a profit and, on the other hand, the postal service itself is operating at a loss. I went on to point out that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, which functions under its own Act of Parliament outside the framework of the Public Service Board, operates at a substantial profit. The Australian community does not categorise the losses incurred on postal charges and the profits received by telecommunications activities. It determines whether (he Post Office, as one entity, is operating at a profit or a loss. It is quite obvious from an examination of the Minister’s second reading speech that there will be an overall profit of $30m in 1970-71 and in a full financial year there will be a profit in general Post Office terms of some $41 m. Yet heavy increases in Post Office charges are being imposed by this Government. I repeat my statement of last night that, on the one hand, the Government has given a niggardly 50c a week increase to pensioners in its Budget and provided small direct taxation cuts for. the lower and middle income earners but. on the other hand, it is imposing heavy additional burdens on the Australian people which will in turn increase prices to the consumer. The Government is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I notice that in the annual report of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for the year ended 31st March last are notes on its financial accounts. The annual report states:

By direction of the Postmaster-General and wilh the concurrence of the Treasure!’, under section 48 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946-1968, the net profit of $10,605,479 together with the capital gain of $886 from the sale of land was appropriated in full by the transfer of 53,691,943 to general reserve and $6,914,422 to provision for payment to the Commonwealth Treasury. The $6,914,422 is in lieu of income tax, for which the Commission is not liable, and a dividend on Commonwealth Government funds employed.

A substantial profit is made by this great public enterprise, which operates as a Commission in its own right in accordance with an Act of Parliament, but, as is provided by the Overseas Telecommunications Act, there can be and in fact there has been a direction by the Postmaster-General that the profit incurred shall be appropriated in a specific way in the public interest. Incidentally, it is important to note that the accounts of the OTC are available to this Parliament for examination. In contra-distinction, the accounts of the Postmaster-General’s Department for the last financial year have not been made available to the Parliament at this stage, although important legislation which will affect the well-being of the Australian community is being discussed by the community’s representatives in the Parliament. I have already referred to the operations of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. Other public enterprises and instrumentalities which operate in their own right and in their own entity include Qantas Airways Limited, the Australian National Airlines Commission, commonly referred to as Trans-Australia Airlines, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission to name a few. All these public enterprises function in their own right as commissions without being hidebound by Public Service Board regulations or control. I would suggest that prima facie it would be worthwhile if this Parliament were to give consideration to whether, having regard to the best interests of the Australian community, the Australian Post Office, which is the largest public enterprise in Australia, with capital assets at its disposal of. over $2,000m and a staff on its books of well over 100.000, should be entitled to operate in its own right, as any successful public business would probably want to do. As I said last night, it is not as though the Government is merely setting out to balance its budget by heavily increasing postal rates and charges; it is in fact intending to incur a profit on all postal activities of some $30m in the rest of this financial year and some $4lm in a full financial year.

I repeat that the Post Office is the largest public enterprise in Australia, lt employs over 100,000 people. They are all public servants. All work under the control of the Commonwealth Public Service

Board in accordance with determinations fixed by the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator. The workers in the Postmaster-General’s Department perform homeric tasks in the carrying out of their duty in the interests of the Australian community. The balance sheet of the Post Office for 1969-70 shows that its assets exceed some $2,000m. Therefore, in moving that the Senate express the opinion that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the desirability of removing the Australian Post Office from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board and to inquire into the worthiness of establishing a public corporation to manage the business of the Post Office, the Opposition has not acted lightly. The amendment has been moved after a lot of consideration. It has been done in a very sincere endeavour to ascertain whether it is in the best interests of the Australian community to have this great public enterprise operating in its own right or whether it should be shackled to the rigidity of the Public Service Act and Regulations.

Prior to the presentation of this legislation to Parliament a White Paper on the Post Office Prospects and Capital Programme for 1970-71 was presented. It is a very interesting and enlightening document which deals with many facets of Post Office administration. It sets out a great number of the problems that are expected to lie ahead in the day to day administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department. As valuable as the white paper is, I suggest to the Government that with Bills of this nature, Bills that are vital to the Australian community because the results coming from them will mean that heavy costs will be imposed on Australian consumers, the accounts for the previous financial year of the department involved, in this case the Postmaster-General’s Department, should be available to members when the Bills are being debated. Last week in another place the Postmaster-General said that his Department’s accounts for the previous financial year would not be available for another couple of weeks. Yet everyone in this Parliament knows that the Government wants this legislation to be passed and to take effect as from tomorrow. I, as a member of the Opposition, object and object strongly to the fact that the Post Office accounts for the previous financial year are not available to the representatives of the Australian people in this place at a time when very important legislation is being considered by the Senate. They should have been available when the legislation was introduced, and certainly, if they were not available then, they should have been available by now. Last year they were available by 25th September. Today is 30th September, lt is anticipated that the legislation will take effect as from tomorrow.

Having the accounts available is especially important having regard to what the Auditor-Genera) had to say in his . Annual Report about the financial operations of the Post Office for the previous financial year. I refer to page 201 of the AuditorGeneral’s Report for the year 1969-70. He specifically referred to the internal auditing arrangements of the Postmaster-General’s Department. To ensure that 1 will not be accused of misinterpreting his remarks T will read verbatim what he had to say. He said:

An Internal Audit organisation has been Functioning within the Department for many years but its role has in the main been confined to an accounts checking function in the accounting and supply areas.

The Department has informed my office that as a consequence of staff shortages and pending decisions in regard to the future of departmental internal audit it has been necessary, as an interim measure, to reduce the extent of the internal audit coverage.

Bearing in mind that statement by the Auditor-General about the internal audit arrangements of the Postmaster-General’s Department, I think it is scandalous that the Government expects the Opposition to debate important matters of this nature without the Government having presented to Parliament the general accounts of the Department for the previous financial year, which ended 3 or 4 months ago. The Auditor-General went on to say, and I emphasise:

Reports from my officers show that in some States the internal audit position, at 30th June 1970 could not be regarded as satisfactory.

Is it any wonder, bearing in mind that statement which appears in the AuditorGeneral’s remarks, that the Government deprives the Opposition of the benefit of the general accounts of the Post Office for the financial year 1969-707 The AuditorGeneral went on to say:

The Department has indicated its intention to approach the Public Service Board for additional staff to permit a more extensive examination within the present limited area of internal audit coverage.

The size of the Postmaster-General’s Department and the complexities of its transactions are such that in all areas affecting revenue, expenditure and stores, effective internal controls, of which internal audit is an integral part, are essential to efficient management and important to my office in the conduct of the audit of the Department.

Surely that is an indictment by the AuditorGeneral of the internal auditing arrangements of the Postmaster-General’s Department. 1 emphasise that I think it is very wrong for the Government and particularly for the Postmaster-General to expect the Opposition to debate these matters without the benefit of being able to consider the annual accounts of the Postmaster-General’s Department for the previous financial year, when the AuditorGeneral has made comments as scathing as those that he has made. I suggest that they are very serious statements and that when legislation of this nature is before the Senate next, certainly until the financial accounts of the department are available to us the Government should hold back the legislation. ] do not regard the withholding of the accounts by the Government or by the Post Office as a demonstration of efficiency. I think the Parliament and the Australian people are entitled to know, with a better degree of accuracy, just what is involved so far as the accounting arrangements are concerned. The Government knew that it wanted this legislation to come into effect by 1st October. Why could not the Government or the Minister have insisted that the accounts of the Department be made available to the Parliament?

What is involved in interest payments so far as the Postmaster-General’s Department is concerned? I cannot remember anything in the Minister’s second reading speech about interest payments. In order to get some idea of the situation 1 bad to turn to the Annual Report of the Post Office for the year ended 30th June 1969. On page 34 of that document, under the heading ‘Interest’, these remarks appear:

The interest rates in respect of amounts advanced by the Treasury for expenditure on Post Office Services arc determined by the Treasurer under section 96c (3.) (b) and section 96c (1.) Cb) of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1968. The average rate of interest on total funds provided to 30th June of the previous year was 5.077 per cent. Interest on the additional funds provided during the year was charged at the long term Bond rates of 5.25 per cent to 6th November 1968 and 5.4 per cent for the remainder of the year. In 1967-68 the rate was 5.25 per cent for the whole year.

The total interest brought to account in 1968-69 was $94,872,585.

That is nearly $95m. The Report continues:

Of the total, $6,124,011, being interest on funds applied to major works in progress was charged to asset accounts. The charge to profit and loss account was $88,748,574.

That is a large burden for the Australian community to have to bear. It appears to me that one of the reasons for these heavy imposts, these large increases in postal charges, is so that the Department will be able to meet the interest charged by the Commonwealth Treasury for moneys advanced to the Department. My colleague Senator Kennelly informs me that the interest charge against the Post Office account for 1970-71 now stands at approximately Si 22m and that the interest rate charged by the Treasury has been 7 per cent. The amount of capital upon which the interest is paid is, according to Senator Kennelly, $2,238m. Interest has been charged on Post Office accounts as from the year 1959-60. At that time Treasury officials, apparently by some method known only to themselves, decided that the Postmaster-General’s Department should pay interest on $680m, money which had been given to the Department out of Consolidated Revenue since 1901. No doubt some of the money coming from Consolidated Revenue would have represented profits made by the Post Office, but doubtless the overall amount represented by profits would have been very small.

This financial year an amount of the order of §248m will go to the Post Office from Consolidated Revenue. Therefore I suggest that since 1959-60 when this Treasury edict came into being the Government has been using in order to finance the Post Office and to enable it to function in its own right on money which it has obtained from the people through direct taxation and indirect taxation. But it has been charging the Post Office interest at the rate of 7 per cent on this money. To my way of thinking that is another method of taxa tion. It appears to me, as I believe I have mentioned already, that as interest charges have risen so also have postal charges increased. It is axiomatic that as interest charges rise further, so in turn postal charges will be increased correspondingly.

I have referred already lo one aspect of the Auditor-General’s Report and I propose now to refer to another aspect. At page 211 the Auditor-General refers to the Radio Australia booster station at Darwin and states:

Reference was made at paragraph 305 of my 1968-69 Report to the delay in the completion of the Radio Australia Booster Station at Darwin and the increase in the overall estimated cost of the project from $5.6m as assessed in 1964 to $6.942m in 1967. The latest cost estimate by the Postmaster-General’s Department is $7.682m.

That is an increase over that period of about 50 per cent. Certainly on matters of this nature when it is necessary to give consideration to activities of the Postmaster-General’s Department in dealing with a Bill like this the Australian public is entitled to be better informed and have more accurate information than is contained in the material that has been made available by the Government for a discussion by the Parliament of this measure.

I wish to deal with one other matter before referring to some of the problems involved in postal charges generally. Recently the Miranda branch of the Australian Labor Party took up with officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department the fact that telegrams were not being delivered by telegram boys within the southern suburbs of Sydney but in fact were being delivered by taxi cabs because of a shortage of telegram boys. Probably the Department was unable to recruit telegram boys because the Public Service Board would not agree to pay them enough. The Miranda branch of my Party wrote to the Postmaster-General’s Department about this matter and on 10th April last an officer of the Department replied by letter to the Secretary of the branch. I shall not weary the Senate with all the details, but as we have heard much talk about efficiency I propose to read some of the letter and to ask rhetorically whether honourable senators think that this sort of thing is efficiency. The letter which was written in April states:

During the last two months the staffing deficiency in telegram delivery staff has risen as high as 69 per cent and in order to maintain service to the public there was no alternative to utilising taxis to dispose of the telegrams. To keep costs as low as possible steps are, of course, taken to dispose of all possible messages by telephone.

There has been a slight improvement in the staffing position in the last week or two and this has enabled the Postmaster to materially lessen the use made of hire vehicles.

Surely if this large enterprise were operating in its own right and had regard for its responsibilities to the Australian people, if it thought that in order to have more telegram boys available to it it would be necessary to pay them more, it would do so. But at present it must go to the Public Service Board and seek permission to do so. I suppose that if the Australian Postal Workers Union made an application to the Public Service Arbitrator, judging by experience the application would be fought vehemently by the Postal Department or by the Public Service Board. But here we have a situation in which the Department, rather than pay the kids a couple of dollars more each week in order to attract them to service with the Department, goes to the ridiculous lengths of using taxi cabs for the delivery of telegrams. I do not question the efficiency of workers in the Post Office - I think that the ordinary workers in the Department do a tremendous job on behalf of the Australian community - but certainly when one hears of matters of this nature and sees them paraded publicly there is cause - without having the accounts before us - to query the efficiency of some of the modus operandi in the general administration of the Department. Is the Department hamstrung in any way by the Commonwealth Public Service Board? Is it able to operate efficiently in relation to matters involving wage fixation? Can it act efficiently and expeditiously in overcoming or overtaking its staffing problems? Practically each and every week the Department would no doubt have to refer to the Public Service Board some important matter directly affecting probably thousands of workers and hundreds of thousands pf citizens.

I refer now to what I describe as the excessive charges to be imposed on the Australian community and on organisations in relation to the posting of registered pub lications. With very great respect I mention that I like the subtle way in which the Minister worded her statement on this matter. In her second reading speech the Minister set out in great detail the increased charges which will result from this measure and, under the heading ‘Publications Registered at the GPO’ she said:

Thus it is proposed to continue the action taken in recent years to reduce the content of the concession.

I should have thought that a much more direct way of expressing that would have been for the Department, which obviously and undoubtedly prepared the second reading speech for the Minister, to say that charges so far as the Australian community is concerned will be increased. I have had letters and telegrams as have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and all other honourable senators, from the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales, from an organisation in New South Wales known as Thomson Publications, from Pacific Publications Australia Pty Ltd, from Australian Trade Publications Pty Ltd, from Bell Publications Pty Ltd, from Page Publications Pty Ltd, from Building Publishing Co. Pty Ltd, from the National Roads and Motorists Association, and from a great number of trade unions, complaining about the punitive and severe increases that are being imposed upon them by this legislation. Let me cite one or two examples. One was given to me today in reply to a question on notice that I had addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. I had asked whether the Minister was aware that the National Roads and Motorists Association, in posting out its journal ‘Open Road’ to its 940,000 members, would have to pay $275,000 per annum in postal charges whereas previously it paid approximately $100,000.

I understand that the time available to me has expired, but one could go on setting out in great detail instances of heavy charges and costs being imposed on the Australian community. In short, I say that the case made out by the Opposition is unanswerable and that it is in the interests of the Australian community that this matter be referred to a select committee to inquire whether the Post Office should be removed from the. Public Service Board and to consider the establishment of a public corporation to manage the business of the Post Office..

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

– The two Bills that we are currently debating concern the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, the largest department of the Crown. As has already been stated, it employs about 106,000 people. 1 rise to oppose the amendment moved by Senator Willesee. 1 am not opposed to all of the amendment but I am opposed to that part of it which seeks the withdrawal of the Bill. 1 am opposed to that section of the amendment because, as one who always endeavours to be responsible on matters that come before the Senate, I cannot see that any good purpose could be served by the withdrawal of this Bill for an indefinite period while a Joint Select Commitee in the words of the amendment inquired into the desirability and practicability of removing the Australian Post Office from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board and of establishing a public corporation to manage the business of the Post Office.

Of course, lbc latter portion of the amendment readily receives the support of my colleagues and myself. Honourable senators will recollect that in 1967 I raised this matter and dealt with it rather extensively on information that I sought and obtained with regard to the changes that had been taking place in the postal services of the United Kingdom. At that time I advocated that the revenues of the Postmaster-General’s Department be put into trust and not into Consolidated Revenue so that the Department would not have to go to the Treasury every time it wanted an appropriation to carry on its services. I am pleased that the Government recognised the value of my suggestion at that time and, to some extent anyway, adopted the trust system. When speaking on these Bills yesterday, Senator Wilkinson made the point which I believe is worthy of consideration, that until the Postal Department has full and complete control over its finances and over loans and other phases of the administration, it cannot be said to be completely removed from Treasury influence.

In 1967 1 advocated the removal of the employees of the Postmaster-General’s Department or the Department as a whole from the influence of the Public Service Board and proposed that it be changed into a public corporation or a statutory body. 1 am delighted that the Australian Labor Party has seen the value and the merit of the case that I made 3 years ago.

Senator Bishop:

– It has been our policy for years.

Senator GAIR:

– My friend in the ALP says: ‘It has been our policy for years.’ The members of that Party might explain then why 1 was unable to get the number of senators required by the Standing Orders to support me when 1 sought leave to move a motion with a view to having this subject discussed as a matter of urgency.

Senator Byrne:

– Not having sufficient numbers in your own Party.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. I could not get support from the Australian Labor Party to have this matter discussed on that occasion, and the result was that no discussion took place. So I feel 1 am entitled to claim that there was no evidence of any support or any great interest in this question which is now the major subject of the amendment moved by Senator Willesee. However, I am delighted that the ALP is commencing to think that there might be some merit in my suggestion. I agree that before any decision is made it is prudent that we should examine this matter and consider its desirability and practicability, to use the words of Senator Willesee’s amendment. However, I am opposed to the withdrawal of the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill because 1 cannot see that any good purpose would be achieved by doing so at this stage.

This Bill has many features. Firstly, it provides for increased postal and telegraph rales. Secondly, it deals with new charges in relation to overseas telecommunications. I can find fault with the Bill, particularly in regard to the postal and telegraph charges, because I believe that the increases are too savage. They are too great. I. realise, as any commonsense person would realise, that large increases in overhead costs compel one to increase the cost of services. It- has been stated repeatedly - I will deal with this later in more detail - that charges for bulk postage have been increased by 300 per cent without very much notice being given to business to enable it to make adjustments to cope with the increased charges.

Although 1 agree with much of what has been stated already by members of the Australian Labor Party with regard to those and other features of the Bill, I cannot see any merit in withdrawing it at this stage. Instead, when Senator Willesee’s proposed amendment is disposed of, and provided that it is defeated, I intend to move:

At end of motion add: and that in the opinion of the Senate a joint select committee should be appointed to inquire into the desirability and practicability of removing the Australian Post Office from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board and of establishing a public corporation to manage the business of the Post Office’.

That is consistent with what I and my colleagues espoused 3 years ago. I believe that it is worthy of consideration. When I say that, I am not reflecting on or denigrating the Post Office but that is not to say that I believe that it could not be improved upon and that its administration could not be freer with consequent advantage to the system and to the public generally.

I recognise and appreciate that there have been tremendous advances in the postal and telephone services of this country. I am prepared to concede that much has been done by the use of modern methods, by the application of modern understanding and by the provision of modern services, but against that it must be admitted that there is a measure of truth in what Senator McClelland said a few minutes ago about the restriction on service to the public today in the delivery of mails and telegrams. If one seeks to send a phonogram one is told in many cases, particularly if it is late on Friday or early on Saturday morning, that the phonogram will not be delivered until Monday. A telegram is not of much value if it takes that length of time to reach the addressee. The idea of a telegram is to provide expeditious advice or to send a message quickly to another party. A delay of that nature is not evidence of complete efficiency. There is some bottleneck. There is some deficiency in management which permits that to occur.

Furthermore, I think we must have regard to the whole budgetary position of the Government. To withhold this Bill would mean that the additional charges would not be collected, and that would add to the Government’s financial difficulties. Already it has to find between S70m and$100m to reimburse the States for their loss of the receipts tax, provided of course that the relevant Bill is defeated, as it is expected to be. In addition, we now have the bolt from Bolte who has said that he will not pay the payroll tax due to the Commonwealth. That is another$9m that the Commonwealth Government will have to find by some means or other. However, I am not here to handle the case for the Government, As responsible members of the Senate, my colleagues and I believe that there is no real advantage in obstructing the passage of this Bill at this stage.

It will be remembered that on 12th May 1967, 3 years ago, when we dealt with 2 similar Bills the ALP and the DLP voted together and we defeated the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill by 25 votes to 24. On 19th May a motion to postpone a second Post and Telegraph Rates Bill was successful by 23 votes to 22. On 20th June the Senate was recalled specially so that we could deal with regulations which provided for increases in certain rates, and we defeated those regulations by 27 votes to 25. On 19th September - at almost about this time of the year - my colleagues and I, 3 in number, were the only ones to vote against the Bills, members of the ALP electing to leave the chamber. That is the Labor Party’s business but I do not want to be placed in the position again of being one of 3 who vote for the withdrawal of the Bills. I want to make it clear that I am not prepared to go along with the proposal to withdraw the Bills. As I cannot very well amend Senator Willesee’s amendment - I attempted to do that - I am compelled to move a distinct amendment which covers the latter portion of his amendment.

The Minister told us in her second reading speech that without these new charges there would be a loss of$11m on the operations of the Postmaster-General’s Department. Although there would be a loss of $30m on the postal side, this would be offset by a profit of SI 9m on the telecommunications side, giving the net loss of Slim. With the new charges the Minister expects a profit of $30m. Although there will be a loss of §9m on the postal side, the profit on the telecommunications side is exepected to be $39m. The Post Office believes that the introduction of the increased charges will effect a reduction of $2m in the losses it incurs on the postal side.

I agree also with Senator McClelland’s protest about the delay in making available to members of the Senate the accounts of the Post Office for last year. Irrespective of whether the Senate or the other place or, for that matter, any other Parliament is concerned, it is imperative that members should have the assistance of the accounts covering the previous year’s operations when dealing with budgetary matters so that they can address themselves to the position and make comparisons with activities in previous years. In the absence of the accounts we are required merely to engage in some anticipation or in some guesswork as to the true position. 1 emphasise that this is a big department which calls for and merits expert management and efficient control. As I said previously, I am not suggesting that the Post Office does not have such management and control but 1 have reason to believe - and I am supported in my belief by no less a person than a former Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr Frank O’Gradywho points out in an article for which he was responsible, and which appeared in one of the leading Australian newspapers, the embarrassment he felt and the awkward position in which, from time to time, he found himself because he was subject first to the Treasury and secondly to the Public Service Board. No-one would say that Mr O’Grady was not an efficient and well-informed officer. All I have heard about him has been very much in his favour. Surely we must be guided to a great extent by the opinions, based on experience and knowledge, of men who have seen the Post Office grow from something comparatively small to something great in its ramifications and its services to the community.

No-one will deny that the Post Office has grown with a lot of advantages and beneficial effect. Its service particularly to people in remote parts of this continent has been tremendous. We all acknowledge and appreciate this fact. We pay tribute to those who have comprised the staff of the Postmaster-General’s Department over the years. I believe that frequently the work in radio and television done by men who are experts on the technical and electrical side goes unnoticed. But that does not mean that they could not do better if they had some of the shackles removed and were permitted to work and administer with a greater measure of freedom.

The question of interest on loans made available to the Postmaster-General’s Department by the Treasury seems lo be a bugbear. The interest on capital in 1968-69 was $94,591,000. In 1969-70 the interest on capital was $106,354,000. In 1970-71 it is estimated - in the absence of any accounts - that the interest on capital will be $122,503,000. ft is estimated that approximately $2,000m of capital is invested in the Postmaster-General’s Department. It is a big concern. If (he Post Office were to function, as it is expected to function, as an ordinary trading body it would have to find that interest. I often wonder whether other departments should not share in that interest bill. In this respect I agree with Senator Wilkinson. The work that the Postmaster-General’s Department is doing for the decentralisation and development of this country cannot be gauged, and in many other respects is really something which is helping the nation as a whole. But the Department is expected to bear the total cost of the money it is employing to provide its services.

The same argument applies to railways. The vast State of Queensland which 1 represent, with 6i thousand or more miles of railways and with its size and distances, could never have been developed had it not been for the railway system aided by shipping along the long coast. The early parliamentarians, to their credit, showed some vision. They built railways from the capital to central Queensland. In later years they extended the Une to Townsville and Cairns. They built the railway from Rockhampton to Longreach. Now the railway from Townsville goes to Mount lsa, the last section being a later project. They built railways to many of the country centres. Of course not all of those railways paid their way. The Railway Department was burdened with annual deficits because of the large interest bill that it had to meet and because of the work of development in which it was engaged. The settlers could never have succeeded in their land settlement had it not been for the transport system which was provided. The roads which we see today were not built and unfortunately many of them were built parallel and in competition with the railways. Over the years the Lands Department should have been sharing in the interest bill because that was one Department that was receiving revenue because of the development of the State and because of land settlement due to railways. That is the same principle as applies in this case. But as I said when I was dealing with this matter previously, I was encouraged by a statement by a former Prime Minister, no less a person than Sir Robert Menzies. He stated:

You ask me to charge interest on moneys that we have provided without cost. That would have the effect of throwing important public utilities into deficit.

That is exactly what I have been saying. There has to be some adjustment in this matter of interest if the operations of the post and telegraph side of the Post Office are to balance. What I cannot understand is this: If we have to increase telephone and telegraph rates because we show a loss on the operations under that heading why do we have to increase the rates on the telecommunications section which shows a healthy profit. The only explanation offering is that profits of the telecommunications branch are required to subsidise the postal and telegraph services.

I do not share the view which has been expressed here and which I have read in the Hansard of the other place that there is nothing to be gained by even considering the establishment of a corporation. I believe that there is everything to be gained. I do not share the attitude: ‘All is well.’ Do not let us be rushing off to take any alternative scheme unto our bosom without examining the pros and cons of the scheme. Everything cannot be right, or we would not have the big losses in the Postmaster-General’s operations. I am not unmindful of the fact that the Department had to meet an increased wages bill of something like $58m. It is common sense that that increase has to be met somehow. I believe that most people are realistic enough and fair enough to accept that that is the position. But the Post Office is no different from any other undertaking in the community. When there are wage rises, up go the bus fares or up go food prices. God only knows where it will all finish.

Senator Wilkinson:

– In this case there is increased revenue, too.

Senator GAIR:

– There is increased revenue. However, the thing to which people are objecting in respect of this legislation is the savage increases - 300 per cent increases, ISO per cent increases and so on. I have numerous letters here. They are no different from those that have been received by all honourable senators. We have to credit the people who have written them with being very vigilant about their own business. The pocket nerve is a very sensitive one. But this is their right.

Senator Willesee:

– They have a pretty powerful catalyst.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. They come to their representatives, as they have the right to do. It is a credit to the parliamentarians that they are so accessible and ready to hear the stories and cases of these people. Sometimes I wonder whether it might not be to the advantage of the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) personally - I do not say this in any splenetic way - if he were more receptive and if he would examine and consider some of the points put forward by these people.

We all have agreed in this debate that big quantities of worthless bulk postage material are going through the post every day. Members of the Senate have reported that they have received more than 1 copy of the same issue. That shows some weakness in the system of dispatch. I think most of the letters I have here have been dealt with or referred to. But a schedule provided to me shows that a publication known as ‘Australian Hardware Journal’ and issued by an independent publisher will incur a 100 per cent increase in postage, ‘Mingays Electrical News’ will incur a 140 per cent increase, ‘Club Management in Australia’ will incur a 110 per cent increase-

Senator Marriott:

– I think that schedule was incorporated in Hansard yesterday.

Senator GAIR:

– I sit here as much as most senators do, but I cannot recall that. It could have been. However, when I was a young man I was told that one could always justify repeating a good thing but one could never justify repeating something that had no value. The publication Construction’ will incur a 120 per cent increase, ‘Australian Chemical Processing and Engineering* a 100 per cent increase, Australian Welding Journal’ a 127 per cent increase, ‘Australian Machinery and Production Engineering’ a 100 per cent increase, The Journalist’ a 300 per cent increase, ‘Printing Trades Journal’ a 140 per cent increase, ‘NSW Police News’ a 120 per cent increase, ‘The Australian Worker’ a 120 per cent increase and ‘ETU News’ a 300 per cent increase.

I also have a letter from the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland telling the Senate through rae that there is a sudden increase of 175 per cent in postal charges which it describes as ‘unrealistic and unfair’. It states:

The additional cost of postage for the Club Journals is estimated at approximately $375,000 per year.

That is a huge amount for postage of a journal which is issued to members of the RACQ and which contains a lot of valuable advice with regard to road safety, traffic laws and many other matters. I refer now to 2 publications that I thought might have been included in category A. I hope that it is not too late for this case to be reconsidered. I quote the following from a letter from the Padua College at Stafford in Brisbane:

The Director of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr E. F. Lane, has sent to Padua College two letters concerning the two registered publications we issue, ‘Paduana’ and ‘The Paduan’. This afternoon 1 rang the quoted telephone number and was assured that the incredible news was, in fact, correct and quite unalterable within the presently proposed wording of the legislation. ‘Paduana’ is a small newsletter of four foolscap sheets folded to form 16 pages. It contains the administration’s communications to parents, news of the College and the ‘literary efforts’ of students. I am including a copy for your perusal Though it may seem mundane and limited in articles of educational theory, you must realise that this magazine plays a vital educational role in maintaining communication between teachers and parents. In such a situation, excessive theory and a complete lack of news would make it unattractive to most parents and thus defeat its purpose. Yet we are now told that this very interest level will exclude it from being labelled as ‘educational’, so not qualifying for classification as Category A.

On 4 August 1970 we posted 634 copies at Stafford, 4053, Post Office at a cost of lc each, totalling $3.17 . . . Our records show that 171 copies were posted to 4053; the rest mostly to the neighbouring post offices … if ‘Paduana’ is classified as Category A, our postage will double to $6.34 per issue; but if we are forced into Category B, the cost will leap to $11.83, even should the Post Office accept all 4053 addresses (including Stafford, Stafford North, Everton Park, Mitchelton and Gaythorne) as Office of posting1. With seven issues per year, we simply could not sustain a postage bill of $82.81. The present subscription of 5c per copy seems high to many parents who compare this cost with Se for their daily paper- no matter how unreasonable this comparison.

I will not read the balance of the letter from that College. I have read sufficient to show that the Postal Department must be very poor if it has to ask the publishers of these booklets or pamphlets, which are. important in the education and training of children, to pay additional postage for their distribution. I appeal to the Minister. When I appeal to Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin I am conscious of the fact that she is not really the Minister in charge of the postal services. I hope she will exercise her charm on the Postmaster-General and convince him of the necessity-

Senator Willesee:

– Your charm has to work on her first of all.

Senator GAIR:

– That is agreed. That is the Queensland charm. My colleague Senator Byrne really should be in the role that I am in now. He could make a better effort to charm the delightful representative in this chamber of the Postmaster-General. However 1 do not know that he has had a lot of experience. I might outdistance him in experience but there are certain proprieties that I have to observe.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) - Order! I think it would be a good idea if you returned to the path you were on.

Senator GAIR:

– I am doing that. I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General to make representations on behalf of the Senate for reconsideration of this important phase of this Bill. I do so not only because of that letter I received from the College but also because of the overall picture. I ask that the increases of up to 300 per cent on these publications be watered down a little and that the people should not be hit so hard. Then I do not think there would be any complaint at all. Many of the gentlemen who have seen me about this matter have stated that they would not mind a reasonable increase in price. Being businessmen they recognise that because of increased wages bills and everything else the increased overhead has to come out of somebody’s pocket. But when the increases range from 175 per cent to 200 per cent and 300 per cent then, as I described them earlier, they are very savage. 1 regret that I cannot support in toto the amendment moved by the Opposition but I believe we will support the major portion of it. Really I do not think that anything can be gained by withholding the Bill. We have been through all this before. Having regard to the finances of the country and the position we find ourselves in I think the Bill should be passed and we should form a committee to give consideration to the alternative plan.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I support the amendment moved by Senator Willesee which reads:

The Bill be withdrawn and that in the opinion of the Senate a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the desirability and practicability of removing the Australian Post Office from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board and on establishing a public corporation to manage the business of the Post Office.

We have almost come to the end of this debate and the matter will be decided shortly. The question that arises in this debate is whether we should move for the establishment of such a select committee and whether we should oppose, as stated by the Australian Labor Party in connection with the Budget, what arises from a budgetary proposition.

The Australian Labor Party has made up its mind that it should oppose increased charges placed upon the community as part of a Government policy. After all this Bill is dovetailed into a Government design to place increased charges on the community as a result of its own financial arrangements. Every Government senator who has spoken in this debate has sup ported the increased charges. Other speakers have referred to the very savage charges imposed on the community.

On this occasion, as happens always when attempts are made to put the Post Office on a more profitable basis, the increases fall on the small men in the community. What is being done on this occasion in connection with the Post Office is the same as what has been done in recent years. The action taken is in line with the policies of the Government relating to its budgetary considerations. The financial arrangements of the Post Office have been adapted to meet the policies of the Government. The payment of interest charges by the Post Office is dovetailed to meet the views of the Government. That is why the Opposition and other people have argued that consideration ought to be given to making the Post Office a statutory corporation. Unfortunately, during the occupancy by many people of the position of Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs we have not obtained support for this proposition. However we have found that after retiring from service with the Department they have frequently come out and spoken about the disabilities under which the Post Office operates. Therefore the Labor Opposition has no doubt about where it stands on this occasion.

What will happen if our amendment is carried? It will mean .simply that the very steep charges imposed on this occasion in accordance with Government policy will not be carried into effect. This will not create a crisis. It could happen that as a result of the proposed inquiry it would be proper and feasible for a new administration or new corporation to determine to what extent progressive charges might be applied in order to make the burden on the community less- onerous and more equitable than is proposed on this occasion. As has been the case with other Government policy decisions, there is a tendency to make heavy charges on the community in 1 year. This has been widely resisted. Instances of this resistance have been cited already. The Opposition has been criticising this aspect of the Government’s budgetary policy, in this place and in the other place, since 1967. We have criticised the arrangements within the Post Office and its accounting system. In the other place in 1968 - and since that time in this place - we moved a similar proposition to that which Senator Willesee has moved on this occasion with the exception, of course, that we did not finally vote against the legislation as we intend to do today.

There has been a long period of difficulty in the Post Office. Many of these troubles are associated, I suggest, with the administration of the Post Office and its relationship with the Government. These matters have been referred to by Mr O’Grady who has since retired from the Post Office and by some other people, and I may say a word or two about this aspect later. References have been made in this debate to the absence of the annual report of the Postmaster-General’s Department. An examination of the accounting of the Department would be sufficient today to defeat the legislation. Every honourable senator on the Opposition side has referred to the absence of the important details which are necessary for a senator or for a member of the Parliament to be able to say exactly where he stands in regard to the proposition before us relating to increased charges. That fact alone is sufficient for us to vote against this Bill. Senator McClelland referred to the strictures placed upon the Post Office and its officials by the Auditor-General. His remarks indicated the reservations we have about the administration of the Post Office. This long query about the Post Office and its administration results from the difficulties in the industrial field which have been going on for several years now. As everybody knows, there has been a great deal of industrial discontent in the Post Office. This discontent largely rests on the relationship of the Post Office to the Public Service Board. Hardly one of the unions represented in the Post Office has not complained about the relationship. The former Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs to whom I referred earlier has complained about this matter on several occasions since he retired but there has been no consideration by the Government of his statements. After Mr 0’Grady’s retirement from the Post Office, the only reference made to his comments was by the late Mr Harold Holt who said, when Prime Minister, that the Government was considering whether to make the Post Office a corpora tion. I remind honourable senators of what Mr O’Grady said on 2 occasions. He said:

The public ls wondering what ls wrong inside the Post Office. Many authorities who have worked close to the giant for a long time have already diagnosed its sickness. The Post Office hai been too long tied to the apron strings of the Commonwealth Government.

That is what the Labor Party is saying. Mr O’Grady went on:

As a Commonwealth Government department it is subject to control by Parliament and the Public Service in 2 vital fields - the fixing of charges and the determination of wage rates. Its growth is dependent on annual allocations by the Commonwealth Treasury.

He went on to say that that was not enough, and then continued:

The Post Office must be able to plan several years ahead. Under the present system of budgetary control it could safely plan for only 12 months. The Commonwealth Treasury could at any lime decide to cut the Post Office allocation for some other field.

Mr O’Grady referred, at too great a length to quote now, to difficulties in administration in setting up new and efficient methods of mail handling. He came down strongly on the side of people who feel that there ought to be a new relationship. If we establish no more today than that it is necessary to examine the increases in charges we will be doing a service to the community. Honourable senators will remember the increases in charges proposed by the Government in 1967 and applied in 1968 when it decided that it would place the Post Office on equal terms with private enterprise by imposing heavy interest charges.

Senator Gair:

– Why did you not oppose that move in 1967?

Senator BISHOP:

– Why do you not oppose it today? The situation is not very different.

Senator Gair:

– Why did you walk out?

Senator BISHOP:

– We do not seek to disguise the position in 1967. On the second reading of the Bill the Democratic Labor Party voted against the increased charges and the Opposition did not. Today we are giving the DLP an opportunity to vote with us against the increased charges. What does the DLP have to lose?

Senator Gair:

– I was not going to be caught again and left sitting here on my own. What guarantee did 1 have that you would not walk out again?

Senator BISHOP:

– -The evidence is here. Senator Willesee will pledge on behalf of the Opposition and will give an assurance now that the Opposition intends to vote against the Bills. As I have said, we will not lose much. The Post Office might argue about a long attempt to recover losses incurred mostly on the mail handling side, while the technical side is paying a handsome profit in the face of the great impost of interest charges. Nobody other than Government supporters has defended the imposition of interest charges. Senator Gair has referred to the way in which this great impost on the Post Office has grown from $23m. to S60m, to $90m and now to $120m.

The Post Office is commissioned by politicians to do all sorts of things. It is in much the same position and context as the railway services. Many hidden charges, which are in fact deterrents to progress, are decided upon by Parliament. How can organisations operate efficiently in” such a context? How can the Post Office be expected to operate efficiently in view of the close connection between the Government’s industrial and financial policies and its effect on industrial behaviour within the Public Service? The Public Service is inhibited. Nobody can fairly argue that such a set-up, whether in private enterprise or as a Government instrumentality, does not suffer from great and wide dissatisfaction amongst the staff. That great and wide dissatisfaction amongst the Post Office staff in my view tends to weaken the efficiency of the organisation. lt is all part of a mistake which has been made by this Government because it has not been prepared to modify the organisation of the Post Office. It is not prepared to change the great pattern of influence exercised by the Public Service Board over several enterprises, even though the operations of. those enterprises are markedly different from those of other government departments. We do not have the advantage of having before us details of the current accounts of the Postal Department. We have no details of the hidden charges to which I have referred, or all the other imposts to be borne by the Post Office because of political consider ations. We have not had revealed to us the extent of the value of these charges and we do not know to what extent the Postmaster-General’s Department ought to be recouped because of them. Politics continues to exercise an influence.

On the occasion of each new Budget, at a time when the Treasurer usually refers to a period of threatening inflation, the Government makes no attempt to curb inflation but places new charges on the community. Senator Willesee tabled a list of charges to which Senator Gair has referred. They are worth repeating. The effect of the new charges will be the same as that felt in 1967 when large numbers of publications were cancelled. Senator Willesee referred to the extent of increased charges, including 100 per cent for the Australian Hardware Journal’, 140 per cent for the ‘Mingays Electrical News’, and 110 per cent for ‘Club Management in Australia’. I could go on to refer to great numbers of journals of associations and trade unions. The only defence offered by the Government is that some of the publications are unnecessary. But there are many Government activities that are unnecessary. As the champion of free enterprise, is the Government now saying that people in the commercial or publishing world are not allowed to distribute the sorts of periodicals that they wish to distribute? lt is strange that when the Government decided to apply interest charges to place the Post Office on a similar footing to private enterprise it went against all its previous statements on the subject. When Sir Robert. Menzies was Prime Minister he strongly opposed the move when it was suggested in the Parliament. In earlier debates he had strongly opposed the imposition of interest charges on the Post Office. In 1959 he said:

The proposition is that we charge ourselves interest. We therefore put into deficit a couple of great undertakings- that we have referred to and we then raise the wind in order to meet that deficit because it all comes back to us. Therefore charging interest is merely a complicated piece of bookkeeping and does not produce one pennyworth of financial result.

Sir Robert Menzies then described exactly what the Government is now doing and asking the community to pay for it. What will be the result? As a result of the increased postal charges, in New South Wales from 1st October 1967, 210 periodicals cancelled their registration. I have a list of them and in order to save time, with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate that list in Hansard.

I suggest that as a result of the increased charges now to be imposed by the Government many other worthwhile publications will be forced into the same situation. It has been suggested that trade union members ought to pay more for the services they obtain. It is all very well to talk about what will happen if the Opposition stops the increases in charges. All that will happen is that the present charges will continue and that will not be a very serious situation. In the meantime the Government could examine what should be done with the Post Office. The directors of the Post Office, while they are still employed, would be able to say what ought to be done with the Post Office. Everybody else would be allowed properly to consider the sort of methods that might be employed to make the Post Office an efficient, profitable and harmonious organisation. This afternoon Senator Milliner referred to a publication of Ambassador College, which forms part of the activities of the Church of Christ.

Sitting suspended from 5.46 to 8 p.m.

Senator BISHOP:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had started to mention the fact that as a result of the heavy increases in postage charges in 1967 a number of organisations which were supplying publications to their members stopped doing so. A similar situation could arise as a result of the heavy increases outlined by the Government in the Budget. An example of what could happen was given this afternoon by Senator Milliner, who was an office bearer in the Printing Industry Employees Union of Australia. Senator Milliner said that an organisation which was attached to the Church of God; had, as a result of the extra expenditure on postage it would have to incur because of the Budget proposals, given consideration, as other organisations have done, to having its printing done in another country. In this case this organisation considered having its material printed and published in New Zealand, lt is likely tha* a number of other organisations which publish the type of material which is to be so heavily imposted under this legislation in this Bill will do the same. Senator Milliner pointed out that if the organisation to which he referred were to transfer its printing and publishing to New Zealand or to some other country it would mean a loss to Australian paper makers of $150,000 a year, to ink makers of $20,000 a year and to the printing houses of $500,000 a year. In 1967 there were 220 cancellations by various bodies in New South Wales alone because of the increased cost of sending out publications to their members. [ believe that there will be further cancellations as a result of these increased charges. This could affect the Australian economy.

Why does the Government in its budgetary considerations place an obligation upon the Post Office to recoup the losses on its postal activities from its telecommunications activities? This could have an overall effect on the economy of its operations. The problems which the Post Officeis experiencing at present are the ones that it has been experiencing over the last few years. Although these problems were referred to in debates in 1967, 1968 and 1969, they have not been solved. Unless the Parliament decides to allow a special body to investigate the situation there is no doubt that the position will deteriorate. As a result of its accounting policy the Post Office is obliged to pay increasing amounts of interest. Even the Auditor-General has felt obliged to make some observations about the operations of the Post Office. Those honourable senators who have read the annual report of the Auditor-General will recall that he referred to the fact that one of the excuses given for not supplying him with the necessary details was the fact that the Postmaster-General’s Department had to apply to the Public Service Board for additional staff. The details which are necessary to enable the Senate to consider properly the legislation which is before it have not been made available. The annual report of the Postmaster-General’s Department has not been tabled. The Senate does not have details of the hidden charges which the Post Office has to meet.

Senator Toohey:

– Why does the Senate not have this information?

Senator BISHOP:

– The only time the Senate has any information about the hidden charges is when the Public Accounts Committee reports to it on them. These details have not been revealed to the Parliament. I believe that they should be revealed to the Parliament, especially at a time when heavy increases in charges are to be imposed upon the public. As everybody knows, the burden of meeting increased charges falls upon the general public. Details of the nature to which I have referred have not been made available to the Parliament. I believe that, in the absence of these details, the Opposition is further strengthened in its objection tonight to the passage of this legislation through the Senate. The Opposition could argue with some conviction that it could hold up the passage of this legislation simply because the details to which I have refered have not been made available to the Parliament.

Senator Toohey:

– That is a good reason.

Senator BISHOP:

– It seems to me that it is all the more reason why the Opposition should do so. It should not place any great burden on the Post Office to provide these details. As I have pointed out before, one of the complaints of a former DirectorGeneral of the Post Office, Mr O’Grady, as well as of other people, is that the Post Office is permitted to make plans only year by year because Government policy determines to a large extent what will happen. One of the disabilities of the Post Office is this year by year bargaining. In fact, if the Government were to decide that there was an urgent matter which required the spending of a large amount of its revenue in a particular financial year - it might be upon defence - the Post Office could be restricted in its expansion. There is no doubt that this is true. Another factor is that, as with the railways organisations throughout Australia, a government fixes the charges. The railways commissioners in each of the States of Australia can do what they like in regard to running the railways but they cannot fix fares because the respective governments take it upon themselves to do that and, as is done in the Post Office, they determine the charges according to developmental and political factors. For example, assistance to the rural sector or pension concessions may be taken into consideration. The Commonwealth Government tells the Post Office what revenue it should derive in a financial year from the services it provides in much, the same way as the respective governments instruct their railways commissioners.

One drawback suffered by the Post Office is the Government’s policy of restricting its activities. Another important aspect ls the question of industrial harmony. The third point is the most important one. The Government insists that the Post Office has to conform to Commonwealth Public Service wage standards. As a result, it has taken away from the administrators of the Post Office whatever power they would want to exercise in order to establish complete industrial harmony and to get some extra effort from the workers in the industry. The history of the Post Office in the last 3 years has been one of industrial disturbance. I believe that this is a direct result of the last point I have made about the relationship of the Post Office to the Public Service. I believe that there are good reasons to change the system.

I believe also that there are good reasons why the Parliament should seriously consider the Opposition’s proposal at this stage. Previously the Senate carried a resolution to have a select committee set up. Like other decisions of the Senate, the select committee has not been set up. lt seems to me that at this stage we could give strength to that decision, set up the select committee and allow the people who administer the Post Office to feil the Committee of their problems. We do not hear about the problems until the directors and other high ranking officials have retired. When they are free of controls imposed by the Government and by the Post Office they say a number of things. 1 think Senator Wiillesee’s proposition is a good one. We are satisfied that there is no strong reason why the heavy increases which are to be imposed by this legislation should not be stayed at this stage. If the Senate agrees with our proposition, it could well be that a properly organised select committee could examine the future of the Post Office. We think our proposition will solve the problem. Most of the salaried employees’ organisations in the Public Service - not all, I agree - think that the Post Office ought to be a corporation. Perhaps the select committee could bring down a finding on that basis. Certainly the Post Office is tied to the Government’s policies on wage standards and to Public Service operations which the Government thinks it proper to apply and which the Post Office has to follow like a tame cat. I cannot tell the Government to go to some other place, lt has to accept the general budgetary provisions of the Government, ft accepts them and makes the necessary changes.

I think that, for the reasons I have outlined, the Senate ought to support the Opposition’s amendment, lt is true that in almost every country - and statements about this have been made by a number of people, including the Postmaster-General - post offices are failing to recover the revenues required to run them. In this respect they are similar to all the great developmental agencies such as railways, which are necessary to run the country and to help develop the country. That is one of the main considerations which we have to remember. 1 suggest that the Senate should think about what Senator Willesee pro posed and should give support to it so that the burdens of the consumers about whom 1 have spoken might be eased even temporarily.

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

(S. 12) - in reply - In closing the debate I thank all honourable senators who have spoken because whether they have spoken against the legislation or in favour of it they have, 1 believe, given very real consideration to the Bill. I cannot support the amendment which has been moved or the proposed amendment which will be moved later. In my opposition. 1 speak on behalf of the Government. 1 shall deal with them a little later. During the debate a number of points were raised, to which J. shall make some reply. Among the points raised by Senator Willesee was one concerning interest payments. I remind the Senate that on previous occasions the subject has been canvassed. lt is contended that the taxpayer, through consolidated revenue, provides the capital needed by the Post Office and that the taxpayer, as a user, pays interest on the capital. It is true that the Post Office charges are framed to recover all costs, including interest payments. If this were not so, government revenue would fall by the amount of the interest payments. The budget position would have to he adjusted by one means or another. One way would be to reduce government expenditure on pensions, health, education or defence. Alternatively, taxation rates would need to be increased to bring in the extra revenue. Not all taxpayers are telephone subscribers. They should not all pay higher taxes to provide free capital to the telephone subscribers. With no interest element, Post Office charges would be priced at less than the true cost of providing telecommunications and postal services. It would follow that users of these services would demand additional facilities. This would result in a demand for an even greater subsidy provision from taxation.

Senator Willesee also spoke about the charges made by the Department of Works. I have some information concerning this. The Post Office expenditure in 1.970-71, made through the Department of Works, is estimated at $46.4m. This is made up of $39m on new buildings, S5.5m on repairs and maintenance and $1.9m on furniture and fittings. These figures include a 6 per cent charge to cover Department of Works expenses, architects’ fees, etc. These expenditures are necessary for the provision and maintenance of facilities for the Post Office’s business activities. In this way the true commercial cost of providing Post Office facilities is shown. Senator Willesee also spoke about Post Office accounts. These are prepared on the basis of accepted accounting principles, audited by the Auditor-General who reports that they exhibit a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Australian Post Office services.

Senator Wilkinson:

asked about the agency services provided at Post Offices and whether the Department was reimbursed for the work it did as agencies. I assure Senator Wilkinson that the Post Office is reimbursed the full cost of agency work it does at Post Offices for other departments and for instrumentalities. The amount received, and shown in the Post Office accounts. for 1968-69 was $5.59m.

Senator Wright:

– Millions.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yes, millions. I quite agree that it is a very impressive figure. I think it answers the point raised by the honourable senator.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Was that for banking and social services?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– That would be correct. It is for banking, or social services and for other services. Whatever services have been performed, the reimbursement has been made. It is a very impressive figure of $5. 59m. I think it is worth repeating. I am sorry Senator Milliner is not in the chamber because he raised 2 points - one in discussion last night and the other at question time this afternoon.

Senator Gair:

– I was about to ask in which speech he made the point.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– That is so. I regret that he is not present to hear my reply. He can read it in Hansard. The first point he raised related to wage increases. The White Paper gives forecasts of earnings and expenses for 1969-70 and for 1970-71 for both postal and telecom munications services. On the postal side it is expected that there will be an increase of $8. 5m in earnings from the expected 5 per cent growth in business - and this, honourable senators will recall, was the point gravely concerning Senator Milliner - and an increase of Si 8.5m from the higher charges which, added to the 1969-70 figure of $162m, gives the published forecast of $189m. It is expected that postal expenses will rise by about 10 per cent from $181m in 1969-70 to $198m in 1970-71. The increase in 1969-70 over 1968-69 was 12.9 per cent. On the telecommunications side, it is forecast that earnings will rise from $464m to $534m - an extra $46m from growth in business and about $24m from tariffs. Expenses are expected to increase by 12.2 per cent in 1970-71 to $495m. They rose by 15 per cent last year.

A point which was referred to by Senator Milliner and which was really the basis for his inquiry involved the wage increase of $58m which was mentioned in the second reading speech. The annual cost of increases granted under awards and determinations made in 1969-70 included the following main items, which I believe the Senate will find quite interesting: The national wage, $12m; postal grades structure, $14.3m; trade staff, $11. 8m; administrative and clerical staff, $4. 9m; technical and drafting grades, $6.1m; and telephonists, $4m. This afternoon I referred to comments made by the honourable senator regarding publications by the Ambassador College. I inform him and the Senate that the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) is fully aware of this matter. The honourable senator will be interested to know that not only is the Postmaster-General aware of it but also that last night he had a discussion with the representative of the Ambassador College.

As the Postmaster-General announced in the statement which he made today and which it will be recalled I read in the Senate chamber this afternoon, on the matter of postal rates to New Zealand there has been a long-standing arrangement between the 2 countries in applying lower rates between them than are generally permitted by the international postal agreement. The New Zealand Post Office has decided to restrict sharply this agreement. The Australian Post Office also is examining the question whether it should allow special rates to continue on newspaper and magazine postings to Australia. This could change the relativity of Australia’s and New Zealand’s international rates. So far as rates in the United States are concerned, in that country they experience a huge financial loss of $1.16 billion-

Senator Wright:

– Billion?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-Yes, Senator Wright, billion. The loss is $1.16 billion, which is colossal, is it not? That loss results mainly from the handling of newspapers and periodicals, a point which I think wilt interest the Senate. Clearly, 1 can accept no responsibility for the internal rate structure in the United States.

This afternoon Senator Gair raised a point concerning school publications. I can assure the honourable senator that a close re-examination will be made of the 2 publications to ensure that they are correctly classified. However, the financial loss in this category is such that appropriate rates must be paid. 1 regret that the rates of He and 2c for light-weight category B publications cannot be reduced. Nevertheless, I give the honourable senator the assurance that a close re-examination will be made of the 2 publications which he mentioned this afternoon to ensure that they are correctly classified. The honourable senator’s comments in that regard have been noted, as I promised.

Senator Webster spoke about Post Office staff not being fully efficient. This is a difficult matter. People make these comments, so I think it is of use to acquaint the Senate with some information that I have. The front line supervision is recognised as a key area in the drive for improved productivity. District engineers give a lot of attention to this and watch closely the cost of various capital works projects. Over all, year by year, we have quite an improvement in productivity in both the telecommunications operating and capital areas. On the postal side, a 6 per cent increase in business was handled with a 1.1 per cent increase in staff. Those are interesting figures which 1 hope will answer the points made by Senator Webster.

Senator McClelland inquired about the Radio Australia booster station at Darwin and referred to a paragraph in the AuditorGeneral’s report. He suggested that the absence of the Department’s accounts for 1969-70 had some bearing on the disclosure to Parliament of the costs of the Darwin booster station. I inform the honourable senator that section 96l of the Post and Telegraph Act provides that the accounts included in the annual report will relate to the Post Office services. By definition in section 96a of the Act the broadcasting and television services to which the booster station belongs are specifically excluded from the accounts. The honourable senator raised also the matter of telegram deliveries. I have been informed that the pay rates for telegram messengers are reasonable but that this is not a job which appeals so much to boys these days. A new approach to telegram delivery is being tested. This approach gets away from bicycles and makes use of motor cycles and other vehicles. Although these are dearer to run, the extra costs are more than offset because the work can be done faster and labour costs are thereby reduced. This arrangement will avoid the emergency use of taxis which was referred to by Senator McClelland this afternoon and which I feU required some comment. The honourable senator raised also a point about the payment of interest. In reply to him 1 would state that the capital of the Post Office at 30th June 1959, which was referred to by him, was determined by the Government after consideration of ‘ a report by an expert committee of inquiry. It was not a sum determined by the Treasury.

The points raised by Senator Willesee include those matters which are dealt with the amendment which he moved. His motion was for the appointment of a joint select committee to inquire into a desirability and practicability of removing the Australian Post Office from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board and of establishing a public corporation to manage the business of the Post Office. I have given this matter quite an amount of consideration. The honourable senator refers to the removal of the Australian Post Office from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board, but what is meant by the expression ‘influence of the Public Service Board? Primarily that means the determination of pay and conditions of Post Office employees. But the Public Service Board as the Commonwealth central personnel agency must be involved to some degree in this important aspect of Commonwealth employment. Although the Government and Parliament have found it desirable to establish many statutory authorities with varying degrees of autonomy for the conduct of particular activities, there has been a continuing policy of ensuring, either by statutory form or by administrative practice, full coordination on wage and salary matters in the Commonwealth area of employment.

A statement on the Public Service Board’s statutory relationship with various Commonwealth authorities is given at page 66 of the Board’s annual report for 1969-70. Employment by public authorities represent 27 per cent of total employment, and employment by the Commonwealth Government, including the armed forces represents 10 per cent of the total. Thus public employment is a significant part of total employment, and industrial relations in the public sector are an important part of industrial relations in the community as a whole. The motion which has been moved suggests that a post office corporation would be free to determine pay and conditions without regard to going rates and the effect of such determinations on the labour market and on the economy generally. In practice I believe that no responsible government could permit this to happen.

Turning to the business management of the Post Office, it is by any standards, considering its size, a well managed business. I have shown already that it could not have complete autonomy in industrial matters. On the financial side the Post Office now enjoys the same freedom of detailed financing of its operations as do many statutory corporations. It operates from its own Trust Account. It receives annually an amount, voted by Parliament, which is necessary to cover the difference between revenue on the one hand and capital and operating expenses on the other hand. What is the alternative to the present form of financing the Post Office? If the Post Officer were a corporation, should it be empowered to raise its capital needs on the open market? Its entry into the loan market with a need for $240m in 1970-71 surely would not be welcomed by the other governmental and semi-governmental organisations already endeavouring to raise capital in the same limited market. 1 think this is a point we should consider. It could be reasonably concluded that even if the Post Office were to become a corporation, the form of financing would not change from the present simple and effective method employed which ensures a continuity of money supply. Accordingly, so far as finance is concerned, it is difficult to see any particular virtue in conversion to corporation status.

Let us look at the commercial activities in this regard. On the commercial side it has been claimed that the Post Office lacks marketing awareness. I say to honourable senators that the experience very definitely proves otherwise. Both the postal and telecommunications services are active in market research and in marketing. Both have active customer relations groups which provide advice and training to users of mailing services and facilities as well as telecommunications equipment. Customer advisory officers visit customers and provide on the spot assistance. Post Office experts also train various groups to increase their effective use of Post Office facilities with benefit to all. I think that is important. Through the development of new services, the postal service has stimulated its business growth. The bulk presorted mail service, which is widely used by the direct mail and mail order trade, totalled about 55 million pieces last year. In return for customer pre-sorting, which is usually done by computer, and acceptance of other conditions which reduce postal costs, lower rates are charged. The new priority paid mail service for urgent inter-capital mail has been welcomed by the business community and is growing quickly. Parcel traffic has risen by 8 per cent per annum by improved service and competitive pricing, and several service developments, including an air parcels service, will be introduced soon.

Phonecraft is one example of marketing in the telecommunication field. This free service shows how the planned use of the telephone can assist a merchandising organisation to increase its sales or reduce its costs. Under phonecraft a Post Office specialist conducts research into a firm’s operations and makes recommendations on the use of phonecraft techniques. He may also train selected salesmen and market test the new procedures. While the Post Office provides a wide range of services to meet the needs of the community, it promotes only those which are not a burden on the ordinary taxpayer. For example, the new rates may result in a loss of some postings of journals and publications, but these items being heavily subsidised are handled at a loss.

When we look at all those points, when we see what the Post Office is doing, when we appreciate the problems that it has in connection with the loss on these items which I have just mentioned, then I believe that we must appreciate the need for this legislation and for the carrying of the Bill without amendment. I therefore support the Bill and inform the Senate that the Government opposes the amendment which has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) and it also will oppose the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair).

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 24

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

– I now desire formally to move the amendment that I foreshadowed in the course of my speech on these 2 Bills. I move:

It is not necessary for me to say any more than I have said already in support of this proposal. In 1967 I elaborated to some extent on this project and today I have had the opportunity to make brief reference to it. I content myself with those remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I second the amendment. As Senator Gair, the Leader of my Party, has said, he spoke to this matter before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. The amendment which was moved by the official Opposition had 2 components. One dealt with the present situation implicit in the levying of the new charges, and the other component - that which is now the subject of the amendment moved by the Australian Democratic Labor Party - dealt rather with something that goes to the causes of it of which the increased imposts are a consequence. It is to that aspect to which I wish to direct my attention.

The Minister’s second reading speech goes to the question of the concept in which the Post Office is to be regarded. Is the Post Office a service department purely and simply, or is it a means of raising revenue from time to time to assist Consolidated Revenue as well as giving a service? The Minister indicated that without these imposts there would be a deficit in the accounts of the Post Office. That is fair enough. However, the contemplated imposts seek to secure revenue far in excess of an amount which would be necessary to meet any possible loss. Therefore to that extent the Post Office is considered and conceived as a means of raising additional revenue. That may contradict what I consider should be the true concept of the Post Office as essentially a service department consistent, of course, with economic running and the provision of services adequately at an economic cost to the supplier and to the consumer. That is why we feel that this will be a recurring position. If there is a base cause for the Post Office incurring losses and those losses are to be recouped every year from Consolidated Revenue by the levying of increased imposts, then we will deal with the consequences and never with the cause.

The amendment moved by Senator Gair on this occasion to the effect that the Post Office should be a public corporation - it is in terms of the principle that we have enunciated constantly over the years - goes to the root of the matter and to the ques: tion of resolving the base fundamental difficulty which will involve the elimination of the consequences from year to year. This is not a new concept. It has received approbation over the years. More importantly, however, it received the consideration of a committee of this Parliament many years ago. I had occasion - arising from a long memory because I served on that Committee - to refer to the Twelfth Report of the Public Accounts Committee and to examine what was said and the recommendations that were made. Therefore I propose to refer briefly to some of the propositions embodied in that report.

Perhaps it would be very interesting if initially I were to refer to the personnel of the Public Accounts Committee which considered this matter. Some of them, very distinguished members of this Parliament, have now left the Parliament. Some, unfortunately, have passed away. The Chairman of that Committee was Professor Bland, a most distinguished technician in the field of public administration to whom the nation and the Parliament are indebted for his professional advice over many years and his academic knowledge which were put at the disposal of the Parliament. The late Senator Sir Shane Paltridge was a member of the Committee as was Mr Crean, who is still a member of the House of Representatives. I, too, was a member of the Committee. One of the most distinguished members was the present Postmaster-General, Mr Hulme. Therefore, the observations of the Committee are somewhat relevant to the discussion in which the Senate is now engaged.

Senator Greenwood:

– When did that Committee sit and report?

Senator BYRNE:

– It sat in 1954. The Committee gave attention to the then format of the accounts of the Postmaster-General’s Department. One of the big considerations was whether those accounts should be presented on a commercial basis. Certain recommendations, to which I shall refer very briefly, were made and possibly as a consequence there was a variation and restructuring of the method of controlling the accounts of the Postmaster-General’s Department. To that extent I would say that the report of the Committee has received recognition and has been translated into an act of administration in this major undertaking. Nevertheless, there are some observations to be made so, knowing that this Bill has further processes to pursue and that tonight is a critical night for its passage, I prefer to select 3 or 4 extracts from the report rather than to read extensive excerpts from it. These are some of the observations made and the recitations embodied in the report:

The Director-General told the Committee that in his opinion the Post Office should be regarded as a Commonwealth instrumentality providing communication services. The Department worked within the departmental system and at the same time adopted the most appropriate commercial practices, the results of which it expressed in accounts on a double entry basis. These accounts afforded an opportunity to check the costs of the services with the charges made for them. This was done every year, and oftener, if necessary, and on the basis of the results disclosed and forecasts made, the charges for its services were reviewed. Irrespective of the results revealed by the commercial accounts, however, the charges for services were determined by the ministerial head in accordance with Government policy and parliamentary approval was obtained by legislation. Nevertheless, the Director-General agreed that endeavours should be made to avoid any substantial deficit.

Then follows this extract from the DirectorGeneral’s evidence:

Unless there are clear explanations, I think it is bad for organisations such as ours to be operating regularly with deficits. That has a bad effect on staff morale and almost everything else.

In another portion of its report the Public Accounts Committee had this to say:

Like most public utilities, the Post Office supplies services for which it charges. If its departmental ‘status’ should result in customers being charged too much, or too little, there may be cause for complaint. In that event public and parliamentary pressure may be exerted to alter Government policy. Without going so far as to say that the Post Office should pay its way, the Committee considers that the fullest attention should be paid to the relationship between the income and the expenditure of the Post Office in fixing charges.

In fairness to the Government, may it be said that the Bill now before the Senate does reflect that point of view, namely, that the Postmaster-General’s Department was faced with a loss and then attempts were made by this means to equate the loss with increased revenue and to avoid the recurring position to which the DirectorGeneral referred with some grave regret. Coming more particularly to the summary of conclusions, the following was recited at paragraph 474:

The Committee has examined a large number of statements covering the activities of the Postmaster-General’s Department and has discussed them with departmental and other witnesses at length. Throughout the Report it will have been observed that the Committee has insisted that the business management of the Post Office should not be subordinated to its status as a Government department. The Committee realises, however, that whether it is looked at as a Government department or as a business undertaking, the services offered to the public, and the rates or charges that will be fixed for those services, will be decided by the Cabinet on the recommendation of the Minister, i.e., the Postmaster-General. If its appraisal as a Government department predominates, there is no effective yardstick to measure costs and, therefore, to fix the rates that should be charged.

That was the comment of the Committee on that point at that stage. At paragraph 478 the Committee stated:

The Committee feels that the departmental organisation has been primarily concerned with the technical efficiency of its services, and that the business management of the undertaking, including a full appreciation of accounts and costs of the organisation, has been relegated to a less important position.

Paragraph 479 is in these terms:

Had the Department carried through the Post Office organisation the conception that the charges for the several services are influenced by the results of the financial operations as disclosed by the commercial accounts, the Committee believes that the Post Office would have concentrated less upon the departmental votes than it appears to have done. It would also have used the commercial accounts as an aid to efficient management as between the branches as well as for the Department as a whole. Had the comparative costs of the branches been subjected to closer scrutiny, the Committee believes that costs might have been substantially reduced.

The report goes on to give the conclusions of the Committee which are as follows:

Functions

  1. The statement of functions of the Postmaster-General’s Department should be reviewed.

Status

  1. Although organised on traditional departmental lines, the Postmaster-General’s Department should also be regarded as a business undertaking.

Importance of the Commercial Accounts

  1. The Postmaster-General’s Department’s commercial accounts are important in the consideration of Commonwealth finance and should record all the revenue and all the expenditure accruing for the year.

I am sure these things are now occurring.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– But you are talking about 16 years ago.

Senator BYRNE:

– I am, yes, unfortunately. That is the precise point. The report continues:

Forms of the Commercial Accounts

The form of the Postmaster-General’s Department’s commercial accounts could be improved.

In other words the report contemplates that there has been an excessive accent on the functioning of the Postmaster-General’s Department as a Commonwealth Department. Insofar as this aspect receives an exaggerated emphasis, to that extent the competence of the Department to present efficient management and to provide efficient services at the lowest possible economic cost is likely to be impaired. That was the feeling of the Committee at that stage. Honourable senators will notice that the Committee does not recommend an independent public corporation. After all, we realise that what is suggested is one of the kinds of semi-governmental organisations which have developed and proliferated much more in the intervening years. At one stage the Committee did refer to a series of similar corporations in Australia and elsewhere. The report in paragraph 35 states:

  1. In most countries the postal services are conducted by the governments concerned as ordinary departments. And this is the case even when public enterprises on a comparable scale are not conducted as government departments but as statutory corporations. The Commonwealth has adopted a similar policy in retaining complete ministerial control of the Post Office when it has substantially abandoned it in cases such as the Commonwealth Trading and Savings Banks, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, the Commonwealth Railways, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. To a varying extent, these touch on the everyday affairs of the Australian public and expend very large amounts of public funds, features which in the case of the Post Office are mentioned as justifying ministerial and parliamentary control. The Committee recalls that the British Post Office has been a government department since it was established in the seventeenth century. This shows that people want it kept as a government department.

Iri other words quite a substantial record is now building up of the function of the independent Government corporation in circumstances and with responsibilities that are not alien to those of the Post Office. If the status of the Post Office as a public corporation is not totally and immediately obviously justifiable I think there is a warrant for investigation as to whether that should or should not be the case. The amendment moved by Senator Gair takes the matter no further than that. It does not come down, in the absence of the great body of knowledge which would be necessary to do so, with a dogmatic decision. It merely states that there should be a committee to investigate the desirability and practicability of this.

Senator Rae:

– Would the honourable senator tell us about the present day things which make this desirable, not the things of 16 years ago?

Senator BYRNE:

– I have said that at that stage concern was expressed by the Committee. It was not a very grave concern but concern was expressed as to what should be the mode of fuctioning of the Postmaster-General’s Department. At that stage suggestions were made which have been embodied in subsequent administrative practice. I think that fact must be considered. A further step which was also canvassed by this Committee was the question of a completely new status independent of the ordinary Public Service administration, similar to other public corporations, and whether that could more effectively and efficiently give the service which it was generally conceded is the prime purpose of the department consonant with economic operation and the provision of those services at the lowest practical economic cost to the consumer. A position has developed in which there are recurring losses in the Postmaster-General’s Department and constant additional imposts on consolidated revenue by additional charges to recoup the losses. The losses are recouped beyond the base amount until this practice becomes a mode of producing general revenue. In the light of all those circumstances and the passage of time it seems not inappropriate that a committee should look at this to see whether a better, more modern, more effective and economic base should not be discovered for this great public undertaking. The Democratic Labor Party recognises the fact of the economic situation and the effect the accounts will have on the condition of the Post Office and that the anticipated revenue will go into the Budget. But there will be a tremendous dislocation of the Budget and there may have to be a reduction of benefits or taxation alleviation such as has been provided in the Budget if this Bill were defeated and the imposts were not permitted. Nevertheless there is a responsibility on the Senate to look at the fundamental cause of this recurring malaise. If a committee is the appropriate body to undertake this investigation then the Australian Democratic Labor Party certainly thinks the time is opportune to do it.

Senator Greenwood:

– The honourable senator’s resolution does not ask for an investigation of those things. It asks for the setting up of a public corporation.

Senator BYRNE:

– Whether or not the wording of the amendment is explicit in that regard, obviously the committee would be directed to the setting up or otherwise of a public corporation as a means of avoiding considerations which I have just placed before the Senate. It may be a truncation of the concept, but obviously all those things are implicit in the suggestion, if not expressly spelt out. For those reasons I second the amendment as proposed by Senator Gair for the Democratic Labor Party. I suggest to the Senate that after this long period of time, and in view of this difficulty confronting the Post Office and annually confronting the Parliament, this amendment might well find the total support of the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Senate is now in the position where the amendment which I moved in the original Bill was not accepted by this House but an identical amendment, word for word, has now been moved by Senator Gair and seconded by Senator Byrne. Everybody knows that the Australian Labor Party wants an inquiry into the Post Office. I am strengthened in my belief by Senator Rae’s interjection to Senator Byrne. Senator Rae said: ‘We do not want to hear of an inquiry 16 years ago. Bring us up to date.’ That is what the Australian Labor Party wants. We want to bring the situation up to date. We want an inquiry. The Democratic Labor Party also wants an inquiry to be held. So we have arrived at the situation where the majority of honourable senators want an inquiry to be held. Senator Gair has attached his amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. If the Australian Labor Party were to support this amendment it would put us in the position of supporting the Bill. At the outset of my address when I spoke on behalf of the Australian Labor Party I. said that we opposed this Bill on two levels. I said this even before I moved the amendment. I said the Labor Party opposed the Bill because we believed that the increases were unnecessary, that they were haphazard and that they had not been thought right through.

In addition I said that we were opposing the Bill because it was a part of the Budget. It was not sensible to oppose the main Budget motion as moved in this Senate Chamber because the words are that we take note of the Budget papers. It would be silly to vote against taking note of the Budget papers. The only practical way in which an opposition can show its distaste for the Budget is to vote against those operative Bills which put budgetary proposals into effect. I repeat that the majority of honourable senators want to see an inquiry held. I suggest to Senator Gair that he withdraw his amendment. Let all honourable senators vote on the second reading in the way they want to vote. If Senator Gair ‘likes to bring his amendment up at any time - tomorrow if he wants to - I give my word that the Australian Labor Party will support him in asking for a committee of inquiry. It is quite simple.

In the old words which Senator Gair will know so well: We have the numbers. It is the clearly expressed will of the Senate that we want to hold an inquiry into the future of the Post Office.

I ask Senator Gair to withdraw his amendment now because we cannot support it in its present form and that means it will be defeated. That is not what he wants and it is not what we want for that amendment. Let us vote for or against the motion that the Bill be now read a second time, which would decide whether or not postal increases would go into effect. Senator Gair could then introduce his amendment as a separate issue. He can bring it in tomorrow morning if he wants to - certainly when we return the week after next - and the Australian Labor Party will support it. If he wants us to move it, we certainly will do so. We leave the .matter entirely to him. It is not a question of our trying to pre-empt him, trying to gain kudos for anybody or anything of that sort.

Senator Gair:

– You moved this initially, you know.

Senator WILLESEE:

– We moved it initially.

Senator Gair:

– Now you are asking me to withdraw it.

Senator WILLESEE:

- Senator Gair has been in Parliament long enough to know what is happening. Had my amendment been carried, the Bill would have been defeated. But members of the Democratic Labor Party would not support it because they do not want the Bill to be defeated. That is fair enough. Now Senator Gair is moving the proposition in such a way-

Senator Gair:

– At least I stayed here; I did not walk out.

Senator WILLESEE:

– What about bringing yourself up to date? Now Senator Ganis moving the proposition in such a way that if we vote for it we are voting for the Bill. That is something we are not prepared to do. This Bill is part of the Budget. We want to reject it. We would like to see it rejected. We would like to see the Government go to an election on it. A party cannot be asked to retreat from such a situation.

Senator Young:

– You need a better :reason than that to go to an election.

Senator WILLESEE:

– All right; the hee.haws are on again. I repeat what I said in my speech on the Budget and also in my speech on this Bill. Surely members of the DLP do not want me to retreat from .that situation. I repeat that had our amendment been carried the Bill would have been defeated. That is what we want. We want an election on it if the Government wants to take us to an election. Now the DLP creates a situation in which, if we support this amendment, we will be saying completely the reverse of what we have said all along. We will be saying that the Budget is a good one after we and the rest of Australia have said that it is not, and we will be saying that we support the Bill.

I repeat the offer that I make to Senator Gair. If he likes to withdraw this amendment, he can then vote for the Bill; it can go through; the next Bill will go through; although we will oppose it; and we will even oppose the third reading. Then tomorrow morning, in only a few hours time, he can move this proposition in identical terms but not related to any of the Bills, and we will support it. Then we will “have the numbers. We will be able to move for the suspension of standing orders. We will be able to take the matter to the top of the business paper. It will be able to go through this place in a matter of hours. That is the proposition. I cannot be fairer than that.

I repeat that the Australian Labor Party genuinely wants to see an inquiry into whether the set-up of the Post Office should be changed. Members of the DLP say that they want such an inquiry too. If they are genuine and if they want to stick to that, there is no problem at all. On many occasions Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has bent over backwards to see that the will of the Senate is carried out. Although he is not here at the moment and without being able to speak for him, I believe that he would not resist this proposal. The situation is that we will not vote for this proposition while we have to vote on this Bill. We believe that it is an iniquitous Bill. We intend to vote against it. If Senator Gair wants to move this proposition later, that is perfectly all right with us. We will support it; it can be carried; and then it can be transmitted to the House of Representatives. Thereby we will do what we want to do and what members of the Democratic Labor Party have already said they want to do.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– We have given some consideration to the point that has been made by Senator Willesee. We appreciate his position, but we still do not see any reason why we should not proceed with our amendment. After all, if the motion for the second reading is carried, it is quite possible for members of the Australian Labor Party to defeat those sections of the Bill of which they disapprove in the Committee stage. As I see the position, they are not prevented from opposing those sections of the Bill to which they object at that stage.

Senator Willesee:

– We object to the whole thing as a budgetary proposal.

Senator McMANUS:

– Members of the Labor Party may object to the whole thing as a budgetary proposal but, by the procedure they propose, they are also objecting to something that is the policy of their Party and the policy of my Party. My colleagues and I see no reason why members of the ALP should not proceed with this matter. Whatever happens in regard to it, they still have their opportunities to speak against obnoxious sections of the Bill and to vote against them in the Committee stage.

Senator Byrne:

– And to vote against the third reading.

Senator McMANUS:

– They could vote against the third reading if it came to the point.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is the use of the vote?

Senator McMANUS:

– My friend asks: What is the use of the vote?’ The plain fact of the matter is that members of the ALP either want what is their policy and our policy or they do not want it. On this occasion they are pinned to this point: Do they want their policy and our policy implemented, or do they not? If they vote as it has been suggested they will, they will be turning their backs on their own policy over a mere point which in itself has nothing in it.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– It is very strange to hear Senator McManus saying that we are turning our backs on our policy. He says that people who have this proposition in their platform ought to vote for it when it comes up on an occasion such as this. Why was it that when the proposition came up here a few minutes ago the Democratic Labor Party voted against it? The proposal for a joint select committee was put forward by Senator Willesee in his amendment. The answer to that question is quite clear. Members of the DLP voted against that amendment because it was not a simple proposal for a joint select commitee. Senator Willesee’s proposal was that the Bill be withdrawn and that a joint select commitee be set up. Members of the DLP voted against it not because it was a proposal for a joint select commitee but because they supported the Bill.

With equal logic, we members of the Australian Labor Party say that if the present amendment was a simple proposal for a joint select committee we would support it. That is why Senator Willesee offered to support it tomorrow or on any other occasion. But Senator Gair’s proposal is:

At end of motion- that is the motion ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’ - add: ‘and that in the opinion of the Senate a joint select committee should be appointed . . .

So, it is not a simple proposition. We intend to do exactly the same as members of the DLP had to do. They had to vote against the proposal because, in the case of Senator Willesee’s amendment, it was tacked on to a proposal to defeat the Bill. In the DLP amendment the proposal has been tacked on to a proposal that we support the Bill. That is the essence of the difference. We have a proposal, which both parties accept, in each case added on to a proposal which the other party will not accept. The position is as simple as that and as logical as that. Therefore, for the reasons that have been put, I support what Senator Willesee has said. It is a simple enough matter. We intend to carry through our opposition to this Bill, and we are prepared to support the establishment of a select committee whenever a proposal to that effect comes up independently.

Question put:

The the words proposed to be added (Senator Gair’s amendment) be added.

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

AYES: 3

NOES: 43

Majority . . . . 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

The the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (First Schedule).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Post and Telegraph Bill sets out the new postal situation with respect to newspapers. They are placed into category A or category B. The First Schedule of the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill, with which we are now dealing, sets out the postal charges for newspapers. Rather than bore honourable senators by reading out a mass of figures I will deal with the matter briefly and broadly. Newspapers included in category A are to be subject to an increase of about 20 per cent in the postal charge. That increase has not been objected to by any of the printing trades or any of the people affected. Category B is the broader category because all exclusions from category A are automatically included in category B. Such publications are newspapers published by a social, recreational or motorists organisations, an organisation of employers or employees, or an organisation of persons engaged in or connected with business or a class of business or a profession or professions. It is clear that category B does not leave out too many people. The postal rates to be paid on such publications are set out in the First Schedule with which we are now dealing.

During the debate on the second reading of this Bill I dealt, as other senators did, with the swingeing increases for class B publications. I do not intend to go through them all again now, but simply to mention one or two in order to underline the points I made in my speech at the second reading stage. As I said a few minutes ago, the charges for publications covered by category A are to be increased by 20 per cent. In the list I have before me of category B publications, the smallest increase is 100 per cent and the greatest increase is 300 per cent. If the annual postal bill was only about a shilling an increase of 100 per cent would not matter very much. However, I draw to the attention of honourable senators the position of the ‘Australian Hardware Journal’. The postal bill for this journal is to be increased by about $2,600 a year. In such cases an increase of 100 per cent is rather significant. The Australian Workers Union faces an increase of $23,000 a year in its postal account. That is a tremendously high percentage increase. The postal charges for a little magazine like the New South Wales ‘Police News’ are to be increased by 120 per cent, which means that a reasonably small organisation has to find an extra $1,600 a year. The Electrical Trades Union must pay an increase of 300 per cent in its postal charges. They will rise from$3,528 to $14,148 a year. Tremendous sums of money are involved.

We oppose this clause. I realise that it is the will of the Senate that the general increases should be granted, but I was encouraged by a specific reference to this matter by Senator Gair. He pleaded with the Government to withdraw the provision and see whether greater equity could be established. I submit that the Senate should reject the clause. This would give the Government a chance to withdraw it and to consult people it wished to consult. Members of the Opposition would certainly be only too willing to assist in discussions and to make available the tremendous amount of correspondence we have received on the subject, in order to iron out the problems.

I appreciate that the Government will not agree to eliminate the clause, because the Senate by its vote tonight has determined that the new postal rates will become law. But surely it speaks for itself when one organisation faces increased postal charges of 300 per cent, or $23,000 a year. Surely no business, even in these wildly inflationary times, should be forced to accept an increase of 300 per cent in its postal account. Complaints are made in respect of increases between 5 per cent and 20 per cent.

As I said in my speech at the second reading stage, the Government could find itself in a very invidious position in the final analysis. The printing establishments that will be so heavily affected are not large. They are medium sized businesses in the community. I have been assured that the postal charge increases will have a considerable effect on those businesses. They will be laid open for takeovers by overseas companies or big companies within Australia. The Government is encouraging by these increased rates the present trend of sending printing to cheap labour areas such as the countries of South East Asia. The publications will then be posted back here and the Australian Post Office will be obliged to deliver them without payment because they will have been posted in another country. Senator Milliner, who knows a great deal about the printing trade, is very worried about this situation. These increased charges will make a tremendous difference to people in printing trades. If this trend goes too far the Government will have to make a move to stop it by using other taxing methods such as excise duty, import controls and all the other methods that are in a government’s hands.

Government supporters may try to laugh off what I am saying and claim that the situation is being overplayed. Believe me, when the printers came to see us we crossexamined them very closely on this point. They produced convincing figures. I have discussed the matter with Senator Milliner, who has such a great knowledge of the printing industry. I am completely convinced that if not in the short run, certainly in the long run, the printing trades will be driven to a very awkward situation. Surely I do not have to argue at any length to show that this is completely unreasonable. I wish to offer a suggestion to the Minister. I would not mind if the Minister were to move that progress be reported. Further consideration of this legislation could be delayed until a later hour tonight or until tomorrow morning in order to allow the Minister to reconsider this matter. Even if increased charges are necessary in order to collect the amount of revenue which is necessary for the handling of these articles the increase should not be so steep in the one year. I believe that the Post Office should spread the increases over a period of time. We had an example of this only a week or two ago in the legislation dealing with airport charges. The Government has given a promise to airline companies that it will not increase airport charges by more than 10 per cent in a year. It is, of course, virtually a certainty that these charges will increase by 10 per cent but this gives the airlines a chance to adjust and a similar system would give publishing organisations that use the postal services a chance to adjust.

It is too much to expect a publishing organisation to meet an additional expenditure of $23,000 on postage rates in a single year. The annual postage bill of the publication entitled ‘The Australian Bank Officer’ will rise by $6,800. Others will rise by 85,000. My suggestion is that rather than have the Opposition vote against this provision at this stage - the Australian Labor Party will certainly vote against it - the Minister should move that progress be reported and seek advice outside the chamber on the merits of staggering the increases. If she were to do so, the Minister would certainly receive all assistance that the Australian Labor Party can possibly give.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– During my contribution to the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill I made particular reference to the matter to which Senator Willesee has just referred. The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) in this chamber, did not reply to the points I raised in relation to the escalating cost of posting registered periodicals. I think the Government should give some consideration to the points I raised. I believe that the Government should review the position of those sectors of the business community which will find that their postage expenses have escalated by over 100 per cent as a result of these proposals. I believe that the Government should acknowledge that an unfair burden is being placed upon this sector of the community. I do not think that a 100 per cent increase is warranted.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I take it the honourable senator has been influenced by Senator Willesee’s argument.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator Willesee was probably impressed by that which a number of other honourable senators had to say. I am repeating what I said in my contribution to the earlier debate. I pointed out that I had received at least half a dozen letters from the publishers of certain periodicals to the effect that they realised that they had received a concession in the past and did not oppose an increase in the postage rate. I also pointed out that in many instances - in the case of 2 of which I am personally aware - a very high rate has been struck for the publication and distribution of a periodical. There is no means by which the rate can be altered. One paper of which I am aware will be immediately faced with extra expenditure of about $560 a month for postage. This Victorian newspaper does not have a large circulation but it is a newspaper of importance. If it is placed in category B an extra expense of $560 on postage will be incurred every month. It is faced with a total of $6,800 in increased postage this year, but it does not have the ability to increase its advertising rates or its subscription. I have received a letter from the Australian Monthly Newspapers and Periodicals Association of Melbourne endorsing my comments. The letter states:

This Association constitutes publishers of newspapers and periodicals registered at the GPO for bulk postage. This section has been singled out for exceptionally heavy increases, in practically all cases amounting to a rise in excess of 100 per cent, and in some instances where immediate deregistration applies, the increase has been astronomical. We believe a rise of 100 per cent in anything at any one time is inflationary and unjustified.

It is realised that concessions have been granted in the past and although we appreciate the PMG’s intentions to reduce these concessions, surely they should be in less drastic steps and prior notification should be given.

The revenue of all our companies is based upon annual rates. These rises could therefore cripple smaller companies before the extra costs could be passed on.

Our members are big users of paper, printing facilities and labour. Any reduction in our activities will materially affect these important sections of the community.

I think that is important. The letter continues:

We believe concessions are still warranted to publishers who assist the Post Office by presorting into post code groups, delivering to the major despatch centres, wrapping so that franking is unnecessary at the Post Office and conforming to other postal restrictions not applicable to general users of the Post Office.

The letter goes on to say that it is reasonable to ask the Postmaster-General to review this section of the new postal charges. Mr Chairman, I made this point during my earlier speech. I listened to the reply of the Minister. I appreciate that this Bill is an awkward one to deal with. I also know that it is not the wish of the Government that increased charges should have to be imposed at this rate. However, I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to the suggestions I had previously made. Firstly, I believe that in the interests of the people to whom I have referred the Government should defer the implementation of these increases until the beginning of January 1971. If such a course is not acceptable to the Government, I ask that the full charges be implemented on a, graduated scale over a period of 12 months. 1 put those proposals to the Minister for her consideration.

Another point I wish to raise is the wording of the description of category A and category B newspapers. I note that, in replying to the comments which were made by Senator Gair, the Minister said that the Government would give consideration to reviewing the situation in relation to the 2 newspapers which Senator Gair mentioned. The criteria to be applied in relation to the inclusion of certain newspapers in category A is laid down in the Bill. I am disturbed by the fact that a review could be made of the classification of any newspaper. I would say that a newspaper either falls within category A or it does not. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the terms of the legislation will be observed and no publications will be given any preference. I am concerned because I know that one newspaper has been advised already by the Postmaster-General that it has been included and that it can accept that it has been included in category A. There is a move afoot to review that decision because of other factors and to place the newspaper in some other category. I ask that a strict reading of this legislation be applied when newspapers are classified.

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

(9.40) - On the point that Senator Webster made, what I said to Senator Gair was that there would be an examination of the 2 publications to ensure that they are classified correctly. I did not say that there would be different classifications. I said that there would be an examination to ensure that they are classified correctly. The honourable senator has twisted my statement around in entirely the reverse way. The examination was not to be a review of conditions, as the honourable senator said, but to ensure that they are classified correctly. That is the point I made when I replied to Senator Gair. It was perfectly clear. Apparently Senator Webster wanted to bring in another point. I make this very clear: Never was it said that it would be a review of conditions.

Senator Willessee spoke to clause 6. This covers all the proposed postal rate increases. He referred in particular to registered newspapers and periodicals. Last year 7,600 different newspapers and periodicals, totalling 158 million copies, were posted, at an average cost of 1.7c each; 75 million were posted at a cost of only 0.5c to lc each. The postal service lost $9m on this category last year. The financial position of this category is such that the introduction of the higher rates cannot be delayed. This is the fact of the situation which is facing the Postmaster-General. Users of other postal and other Post Office services must cover the loss in this category if concession rates are to continue. However, it is not the role of the Post Office to subsidise the printing and publishing industries or the activities of a wide range of institutions, organisations or societies, desirable though their activities in the community sense may be. I think that is a very plain fact which is understood by everybody.

Substantial percentage increases have been quoted. The percentage increases are substantial because the base rates are so low; they start at 0.5c. Any major step towards reducing this concession would appear to be considerable in percentage terms. However, in absolute terms, the increases are reasonable. For a 1 oz publication the increase is 1.5c; for a 2 oz publication the increase is lc; for a 3 oz publication the increase is 1.5c; for a 6 oz publication the increase is 2.5c. When we express this increase in terms of the individual annual subscription or membership fee - and this point was raised by honourable senators - a 3oz monthly magazine would cost 18c extra for a year’s issues and a 6 oz monthly magazine would cost 30c extra for a year’s issues. These are relatively small amounts when com pared with the existing level of annual subscription fees. The large amounts arise from the millions of copies of particular publications posted annually. In the case of the printing trades journal, quoted by Senator Milliner in the debate, the extra cost is 3c only per member per year or SI, 250 for 45,000 members. Although the International Postal Convention allows the country of destination to refuse to handle postings made in overseas countries by a local firm to take advantage of low postal rates, some countries deliberately advance their export printing business through cheap international postage rates. This has been possible because the country of destination has to pay all internal handling conveyance and delivery costs and gets no compensation from the originating country. From 1st July 1971 this will change and such countries will have to review their international rates.

Either Senator Webster or Senator Willesee - I forget who - asked whether there could be some discussion with representatives from the printing and allied trades. The Minister has arranged for senior departmental officers to have continuing discussions with the Printing and Allied Trades Employers Association and with the Australian Association of Business Publishers. I think it is important that these discussions should continue. Several honourable senators, including Senator Willesee in particular, suggested delaying the passage of this clause. The financial position of this category is such that the increases cannot be deferred in whole or in part and is such that they cannot be reduced.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Minister has read what emanated from the Postmaster-General. She said that it was not the function of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to subsidise these voluntary organisations. It is also not the function of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to destroy these voluntary organisations. This is what is being done. Nothing has been put before the Committee to show the economic impact of the proposed increases in postal charges on the printing, publishing and paper industries of Australia. Nothing has been brought forward to show the effect on the export trade in publications. From all that has been put before us, by those people in the publishing business who ought to know, the effect will be disastrous. Senator Webster read one letter. I have a number from organisations of the highest reputes - not only from trade unions but from people in the printing and publishing world. These increases will have a disastrous effect on the printing and publishing industries.

How can the Government bring into Parliament a proposition which is looked at solely from the point of view of the Postmaster-General? Even looked at from his point of view only, no figures have been produced to the Committee to show comparative postage rates in other countries. From what has been told to us by these organisations, these rates are outrageous. Is the Australian Post Office so grossly inefficient that it has to charge so much more than post offices in other countries? How is it that the English post office can permit postage rates to be sufficiently low that organisations are being enticed there; they are ceasing to print and publish here and send publications from here to foreign countries? I refer particularly to countries in Asia. Senator Milliner mentioned the Ambassador College, an associate member of the world wide Church of God, which was forced to go to the United Kingdom to print its publications which are sent to India. Now not only are the publications posted from the United Kingdom but they are published and printed in the United Kingdom. What good does that do Australia? The effect on the purchases of paper in this country will be disastrous. We need people to purchase our paper and our ink. We need to have our printers employed. We also need to have this kind of work built up in order that we may establish a publishing trade in Australia to compete on Asian markets.

Instead of the Government achieving that, it will drive businesses out of here and to other countries such as New Zealand, Singapore or the United Kingdom. It will destroy this trade. If the Minister thinks that is just my opinion she ought to read some of the letters I have from representatives of the great printing and publishing organisations. Rather than read these letters, I shall ask leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. They are addressed to me. I shall seek that leave in order that they be brought before the Senate. The Senate ought to have an opportunity to see what these organisations say. I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard certain letters. There is one from the Australian Journalists Association, one from Bell Publications Pty Ltd, one from Australian Trade Publications Pty Ltd and one from Thompson Publications (Aust.) Pty Ltd. I have others from the National Roads and Motorists Association, from Pacific Publications Pty Ltd, from Australian Monthly Newspapers and Periodicals Association and from Page Publications Pty Ltd. Another one is from the Building Publishing Co. Pty Ltd. One from K. G. Murray Publishing Co. Pty Ltd points out that the letter is unique. It states:

This is the first that this wholly Australian owned 34 year old company has ever written to its parliamentary member.

There is a telegram from Neil Mason, the director of the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales. I suppose the Minister might think that it does not matter that a person such as that is making representations pointing out the effects of these increases on industry. The next one is from the Australian Public Service Federation. I ask leave to have those letters incorporated in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is your request for leave to incorporate this material subject to its being technically possible for the matter to be incorporated in Hansard?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– No.

The honourable senator does not want to incorporate all these documents in Hansard, does he?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, I do; they are important. Does the Minister object? I do not choose to waste the time of the Senate by reading these letters, but I think these organisations are entitled to have their views known to honourable senators.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– May

I speak on this?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. It is merely a matter of whether leave is granted. Is leave granted?

Senator Rae:

– No.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– But I wanted to speak on that.

Senator MURPHY:

– My colleagues and I will see that the documents are read into the record.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– I have been endeavouring to see whether I could speak to this point and I was sat down. But immediately Senator Murphy seems to have taken it as a personal affront. No personal affront is intended. All I am endeavouring to find out, and I still have not found out, is whether I can speak to the point of whether the documents are incorporated in Hansard. This ls what I was endeavouring to find out.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is refused.

Senator MURPHY:

– The Minister may have an opportunity later to speak, but leave to incorporate the material has been refused. I should like the Minister to explain to us what the comparable charges are in other countries such as the United States and whether it is possible for publications in the nature of periodicals to be posted there for½c I should like to know whether the rates that will be charged will be substantially more in Australia. I should like to know also why it is that religious and charitable organisations receive some concession provided that they do not distribute the publications free. Why is it that even where there is a limited circulation, or even a computerised circulation of a substantial publication with no advertising the organisation still has to charge in order to attract the concessional rate. Why should it be that an organisation which is charging for its publication and presumably is receiving some return and profit from it gets a concession whereas one which is published in a legitimate way, which is a bona fide publication with a limited circulation, is denied that privilege? Would the Minister tell us why a discrimination is made against trade unions and against organisations such as the NRMA? Why are they denied the benefit of the concessions, even such as they would be under these proposals? Would the Minister explain the rationale of that? In the first instance, why should the situation apply to organisations which are distributing free of charge to a limited circulation, especially where it is a religious organisation and part of its religious tenets is that it shall not charge for the material which it distributes to that limited circulation?

Senator Rae:

– So the general taxpayers should pay for that organisation to distribute its material?

Senator MURPHY:

– The honourable senator is making a good point. The point is that if the organisation were to charge it would be given the concession, but because it chooses, because of its religious convictions, not to charge it does not receive the concession. I should like to know the rationale behind that. Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Would the Minister tell us also whether, in view of the impact on the rest of the economy, which apparently does not interest the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme), the Government intends to take an interest in the impact on the rest of the economy? The Postmaster-General says that it is not his affair to subsidise organisations. It is clear that there will be a drastic effect on substantial organisations and on the publishing businesses, that the proposed charges will preclude them from engaging in an export business which might otherwise be open to them. Apart from the Postmaster-General, will the remainder of Government members be concerned with this aspect? Will the Government make any inquiry into it? Will any attempt be made to see what the economic impact will be, or will the Government just sit pat on the basis that it is not the Postmaster-General’s business and therefore it is nobody’s business? Will somebody in this Government pay some attention to the pleas of the people concerned and to the obvious and reasonable fears that this measure will have disastrous economic consequences on sections of industry?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) (9.57) - First of all I think I should mention a point which was raised concerning international postal charges. The International Postal Convention allows the country of destination to refuse to handle postings made in an overseas country by a local firm to take advantage of low postage rates. Some countries deliberately advance their export earnings business through cheap international postal rates. This has been possible because the country of destination has to pay all internal handling, conveyance and delivery costs and gets no compensation from the originating country. From 1st July 1971 this will change and these countries will then have to review their international rates.

Senator Murphy:

– If it pleases them to do so they could pay us instead and keep their rates low. That would have a nice effect.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– That is an interesting point that we can look at. As from 1st July this position will be changed and countries will have to change their international rates. The honourable senator has spoken about publications which are free and others for which a charge is made. I think it is well known and recognised that having people pay for publications is the best way of showing they want that publication. We all know of the influx of free publications which we are receiving all the time. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) referred to letters expressing objection to the increased rates. Perhaps the Committee will be interested in a letter which has been handed to me. It is addressed to the PostmasterGeneral and comes from a reputable organisation, Thomson Publications (Aust.) Pty Ltd, which I believe was mentioned by the honourable senator. The point that interests me is the comment which is made by the writer who states:

Nor do I have any objection to the increase in rates for registered newspapers and periodicals. Even though I have seven publications in this range. I take the attitude that your rates are still far too low and will need to be substantially increased in the immediate future.

That is an interesting point coming from a publishing firm which the honourable senator has referred to as being one opposing the increases. The Leader of the Opposition referred also to the publishing industry. I consider that the Post Office has the means to protect the publishing industry because it has the power to refuse to handle postings made by local firms who take advantage of cheap overseas rates. I think that is a fair comment to make in reply to the point which was made. I can assure the honourable senator that I am appreciative of the points of concern which he has raised and the points of concern which have been expressed by the people who have communicated with him. I can assure honourable senators that I will certainly carry out the very responsible job of ensuring that the Postmaster-General’s attention is directed to all the points that these people have raised. I will see that he is aware of them. I regret that I was not able to speak earlier. Apparently I was prevented by the forms of the House. I wish to make a point about this matter.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:

Senator Murphy:

asked for leave to have something incorporated in Hansard and I had to give a decision on that matter.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– That is right. If I may be allowed to continue, what I said was that I regret-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable senator should not question the decision of the Chair.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am not questioning the decision, Mr Chairman. That is the last thing I would do. What I was about to say, if I may continue, was that I was not able to speak earlier because of the forms of the House. It was because of this that I wanted to explain to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) that I was not endeavouring to curtail his remarks but I wondered whether he could overcome the problem with which he was faced by ensuring that the names of the people who had made representations were given. I believed that this would cover the point and would assist in having them recorded in the manner in which he wished. I felt that they were probably all the same thing.

Senator Murphy:

– No, they were not the same.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Apparently that is not so, but that is the way in which I was trying to assist the honourable senator. I was not endeavouring to be difficult at all. I was trying to assist the situation if I could. But I can assure the honourable senator that I will be happy to place all these requests before the Postmaster-General.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I rise to support the remarks made by Senator Willesee and Senator Webster in relation to clause 6 of the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill. Senator Willesee referred to me as being an authority on the printing industry. I do not deserve such an embarrassment ofriches. I am only an ordinary fellow in the industry, but I think I have sufficient intelligence to know when something is going to injure the industry. I said last night that I do not think the Government is conscious of the repercussions of this Bill. It apparently has not considered at all what will happen after the extra charges for postal facilities have been imposed. For instance, tonight the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who represents the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) said that these increases would cost the Printing and Kindred Industries Union 3c a year extra because of the increased postal charges. That is a completely stupid argument, if I may say so without being offensive. The Printing and Kindred Industries Union publication is forwarded to its members free of charge. It is not charged for on a per issue basis at all. The members of that Union pay for that service in their annual contribution. Surely the honourable senator does not think the union will put up its annual dues by 3c to cover the iniquitous charges imposed as a result of this legislation. It is completely fallacious to approach the subject in that way. It has to be approached as a whole so that we can see what will happen. Senator Murphy has referred to the numerous letters he has received. I believe that would be true of the vast majority of senators. I have received innumerable requests in this regard, but there is one letter which appealed to me particularly. In case I will not be allowed to incorporate it in Hansard, I propose to read it. It is dated 18th September and is addressed to me. It reads:

Dear Senator,

This letter is unique. It is the first that this wholly Australian, 34 year old Company has ever written to its Parliamentary members.

The subject is the new postal charges which will operate on the handling of periodicals by the Post Office as from 1st October. The charges will place a staggering burden on an industry already beset by a torrent of competition from abroad.

The overseas competition comes here duty-free. The Australian publisher is liable for duty on many of the materials he uses to produce a book or a magazine which may be exactly similar to those which come here duty-free.

Our Company has received a notification from the postal authorities that all its publications have been placed in Category B and therefore subject to heavy increased charges when posted.

The publications include: Australian House and Garden, Australian Country, Tailor and Men’s Wear, The Textile Journal of Australia, Wheels, Australian Outdoors, Seacraft, Flair and others.

Some of the publications are as well known as the metropolitan newspapers which remain in a favorable postal category.

Perhaps that sentence is a little significant. The letter continues:

Others are well known in the particular industry which they serve.

All of them fall within categories of scientific, technical, news or rural interest but they have not been so classified by the postal authorities.

The Company is no less affected than any other company in the publishing field in Australia, and it would be grateful for any effort which you might feel disposed to make to ensure that the industry as a whole receives justice in this matter of postal charges.

For your information there are both registered and non-registered publications under the postal regulations.

Registered publications are those which are sold by news vendors or subscription and which sell a prescribed proportion of their print run. Nonregistered publications are those which are distributed by Selective Circulation, i.e. to a specific number of recipients in an industry. Selective Circulation magazines are not paid for by the recipients but are budgetted on the basis of their advertising content. In the Selective Circulation category all magazines are highly technical tools in the industry they cover.

You may be interested to know that the percentage increase in both periodical categories is in excess of 100 per cent.

Naturally we have formally appealed, as no doubt have other publishers, against the increased postal charges.

Our Company maintains a large printing works, the output of which could be expected todecline if some publications became unprofitable because of the increased postal charges.

In many cases it will be cheaper to print overseas and distribute through the postage of the country in which the printer is located as do overseas journals whose procedures require distribution in Australia. Where previously only books were sent out of Australia for printing, a flow of magazines out of the country has now commenced.

Some Australian publications which are contemplating printing in New Zealand may be mailed from there at 3 cents against 17 cents if printed and distributed in Australia.

Perhaps you might find this letter important enough to stimulate further inquiry. At least you might feel it important enough to seek postponement of the operation of the new postal rates from 1st October to a date which will enable you to become possessed of all the relevant facts.

Yours sincerely,

The K.. G. Murray Publishing Co PtyLtd

  1. GERAGHTY

General Manager

That letter comes from an organisation which does not write letters of protest every day in the week. The opening words were: ‘This letter is unique’, lt is the first time in the 34 years that the company has been in operation that it has done anything of this nature. Surely a company with an Australian background and experience extending over 34 years would know what it was talking about in relation to the repercussions of these postal increases. Again 1 refer to the situation to which the Minister alluded tonight. She said that the Postal Department - I do not think 1 am misinterpreting what she said - lost $9m in relation to magazines and things of. this nature. But I do not think that item can be taken in isolation. The Post Office provides a community service. It is an organisation built up to give service to the people of Australia. We cannot look an item in isolation and say: ‘We lost $9m here’, and fail to look over the page where we can see that another section of this community service has made a profit of, say, S30m. In that case it is not losing. In those circumstances the Post Office has made a profit of $2)m.

The fact that the Post Office is charged interest may have been investigated and ventilated in the Parliament on a previous occasion but to my knowledge it has never been questioned. Let me mention what is known in industry as notional interest. 1 have sworn evidence from a top official of the Treasury that the term ‘notional interest’ means nothing. No money changes hands. It is as though a man at the end of the year says: i have saved $20 this year, but if I had bought that suit that I intended to buy for $50 I would have been $30 down now’. Notional interest does not mean a thing. I have that on the sworn evidence of a top official of the Treasury.

It is being put over the people of Australia that the Post Office is losing miLlions of dollars. It is not losing millions of dollars. The Post Office could be a successful enterprise, should be a successful enterprise and is a successful enterprise. How many times have we heard the Government parade the virtues of the Post Office and say what has been done to make it into an efficient machine? Yet, for all its efficiency and despite the fact that the work force of the Post Office has increased by only 1.1 per cent, the Government pre sents to the Parliament a Bill which will increase postal charges in some directions by up to 300 per cent. As 1 said last night, the Government is not conscious of the repercussions that its action will have in other sections of industry.

I make a further charge, ft is being bandied around in many trade union circles that the Government wishes to see the end of the publication of union journals because they have been so critical of some of the Government’s actions. Interjections last night from Government members and, to some extent, from the Minister herself, indicate to me strongly that the Government does not want the business that has been flowing to it from the trade unions. It does not want to handle the trade union periodicals. You then must ask yourself why a Government instrumentality set up in the interests of the people of Australia does not want business. Even if the handling of trade union journals was a losing proposition, as the Minister claimed it to be, what is a losing proposition when the education of the people of Australia is involved? I mentioned last night, and I repeat now, the charge that has been levelled at the Government by a number of trade unions that the Government wants to stifle criticism. That is why it is introducing such extortionate, unfair and iniquitous postal charges on trade union publications.

I hope that the Government has been influenced sufficiently, if not by what has been said in the Parliament then at least by a number of its supporters, lo change its mind about this proposal, if the Government has not been influenced in that way then I hope that the honourable senator who normally supports the Government but who tonight criticised these postal charges, will back up his criticism by voting with the Opposition when the vote is taken on this clause.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to lodge my criticism of the unjust and anomalous schedules which appear in the legislation now before the chamber. I join with my colleague, Senator Milliner, and reiterate the point that I made in the second reading debate, namely, that the Post Office is not losing millions of dollars. Instead, collectively between its telecommunications operations and its postal services it is making a profit. In her second reading speech the Minister said that the Post Office, on its combined operations, expects to make a profit for the rest of this financial year of $30m, and in a full year of $41m. Frankly, that is not a bad profit after you take into consideration that provision has been made for some SI 22m interest to be paid by the Post Office to the Commonwealth Treasury. It appears to me that the Commonwealth is getting it all ways and the public is getting it in the neck. The Commonwealth makes a profit on telecommunications services and a comparatively small loss on postal services. It uses that comparatively small loss as an excuse for imposing unjust and anomalous postal and telegraph charges on the community. Money is loaned to the Post Office by the Treasury and then the Treasury charges interest on the loan. That, too, has to be paid by the public.

As a result of this attitude of robbing Peter to pay Paul, Senator Murphy, Senator Milliner, Senator Willesee, Senator Wilkinson, I and all other honourable senators on this side of the chamber who have taken part in this debate, as well as other members of Parliament, have received a wealth of correspondence complaining about the injustice and the anomalies of the proposals, and the economic effect that they will have on the organisations which have complained. Senator Murphy and Senator Milliner quoted from a letter that had been received from the K. G. Murray Publishing Co. Pty Ltd. T was amazed that when Senator Murphy sought leave to have the correspondence incorporated in Hansard - certainly it is germane to the matter under discussion and certainly 1 regard members of the public as being entitled to have their legitimate views on controversial matters recorded for public edification - at least one honourable senator on the other side refused leave.

As I have said, my colleagues have read from a letter from the K. G. Murray Publishing Co. Pty Ltd. I should like to read one or two excerpts from a letter sent to me by Mr McBride of Thomson Publications (Australia) Pty Ltd. In that letter Mr McBride who represents the business section of the community, not the trade union section, pointed out:

The business press of Australia has a readership of more than 2 millions and each of these readers is, in his or her own right, an industrial buying influence relying on the business press for up to date know-how.

He was referring there to what is involved in commercial enterprises. He went on:

It is my view that the present punitive increases applied to the business press could have been avoided, or at least kept within reasonable bounds, if charges for association, club and other parochial publications had been increased to sensible levels. Because 1 belong to some clubs and associations, I receive a number of publications (which I do not read) each month. Even under the proposed new rates 6 copies of these can be mailed for 6c, whereas for publications which serve a real purpose in our economy my company will be charged 24c a copy if that copy weighs 8 oz or more. PMG delivery costs must be approximately the same for both types of publication.

It seems to me absurd that while for one publication of a club or an organisation there is a charge of 6c for another publication which is designed to contribute to the business and economic life of the community the charge imposed will be 24c. Frankly it would pay an organisation of this nature to employ a few of their own messenger boys to walk around the city and deliver the publications, posting them only to the country areas, while leaving the Post Office to carry the heavy financial responsibility of delivering the publications to the country and losing what might normally come to it on the commercial merrygoround in the city. That is the obvious thing to happen with an organisation of this nature. That is the position as far as the business community ls concerned.

What is the effect on the trade union movement as a result of these schedules which are now before the chamber? The Electrical Trades Union of Australia sends out 58,970 copies of its journal each month. Under these schedules the increase in the cost to the union will be 300 per cent. The same applies to the Australian Journalists Association. I have some vested interest in that organisation because I am a member of it. The members will have an increase imposed on them of 300 per cent. The Australian Workers Union of which my colleague Senator Donald Cameron is a member is going to have an increase imposed on it of some 140 per cent. I think this will amount to an increase of $23,000. It appears to me that, in the typical fashion of this Government, the trade union movement, the ordinary worker is being penalised by these anomalies and injustices.

I ask honourable senators to look at the position of elderly people who have given a lifetime of service to an industry and who, for many years, have been active and responsible members of trade unions. In the twilight of their lives they have probably been granted life membership or honorary membership of the trade union to which they belonged for . many years because of their service to that union and the industry in which they worked. A great number of these people who very proudly have been members of these organisations now live in retirement in country areas. They look forward each month to receiving a copy of their trade union journals. They contribute nothing towards it because it is sent to them as a consideration for the service they have given to the union. They look forward very much to receiving a copy to keep abreast of what is happening in their old industry and to keep in touch with their old confreres in the organisation. I suggest that if costs have to be cut by a union it could well be that these people may have to be deprived of this enjoyment in life which is still left to them. lt is all right for my friend Senator Webster to get up here and make a plea, as he did this evening, about this sort of impost being brought in on a graduated basis. I know that when my colleague Senator Milliner was reading a letter Senator Webster interjected and said: ‘Look, do not worry about reading that tonight because 1 read it yesterday’, lt is true that Senator Webster read the letter yesterday. But obviously he could not have read it very well because from the way he voted today he did not take much notice of its contents. That is the test so far as these people are concerned. It is not what one says in this place. It is what one does to obtain results for the community. The honourable senator could well have walked out or he could have voted as- he wanted to in this matter. On behalf of myself, the people of the State I represent, the political party and the trade unions which I represent I lodge very strong objection to the anomalous and unjust provisions of these schedules. I feel that the Government and the Postmaster-General’s Department should have given better consideration to the factors which are involved and the effect which these anomalies and injustices will, have on a great number of business firms, organisations and employees generally.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New . South Wales

– I briefly support Senator McClelland’s utterance. I speak with some concern but not in a cringing manner. Senator McClelland mentioned certain trade unions’ internal dilemmas which will arise from these increases. 1 can do no better than quote the case of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Railways Union whose members are not in the high income bracket. The union relics on the journal to radiate certain decisions to ils members in distant parts. As a result of what is happening and quite apart from the overall increased costs the union is caught more or less in a cross fire because if it ceases publication of its journal and has recourse to circulars and telegrams its bill increases further. This union has its own Commonwealth problems. I have heard members talk about the trade union movement being obsessed with some dictum of Samuel Gompers about more wages and nothing else. This union was one of the first organisations to embark on a holiday camp in the Jervis Bay region. Due to various factors, including ordinances with which they do not quarrel the union had to embark on an extensive rebuilding programme. In fact I have acted for them in negotiations with the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon). The union has just emerged from the tunnel of this problem and it is hit with the body blow of increased postal charges. lt is significant that the Minister opposite, the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) represents in this chamber the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch). A lot of these unions have newcomers to Australia as members. A considerable amount of space in the columns of their journals is used for the purpose of educating these people on various problems which arise in the community. This is a serious problem as far as the trade union movement is concerned. I couple with the Australian Railways Union the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union. These unions have their members in scattered areas. As

Senator McClelland points out, the members of the trade union movement do not Jive by bread alone. What is important is comradeship and being able to follow the people in different areas. If honourable senators want to adopt a mundane approach, I think what is important is the idea of good fellowship. These publications contain information on union festivities and picnics. All these things make for a relaxed, healthy atmosphere in the trade union movement. These are the things which are being seriously affected.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Society is being affected generally.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Exactly. All I have said here would apply in detail to the Clothing and Allied Trades Union as well. Senator Milliner made an apt point when he spoke about trying to suppress the smaller groups in the community.

Another casualty of this legislation will be the ‘National Parks Journal’ of New South Wales. The editor and all the people associated with this journal represent a variety of callings. Everything that is done in the journal is done free. These people are quite happy to indicate to subscribers what is happening in the following month. lt may be that a lecture is to be delivered. Some Country Party members will appreciate this. I notice that the journal refers to Marginal Farming - The Road to Sterility’, a talk by Dr Bruce R. Davidson, Senior Lecturer in Agricultural Economics. This talk is to be given to a Sydney audience. It is the function of journals like this to exchange ideas between rural and city dwellers.

I am not going to traverse all the arguments made by other speakers appertaining to journals of this nature or in the trade union field. But there is another interesting point which Senator Milliner raised. In his usual style he got to the brink of it but in deference, perhaps, to the susceptibilities of people opposite, he did not pursue it any further. I refer to the functions of the Postmaster-General’s Department as an agency of democracy in relation to expression. I was a member of a group studying the various electoral laws of different countries. Recently an election was held in Britain in about 600 electorates. One of the basic tenets of British electoral law is that every candidate is allowed to have one issue of the manifesto posted through the

British Post Office free of charge. Even with the large number of people on the roll in Britain, the Post Office there is able to give that free service to democracy.

We do not even ask for that. All we ask is that the publishers of specified papers in various groups be given a reasonable opportunity to put their viewpoint. This is the contrast that we see. There have been Conservative and Labour governments in Britain, but nobody has considered tampering with that facet of British electoral law. After what we have suffered in the last few days, if the Government brings in legislation to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act and we sponsor an amendment to that effect, I know what the Government will say.

I remember a very memorable night in this chamber when Senator Greenwood stood up and castigated the Federal Secretary of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union, George Slater. I know that Senator Donald Cameron, with his vast store of industrial knowledge, will appreciate this story. Many new industrial devices have been introduced. One of the innovations has been the encouragement of women to do certain operative work. The trade union movement has not objected to women doing such work purely on the basis of their sex. The trade union movement has argued for equal pay. We have not won all of the cases. Many industries have been able to employ women operators on certain jobs at 75 or 80 per cent of the male rate. In the waterfront industry, the sugar port of Mackay has been able to operate with fewer than 40 waterside workers whereas previously 400 men might have been employed there.

We have seen the introduction of many new technical devices, but they are not being reflected in savings. From the speech the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) made at the opening of the new mail exchange in Sydney, one . would have thought that the millenium had been achieved. From the way he spoke, I thought that the letter rate would be reduced to 4c, but instead it has skyrocketed. Senator Willesee made it abundantly clear that there might be some merit in phasing in these increases over a period of time.

I do not think I am treading on anyone’s corns when I say that this is the age of specialisation and 1 cannot see why we could not have a detailed categorisation of all the magazines that go through the post and a much broader compartmentisation of the groups that have been mentioned - the trade union journals, the organs of pensioner groups, national parks journals and so on. Some of the other magazines, such as ‘Vogue’, might be able to carry the load. All that happens when the damper is put on these journals and magazines is that the weak ones go to the wall. 1 believe that this Bill should not be treated merely as one that imposes increased charges. I believe that it is throttling democracy completely. Some of the learned gentlemen opposite talk about the trade unions. 1 point out that 99 per cent of the trade union movement is operating on a shoe string because of low revenue. When honourable senators opposite pontificate on the role of the trade union movement, they always harp on education. They say that there is nothing of an educational value in a trade union journal; that it is always full of slogans. I can pay a pretty sound tribute here to the present President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Bob Hawke. Some of us who have been at functions with him know that he has hammered the concept of injecting new ideas into the trade union movement. The only way we can get new ideas is by temperate discussion. Even in the field of conservation 1. do not advocate, as other people sometimes do, mass marches and storming the Bastille, as it were.

Tf we want democracy to function, we must have the maximum number of these small papers. What happened in Prague during the brief period in which the Soviet oppression was temporarily removed? The first reaction of honourable senators opposite was to say: ‘Look at the multiplicity of journals of artists, trade unions and all the other people who produce little papers’. What the Government is trying to do now in a snide sort of way is to follow the attitude of the Kremlin by trying to put a damper on these expressions of opinion. That is the reason why we members of the Opposition are determined that everyone will have to stand up and be counted on this issue.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– I rise in order to draw the attention of the Committee briefly to a specific matter. But, before doing so, let me add my voice to the comments that have been made previously by honourable senators on the Opposition side. There is no question but that insufficient thought has been given by the Government to these increases, because anomalies creep in. The Government obviously wants more money. I think it was Senator Murphy who said that perhaps these increases reflect the inefficiency of the Postmaster-General’s Department. I am quite sure that if the employees of the Department sought these sorts of increases their claims would be considered unreasonable and obviously would be rejected. Most of the points have been well covered by previous speakers; so I will go directly to the matter I wish to raise.

I refer to a letter that was sent from Hobart to the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs on 21st September, indicating the anomalies that have come about as a result of these increases. The letter was sent to the Director-General by the Circulation and Promotion Manager of the Mercury’ newspaper. This is not a matter of taking the side of one organisation in Tasmania against another. Obviously an injustice has appeared as a result of this legislation, and I believe that it ought to be drawn to the attention of the Committee. The letter is dated 21st September and reads as follows:

Dear Sir,

In view of the introduction of categories for postage rates on newspapers from October I, 1970, I would like to invite your attention to an anomaly that exists in Tasmania which I am sure you were not aware of when the new regulations were drafted.

You would be aware that Tasmania and Queensland are the only states where the bulk of the state population is situated outside of the capital city metropolitan area; this situation is more evident in Tasmania than it is in Queensland.

I interpose to say that Tasmania has a higher rural population than any other State of the Commonwealth. I think 29 per cent is the current figure. The letter continues:

Because of the three major areas of population in Tasmania, North, South and North West, the three daily newspapers have basically a one Tasmanian newspaper readership in each of the three areas, although ‘The Mercury’ and ‘The Examiner” have a relatively smaller readership of secondpaper buyers outside of their prime areas.

The only other State in which the situation exists is in Queensland, but the provincial dailies there are not as strong in their areas as the two Tasmanian provincials are.

For example, ‘The Examiner’ circulation quoted in the last Audit Bureau of Circulations report is 33,610 copies daily- 63.3 per cent of “The Mercury circulation.

The Examiner’ is the second biggest provincial daily seller in Australia. The ‘Newcastle Morning Herald’ (the top provincial daily in Australia) with a circulation of 64,502 (larger than “The Mercury’) is only 10.1 per cent of the combined sales of the capital city morning newspapers in Sydney - ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ and the Telegraph’.

If ‘The Examiner’ is classified by you into Category ‘A’ and ‘The Mercury’ remains in ‘B’, ‘The Examiner’ will be able to offer a cheaper subscription rate into southern Tasmania than the local newspaper - ‘The Mercury’. lt is my belief that all three Tasmanian dailies should be in the same classification because of the unusual distribution of population in Tasmania which is a distinct disadvantage for the capital city newspaper - not only with regard to the proposed postage classification, but also in all phases of its activities because the bulk of the Tasmanian population is outside the capital city area.

That is the sort of thing that has crept in because insufficient thought has been given to the legislation. At the present time the rate is Se for 12 oz. At this rate it costs the ‘Mercury’ company about $7.80 per annum for every posted copy it sends out from its office. About 1,700 copies are posted daily. The ‘Mercury’ charges its subscribers $2.60 per annum. The new rates mean that it will cost the company $17 per annum to send its publication into the rural areas.

Quite obviously this is an imposition that ought not to be made on any rural community. It is quite apparent that people in rural communities suffer under enough disabilities as it is. Yet, because of the nature of the distribution of population in the State of Tasmania, these increases will make their task all the more difficult and represent a greater imposition in Tasmania than in the mainland States. I ask the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) to give genuine consideration to this problem. Perhaps as her advisers are handy al the moment, she could give me an answer and tell me what could be done.

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

(10.40) - Speaking about the last point raised, as I understand the position, if it were a country newspaper it would come into category A. As I understand it, Senator Wriedt was not referring to a country newspaper but to one being sent to the country. Is that correct?

Senator Wriedt:

– Yes, it is going into the country.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– It is not a country newspaper?

Senator Wriedt:

– No.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– If it were it would come into category A and would receive that benefit. As I understand the position this newspaper is published elsewhere and is being posted into country areas. I cannot give a definite answer on this point at the moment but I shall certainly take it up with the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) and advise Senator Wriedt. I come back to the point I made earlier which is fundamental in this discussion: The Government decided that it is possible, financially, for just a small range of publications to receive special consideration. They fall into the category we know and speak of as category A. These are country newspapers and periodicals, and those published by religious, charitable and welfare organisations. I want to pause at this stage for a moment because at some time in the discussion I believe I heard somebody say that these publications were not given the benefit of category A. I want to stress that these periodicals and newspapers published by charitable, religious and welfare organisations are part of category A.

Senator Murphy:

– You say that the periodicals issued by religious organisations are covered by category A even if those bodies do not charge for the publication?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am sorry. Yes, they must be subscribed to. You will recall that I made that point earlier.

Senator Murphy:

– I made the point.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I made the point, too, in reply. Both of us made it. The point is that they are subscribed to. As Senator Murphy will recall, people want these publications. If they subscribe to them they really want them; that is why they subscribe. I will finish dealing with category A. They cover educational, scientific and technical organisations which have as their principal object the dissemination of knowledge. This has been a point of decision about which we have had some disagreement. The Government was conscious of the special problems in these areas. I want to deny comments made tonight inferring that the Government is attacking trade unions by means of these various postal rates. I inform the Senate that at a meeting on Monday with the union representatives, led by Mr Souter of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Postmaster-General’s Department offered and the unions accepted that the Department would give the unions the benefit of its expertise to assist them in minimising the production and distribution costs of their journals and that it would make this a special project handled by an experienced and knowledgeable officer. That assistance has been offered and accepted. T do not think anyone can say that this is an act aimed at destroying the trade union movement. 1 come back to the points I made earlier. Of course nobody welcomes increased rates in any of these areas. However the Postmaster-General, 1 believe, has made it very clear in all of these areas of discussion why these increases should be applied. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) raised a number of questions. He referred to representations made to him and to other senators. They read letters and informed me of other information they received. 1 can only say. as 1 said earlier, that I will ensure that these matters are placed before the Postmaster-General and 1 will advise honourable senators of any information I can get.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– We have heard what the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) has said to justify these provisions. I submit to you, Mr Acting Chairman, and to the Senate that the provisions cannot be justified at all. Without proof in the way of their figures, the Postmaster-General’s Department, or the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme), has said that there is a loss of S9m in this- area. Let us assume for the moment that that is right. This country, as we in the Senate know very well, was able to afford S40m for VIP aircraft in order to fly a few very important persons around this country. The Government added more aircraft to the VIP fleet and it is spending millions of dollars to keep it in operation just for Ministers and some other VIPs in Australia. The Government can afford to do that and it can afford to do a lot of other extremely extravagant things. It can throw away millions of dollars as though they did not count. It can enter into a contract for the purchase of the Fill, aircraft - apart from the validity of the aircraft - which on any man’s terms was the most stupid sort of contract that could be entered into.

Yet in this area of postal charges we arc dealing with 7,600 publications covering all sorts of things. This area takes in the very voluntary associations for which this Government pretends to have concern. It says: We must let the voluntary associations look after these areas; we do nol want the Government involved if these things can be done voluntarily.’ But look at what these bodies are doing. The trade unions are entitled to communicate with their members. The Chamber of Manufactures is complaining that these charges will be an extravagant impost upon industry and that industry cannot afford it. It says that the increases will have a serious effect on other parts of industry. We have a whole list of organisations saying that they cannot afford these increases. They point out what is going to happen to this community if these increases are passed. They say that the printing and publishing of these periodicals is going to flow to other countries. The Government is not even concerned about this, lt is pushing these things aside. If one considers what these organisations are doing one would be amazed at the Government tossing aside the importance of these journals to the life of Australia. Apart altogether from the trade unions there are various organisations which produce publications of interest to various people containing the latest knowledge in many fields, such as managerial knowledge of which it is known that we are hopelessly deficient in this country. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has spoken about the low level of management in Australia and the necessity for more education in this field. We are trying to do this. There are special publications of various kinds which impart knowledge in this way in order to uplift the standards. We are well behind other countries in technical fields.

The Governor-General referred in one of his speeches - this has been mentioned again and again but very little has been done about it - to the necessity for disseminating the latest scientific knowledge in fields such as agriculture. This also applies throughout industry. There is a need for journals of this kind in order to spread this knowledge, lt does not matter what field is concerned, ft might be electronics or the fashion industry, lt might be plastics and it might be various other things. Ft is important for these bodies and for the charitable organisations to be able to communicate. One of the great problems in Australia is our isolation from the rest of the world and the fact that we are not really very educated in many of these matters.

In field after field of communications the Government has increased costs. The Minister did not answer when I asked her to tell us of the comparable rates in other countries that would justify the increases we are discussing. She will not answer on that point. People arc saying that Australian postal rates will be much higher than those in other countries. What is the Minister’s answer? She says: ‘Well, we are making arrangements whereby we will make other countries pay to us a proportion of the costs of distribution of their materials in this country. So we will recoup from those other countries some of the costs. What does that mean? If those countries keep their overseas postage rates low in order to attract printing business we will just play into their hands. They will not increase their postage charges. They will pay us a proportion of. the costs if they are obliged to. but in the meantime the Australian publishing industry which has been building up business overseas by distributing periodicals and other material to Asia will be badly affected.

Journals like the ‘Pacific Islands Monthly’ have complained about the effects they will suffer. Many other publications have complained. Honourable senators will understand that publications such as the ‘Pacific Islands Monthly’ would like to serve the whole of Asia. They would come to Australia for printing and posting. This kind of increase in postal charges is driving them out of the country. There will be an adverse effect on businesses other than that of the Post Office. One honourable senator very properly commented that the Post Office does not seem to want business. Under the present Government the Post Office has been degraded from a highly efficient service which prewar was a byword for efficiency. Now the Postmaster-General is treating it as something

Senator Rae:

– lt has been hit by irresponsible strikes.

Senator MURPHY:

– All that Senator Rae can do is refer to irresponsible strikes. He is referring to an industry the employees in which have been notoriously underpaid. The only other employees underpaid to anything like the same extent have been railwaymen and nurses. Perhaps there have been others, but postal employees have really been underpaid, lt is unfortunate that Senator Rae should suggest that the stoppages which have occurred in the Post Office have been irresponsible. I ask the Committee by ils vote to protect the printing industry from the extravagant imposts to be applied under this clause. They are unreasonable and unjustified by anything that has been presented. ‘ I request the Committee to oppose the clause and to remove it from the Bill.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) (10.54) - Senator Murphy asked for details of overseas postage rates. I regret that i did nol give them to him earlier. I will give them now as they are rather interesting. The postage charged for the ‘Readers Digest’ in the United Kingdom is 5.4c; in Australia 5c. The postal charge for ‘Time’ in the United Kingdom is 5.4c: in Australia 5c. The postage charge in the United States of America for ‘Readers Digest’ and Time’ is 2.3c each. I have given the Austral/an figures. The Committee may be interested to learn that the United States Post Office incurs a loss of about $ A 1.1 6 billion annually, while the Canadian Post Office incured a loss of $A47m last year. Those losses were produced mainly through the postage of newspapers and periodicals. I am glad to be able to give those rather interesting figures to the Committee.

Senator Murphy:

– Tell us about the costs of postage in the United States.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have given the figures requested by the honourable senator. He asked for some other information. Perhaps ‘asked’ is not the correct way to describe it. The honourable senator said ‘Does the Government not know the feelings of these people who are objecting? Does the Government take no notice of what they are saying? Is the Government not listening to their complaints?’ The honourable senator continued with a flow of language in that vein. It may interest the Committee to know that the Postmaster-General has received deputations and visits and has had conversations with representatives of the Australian Automobile Association, the Printing and Allied Trades Employers Federation, the Direct Mail Association, the ‘Readers Digest’, the Australian Association of Business Publications, the Taxpayers Association, and Ambassador College. Departmental officers have interviewed union representatives and representatives of Time’ and Thomson Publications. It is therefore clearly nonsese for any honourable senator opposite to say that the Government has taken no notice of what these people are saying.

I made it very clear in my promise to the Committee that I would take to the Postmaster-General the points that have been raised in this debate. I refer to matters which have been brought to the attention of the Opposition either by letter or personal representation. The statements which have been made by honourable senators as to the economic implications of the increase of bulk postage rates on the printing industry, those engaged therein, and the consequences on non-profit organisations, are obviously of considerable moment. I noted the points made and in accordance with my promise I saw that the Postmaster-General was made aware of them. The Postmaster-General informs me that he has received a number of deputations from various organisations within the industry, as I have informed the Committee tonight, and that his Department has received other deputations including representatives from the trade union movement. I wish now to draw the attention of Senator Murphy to a message 1 have just received. It bears out what I have said.

Having been made aware by me of the points raised by the Opposition the Postmaster-General has agreed that after the Act is passed he will re-examine the appropriate provisions in the light of the honourable senators’ submissions.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I wish to refer to a matter that has apparently escaped the attention of the Minister. Will she tell us what profit was made by the Australian Post Office last year?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) (10.58) - This information was given previously, but I am not sure how long ago. The profit was $2m.

Question put:

That the clause stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. L. Bull)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:

– Order! In accordance with the sessional order relatingto the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Bull)

AYES: 22

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Considerable resumed.

Clause 7 (Second Schedule).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– In a fairly full debate on clause 6 of the Bill the Opposition laid down the reasons why it believes it should oppose this Bill. Clause 7 involves another increase in the rates. The Opposition intends to vote against it. I do not want to go into detail as to why the Opposition opposes this clause, but I am prepared to do so if the Minister wants me to do so. I think it is sufficient for me to say that the Opposition will vote against this clause and it will vote against the third reading of the Bill. After all, the advice given to the Opposition by Senator McManus was that we should oppose all clauses of the Bill. Therefore, the Opposition will do so. I repeat that the Opposition believes that these increases are unnecessary. They are the result of an election promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to grant taxation concessions to certain sections of the community. Those concessions were given not on the lower incomes as was promised but on the middle and higher incomes and now they have to be paid for. The increases will offset the concessions given not to those on lower incomes, as promised, but to those on the higher and middle to higher incomes. This is the way the Government is paying for the concessions. Therefore, we oppose clause 7 of the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Question (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1025

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 September (vide page 887), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Opposition has agreed to take the Bill as a whole merely to save time, rather than to divide on every clause of the Bill as we would do in normal circumstances. However, the hour is very late. There has been a good debate on the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill and everybody knows where everybody else stands in relation to this matter. The Post and Telegraph Bill which is now before the Committee sets out in Clause 4 what is included in category A and what is in category B and amends the regulations covering all the multifarious charges covered by this Bill. I invite honourable senators to read what is included in category A. First are newspapers, which are covered by the cheap rate which has increased by 20 per cent compared with an increase of 300 petcent in other items. For the benefit of those who think that they might be able to bring their publications within category A I point out that there are specific exclusions and that no matter what organisation it is. it will come within the exclusions. The clause states: but does not include a newspaper published by a social, recreational or motorists organisation, an organisation of employers or employees or an organisation of persons engaged in, or connected with, business or a class of business or a profession or professions.

Whoever thought of that provision certainly cast the net very wide. I cannot think of anybody in the community who would not come within that exclusion. All thosepeople come into the net which excludes them from category A.

We oppose the Bill. . I shall not go over all the arguments but I shall merely reiterate one point. When 1 suggested that this matter should be delayed, even for so short a period as 2 hours, the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who represents the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) in this chamber, said that the matter must be dealt with immediately. Evidently 2 hours even would not be sufficient time to enable some equity to be brought into this measure. But I find it difficult to accept this. Surely the Postmaster-General was closely enough in touch with his Department to know that this situation was deteriorating over the years. Surely it has not been necessary all of a sudden to increase the charges in some cases by 300 per cent. Some organisations will have to pay an additional$23,000 a year in postage alone. I cannot accept that the increases could not have been made in gradual steps. I cannot accept that the change must be brought in on 1st October - in half an hour’s time.I cannot accept that these new rates could not have been brought in over a period of 1, 2, 3 or 4 years. Every industry which has communicated with us has accepted the fact that we are living in an inflationary period, that inflation is the policy of this Government and that therefore there must be some minor price rise, but they have said that an increase of 20 per cent on one category and an increase of 300 per cent on another category is clearly inequitable and unfair and should never have come into this legislation. We will oppose every clause of the Bill, but we will not take the Commitee through the procedure of dividing on each clause. Although we will have one division, 1 want it to beclearly understood that we oppose not clause 1, clause 2 or clause 3 but every clause in the Bill.

Question put:

That the Bill stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Bull)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader ofthe Opposition · New South Wales

– The Australian Labor Parly at the first opportunity will undo this unfair and inequitable legislation and allow only fair and reasonable rates. We will encourage the continued existence of trade union journals, business and trade journals, and other newspapers and periodicals hit by these savage increases. We will encourage in every way the printing and publishing trade in Australia and its export activities. The Post Office will not be used as a taxing instrument. It will perform its true function of a community service. I inform you, Mr President, and all other honourable senators that the action of the Government in introducing these savage increases is going to be a great issue at the forthcoming Senate election.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a thirdtime.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 11.39 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 September 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700930_senate_27_s45/>.