Senate
23 February 1971

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- ABATTOIRS
QUESTION
- EYRE HIGHWAY
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS
QUESTION
- CANBERRA: LAND RENTS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
QUESTION
- WATER POLLUTION
QUESTION
- LAUNCESTON-BELL BAY RAILWAY
QUESTION
- DARTMOUTH DAM
QUESTION
- PEARS
QUESTION
- TOURISM
QUESTION
- PUBLIC WORKS
QUESTION
- EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
QUESTION
- VIETNAM
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE EXTENSIONS
QUESTION
- MOBILE POLLING BOOTHS
QUESTION
- EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE
QUESTION
- DARTMOUTH DAM
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- OMEGA NAVIGATIONAL STATION
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH MOTOR CARS
QUESTION
- WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
QUESTION
- JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD
QUESTION
- OIL SPILLAGE
QUESTION
- COMPANY TAKEOVERS
QUESTION
- LEASEHOLD LAND
QUESTION
- THE QUIET MUTINY
QUESTION
- SHIPS’ GARBAGE DISPOSAL
QUESTION
- TAX FREE ALLOWANCE
QUESTION
- EDUCATION
QUESTION
- AVIATION
QUESTION
- INCOME TAX
QUESTION
- SECULAR MARRIAGES
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- VIETNAM
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- HEALTH
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE
SHELTERED EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT
- Ministerial Statement
MIGRATION AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF MALTA
- Ministerial Statement
TARIFF BOARD
MEAT INDUSTRY ACT
DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL ACT
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY POWER STATION, ALICE SPRINGS
- Report of Public Works Committee
SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1971
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- HOUSING
BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1971
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Aboriginals - Illegal Entry of Seamen

–

The Leader of the Opposition has posed a series of questions to me, the first being in relation to an observation made by Mr Linehan in connection with proposed cuts in the Public Service, and has projected the arguments used by that gentleman in relation to some duplication of function. The question of duplication of function is always with us, but until 1 have had an opportunity to look at the statement with some precision I would not be able to make any worthwhile contribution about it.

Clearly there is a responsibility on the p.art of the Treasury to look at the statement and make an evaluation of it, and I hope and presume that that will be done.

The question as to whether or not a more appropriate way of dealing with this problem would be one linked with taxation and restrictive trade practices is a broad question which I think Senator Murphy would agree I could not respond to at question time. Statements have been made from time to time about restrictive trade practices and taxation. I will attempt to have them picked up and monitored and then bring them to the Senate in response to the question.

page 212

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by saying that under the price averaging plan introduced by the now defunct Australian Wool Marketing Corporation for the 1970-71 wool selling season, wool acquired by the Corporation was to be paid for in two 6-monthly periods, August-December and JanuaryJune. The first payment was to be 60 per cent of the price at which wool was acquired and the second payment was to be 40 per cent, less handling and selling costs. Can the Minister advise the Senate when growers who marketed their wool in the period August-December 1970 will receive their second payment from the Australian Wool Commission under the price averaging plan?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

–

Senator Bull informed me of his interest in this matter and F obtained certain information for him. The price averaging periods vary somewhat from State to State. In New South Wales the period is August to December; in Victoria, August to January; in Queensland, August to November; in South Australia. August to December; in Western Australia, August to February; and in Tasmania, August to December. Wool admitted to the price averaging plan is not acquired. It remains the property of the grower until it is sold but is under the control of the Australian Wool Commission. When wool is received by a selling broker or nominated classing house it is appraised for the purpose of calculating the 60 per cent advance. This advance is paid to the grower within 10 working days of the wool being identified as eligible for payment under the price averaging plan. The second and final payment to growers is collected after the pool is closed on the basis of the pool’s average price for each type of wool. This payment represents the difference between the 60 per cent advance payment and the pool average price less handling and selling costs. Ali pools in the first pool period have now been closed. However as some brokers in some States were unable to meet the Australian Wool Commission’s schedule for the provision of details for price averaging plan wool, finalising of some pools has been later than planned. Payments were made for the Queensland pool on 22nd January and for the Tasmanian pool on 29th January. The planned pay out dates for the remaining States are: South Australia. 5th March; New South Wales, 16th March; Western Australia. 9th April; and Victoria, 22nd April.

page 212

QUESTION

SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Commonwealth Government expenditures for building projects are likely to be cut or curtailed in the near future in the Government’s anti-inflation drive? Will the Minister assure the Senate that due consideration will be given to the relative importance of stable State economies? For example, will the Minister assure the Senate that in a State such as South Australia where only one Government project may have been envisaged, compared with the position in New South Wales or Victoria where several such projects may have been envisaged, that that one project will not be cancelled or postponed in view of the drastic repercussions of such action on the building industry and in view of the fact that cancellation of one of several projects in a larger State would not be so drastically detrimental to the economy of that State?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In the Department of Works the saving which has been achieved is of the order of S4m comprising, as to about one-half, matters affecting administration, overtime and certain minor works. As to the remaining $2m which is attributed to the works programme the honourable senator may be assured that I believe that in not one instance will a works project which has been let to tender and in respect of which a contract has been arranged be affected. The $2m will be saved by postponing tenders yet to be accepted and programming the initial expenditure for the first 4 months with regard to work undertaken between now and June. It is to be kept steadfastly in mind that the purpose of this cut in expenditure is to ensure that in this sector there is an appreciation of the need to keep costs under responsible control. It was never the objective of the Department or of the Government to cause anything like a complete cessation or a substantial dislocation of works programmes.

page 215

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

– We cannot walk along this side of the building because of the construction work being carried out.

The PRESIDENT:

– The parking situation on the Senate side of the building is under review by the officers of the House. We have asked for assistance from the Australian Capital Territory Police.

Later:

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Parking comes within the province of the Department of the Interior. I shall raise the matter with that Department.

page 218

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I refer to the answer which the Minister gave to Senator Young about the Dartmouth Dam agreement. In the newspaper report to which the Minister referred was Mr Dunstan reported as having stressed that the South Australian Government would not approve words in the amending agreement providing for the ending of the Chowilla proposal but, in relation to Chowilla, it would seek power to carry out the necessary works in terms of amendments which it had previously put to the other governments and parliaments involved, the amendments to be approved at some future time? In the light of his answer to Senator Young, will the Minister now consider what Mr Dunstan said and give to the Senate a considered reply which properly puts the position of the South Australian Government in respect to the DartmouthChowilla controversy?

Senator COTTON:
LP

- Senator Bishop would be well aware that I did not read out the Press statement attributed to the Premier of South Australia. All I said was that I had seen a report of it in a newspaper, and T commented on that part which Senator Young referred to me. I believe I saw something about the Chowilla Dam in the part to which Senator Bishop has referred. If that is what Premier Dunstan said, no doubt that is what he meant. I will communicate Senator Bishop’s views to the Minister for National Development and ask him whether he believes it to be appropriate to make a considered statement on the whole matter.

page 218

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Tn view of the decision of the Senate on Tuesday last asking the Government to introduce immediate legislation to provide increases in the rates of social service payments to pensioners who are in necessitous circumstances, I ask the Leader of the Government: Can this urgent legislation to assist those in need be expected now or is this decision of the Senate to be ignored? What action is the Leader of the Government in the Senate prepared to take to ensure that decisions of the Senate are given effect? Will the Government accept resolutions only when they are favourable and ignore all the others that are unfavourable as in the case of the export of merino rams, the site of the new and permanent parliament house and the sale of the Canberra Abattoirs?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Without wishing to beg the question, Mr President, let me say that, in the light of what was said here on the day following the debate, and the ruling that you gave in response to a question asked by Senator Murphy no less, what we decided on Tuesday was to sit at 2.55 instead of 3 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon. In the process of deciding that we had a debate on social services; but let me repeat in direct response to Senator Fitzgerald’s question as to what the Senate resolved to do that in fact the Senate resolved to sit 5 minutes earlier on the next day.

Senator Cavanagh:

May of this year, which is when it is planned that the United States of America will have withdrawn all of her ground combat forces?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister representing the Minister for Defence is not present in. the chamber. However, as the representative of the Minister for the Armyin this place, I will draw his attention to the honourable senator’s question.

page 223

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 508)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Has the President of the United States of America, Mr Nixon, set up a Commission to compare conscription with the volunteer system.
Has the Commission flow completed its report and unanimously recommended that (he conscripted force be replaced by an all-volunteer force by mid-1971.
Has a similar Commission been, or will it be, setup by the Australian Government; if not, has the Government reached a decision to make an announcement that the National Service Act will be abolished, as from mid-1971, in view of the desire of the Australian Government to remain completely in line with the expressed policies of the American Government.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

The President set upa Commission in March 1969 with the broad task of developing a plan for eliminating compulsory service and moving towards an all volunteer armed force.
The President did not accept this recommendation of the Gates Commission in its entirety.He subsequently announced the Administration’s objective, subject to over-riding considerations of national security, to progressively reduce draft calls and replace the draft by an allvolunleer force by mid-1973. Legislation relating to the draft is to remain in force. This is being reviewed to provide a more equitable basis of selection for service and to establish a stand-by draft system which can be used in case of emergency.
Circumstances in Australia differ significantly from those in the United States. National Service was introduced in Australia in 1 965to provide a defence force of the size necessary to protect the security of Australia and to give support to defence planning and preparations being developed in conjunction with our allies. Fulfilment of this objective continues to require an army of a size which the Government is convinced can only be achieved in present circumstances with the aid of national service. Any major reduction of our forces is unacceptable. The Americans on the other hand, envisage a progressive reduction in their forces and a lower strength target for achievement by voluntary means.

It is not proposed to set up a commission with terms of reference similar to those of the Gates Commission referred to in (1) above. The Government has, however, established a Committee of Inquiry into the financial terms and conditions of Service employment; an area in which the Gales Commission was also concerned and in which the President has announced a number of decisions taken by the Administration to improve conditions of service in the United States armed forces. An Inter-departmental Committee has also been established to examine all aspects of Service housing needs.

In addition, the Government has in recent months approved a number of changes over a wide range of Service emoluments, costing over $40m in a full financial year. These include a restructuring of officers’payandaflow on to them of the 9.5 per cent Public Service Third Division increases; considerable changes in the pay for other ranks in a significant number of Service employments; equal pay for female other ranks and substantial increases in the pay of female officers; and pay increases for service cadets, apprentices and the junior categories, medical and dental officers, chaplains, senior CMF officers and the Pacific Islanders.

The general disability loading applicable to all servicemen has been increased and the following allowances have also been increased - flying pay andflightpay, submarinepay and rental allowances payable to servicemen for temporary premises after family removal.

In short, every effort is being made to improve voluntary recruitment.

page 224

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 725)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

During the past 3 years, how many 20 year old youths have elected to serve their Army callups in countries other than Australia.
Do some countries exercise the right of calling upon Australians born of migrant parents to do national service in their parents’ native country.
Have there been any countries who have sought to followthis innovation but have been vetoed by the Australian Government.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

(2) and (3) Migrants to Australia who are requiredto register for national service have the same obligations under the National Service Act as men born in Australia. Provision exists for recognition of any period of full-time service in the naval, military or air forces of another country. Migrants are not called up until they have been in Austalia for at least 2 years, and those not of British nationality are not called up until after they reach the age of 21 years. Prior to the commencement of call-up action such men are given the opportunity to leave Australia rather than be called up. They are not required to disclose what they intend to do overseas; there is however nothing to preclude them serving in the armed forces of another country.

Should any such men return to Australia before reaching 30 years of age they remain liable for national service in Australia. In that event any periods of full-time defence service they may have rendered overseas would be recognised and they would be liable only for a residual period of national service.

Under the laws of some countries children of emigrants who arc born overseas are liable for compulsory militay service. However, special conditions, for example with regard to exemption from call-up and return to the parents’ homeland, may apply to those who have lived permanently and continuously in their country of birth.

page 224

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 750)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

When a married couple who are unableto satisfactorily live together and do not obtain a divorce because of religious beliefs decide to separate, does the separation agreement prevent the wife qualifying for a deserted wives’ pension, even if the husband cannot be located and does not pay maintenance; if so, does this show an anomaly in the social services legislation which penalises people of a particular religious belief.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Social Services has providedthe following answer to the honourable senators question:

For the purposes of widow’s pension, the Social Services Act defines a deserted wife as a wife who has been deserted by her husband without just cause for a period of not less than 6 months. Where a husband’s conduct has been such that his wife is justified in leaving him (i.e. where constructive desertion has occurred), she would be accepted as a deserted wife for widow’s pension purposes. Separation by mutual agreement would not constitute desertion without just cause as each would be a consenting party. However, if subsequently the wife genuinely desired reconciliation and the conduct of the husband was such as to constitute desertion without just cause, she may then qualify as a widow as defined in the Social Services Act.

page 224

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 800)

Senator DEVITT:

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

Is the National Health Scheme running into difficulties because of the refusal of a section of the medical profession to work under the provisions of the scheme notwithstanding assurances given that they would do so when the Act was recently re-negotiated.
In what areas have the doctors indicated they will not comply with the terms upon which the National Health Act was recently renegotiated and upon which its success depends.
What steps are being taken to ensure that doctors comply with the terms upon which the scheme is based.
What are the alternatives if the doctors do not comply.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)-(4) The Government is satisfied that the new Health Benefits Plan introduced from 1st July 1970 has been implemented satisfactorily and general co-operation has been forthcoming from the medical profession in the operation of the most common fee system on which the Plan is based. However, as the honourable senator is no doubt aware, the Australian Medical Association has recently announced recommended fee increasesto apply from 1st July 1971. The Government does not consider that these recommended fee increases are justified. The matter was the subject of discussions between representatives of the Australian Medical Association and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health in Canberra on 12 February last. The Australian Medical Association is now considering the matters raised by the Government during these discussions.

page 225

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 806)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Immigration, upon notice:

Does the Minister see a parallel between the complaint to the European Commission on Human Rights concerning 25 Asians inEast Africa who possess British passports but were denied entry into the United Kingdom and the denial of entry rights to mainland Australia of indigenous citizens of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

No. Persons born in Papua became Australian citizens under the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 which represented Australia’s part in a scheme of nationality law agreed upon between the Commonwealth countries. Previously the only nationality held by the peoples of the Commonwealth countries was that of ‘British subject’. It was agreed that each country would define what British subjects were its citizens and it was essential that each country should include those British subjects who were more closely associated with it than with any other country. Papua had been British territory for 60 years and persons born there had become British subjects.It had been an Australian territory since 1905. For these reasons Papuans became Australian citizens on the commencement of the citizenship legislation on 26th January 1949.

Persons born in New Guinea are not Australian citizens.

The suggestion that the people of Papua and New Guinea should have right of entry to Australia runs counter to the Government’s objective of preparing the Territory for independence.

page 225

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No.571)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Under the National Service Act 1951-1968, how many young men, to date -
1. have been inducted into the Army and have finished or are finishing their 2 years of national service;
2. have been registered by a court as conscientious objectors and granted total deferment;
3. have been granted exemption from combat duties;
4. have applied for exemption as conscientious objectors and are awaiting court proceedings; and
5. have openly not complied with the Act and/or informed the Minister of their intention not to comply with any further requirements of the Act.
Of those listed in (e) above, how many have been prosecuted by the Department and against how many others have legal proceedings been commenced.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

(a) Up to 31st December 1970, 46,838 national servicemen had been called up and enlisted in the Army. (b. c. d) Up to 31st December, 567 applicants had been granted exemption from the liability to render service as conscientious objectors and 293 had been granted exemption from duties of a combatant nature. 282 applications for total exemption as conscientious objectors had not been determined at 31st December 1970; in most cases the men have not wished to proceed with the hearing of their application pending termination of their period of temporary deferment of call-up and/or determination of their fitness for service.
(e) and (2) Records ofmenwho have not sought to hide that they have failed to meet their national service obligations are not separated nor distinguished from those of other men who have breached the National Service Act. Including for purposes of prosecution they are nol treated differently.

page 226

AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE

page 226

SHELTERED EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT

Ministerial Statement

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

Honourable senators will recall that on 9th April 1970 I circulated a similar list in regard to aged persons homes and havesubsequently provided further information keeping that list up to date. I would propose from time to time to issue further lists showing new sheltered workshop approvals. I would like to express my gratitude to honourable senators on both sides of the chamber for the assistance they render to both the sheltered workshop movement and the aged persons homes movement.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– 1 move:

That the Senate lake note of the statement.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 226

MIGRATION AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF MALTA

Ministerial Statement

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

(4.2 lj - For the information of honourable senators I lay on the’ table the following paper:

Migration and Settlement Agreement Between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of Malta. 1 ask for leave to make a statement in relation to the Agreement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 wish to inform the Senate of the main features of the Migration and Settlement Agreement recently concluded between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malta. The Agreement was signed in Canberra on 14th December 1970 by Dr V. Tabone, Minister of Labour. Employment and Welfare, on behalf of the Maltese Government and by the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch) on behalf of the Australian Government. Australia has had assisted migration agreements with Malta since January 1949. These agreements including that which expired on 30th June 1970 were essentially agreements for assisted migration. Rather than extend the old Agreement for which there was provision under its Article 23. the Government decided to negotiate a new and more broadly based agreement which would: (a) give expression to the entitlements and obligations’ of all Maltese citizens who migrate to and settle in Australia; (b) make the agreement consistent with the basic provisions of recent agreements concluded with other migrant source countries, for example, Italy. Turkey and Yugoslavia; and (c) take account of substantive machinery modifications agreed upon between Australia and Malta late in 1969 in regard to financial arrangements and eligibility criteria for assisted Maltese migrants.

On 1st June 1970, in Malta Dr V. Tabone. Minister of Labour, Employment and Welfare, on behalf of the Maltese Government and the Minister for Immigration on behalf of the Australian Government initialled agreed draft texts of the proposed new Migration and Settlement Agreement and related Arrangement dealing with assisted passage provisions. In formulating these texts, the Department of Immigration had the advice of the Departments of Foreign Affairs, the Treasury, Labour and National Service, Social Services. Health. Education and Science. Civil Aviation and the Attorney-General’s Department. The draft text of Agreement was referred to each State Government for its concurrence on matters falling within the State’s competence. Each signified that it had no objection to the terms of the Agreement proposed. With its signing by both parlies (he Agreement retroactively enters into force from 1st July 1970 and remains in force until ‘he one hundred and eightieth day after the day on which either Government receives from the other notice in writing of its desire to terminate the Agreement.

The new Migration and Settlement Agreement has the following principal elements. It describes the facilities for settlement of Maltese citizens, lt records the rights they enjoy and the obligations they undertake in common with Australian citizens .and other citizens; it affirms that Maltese citizens resident in Australia will receive social service and health benefits which Australia provides to Australian citizens, and that both Governments will make efforts towards reaching areement on reciprocity in payment of each other’s corresponding social security benefits. The Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Immigration have already had initial discussions on social services reciprocity with Dr Tabone. The Agreement provides for advice to Maltese migrants on the acceptance of vocational qualifications in Australia and records that the Australian Government will endeavour to advance the acceptance of Maltese qualifications within the framework of Australian laws, regulations and practices; the rights of Maltese settlers as residents and as workers are set out. and that Australia undertakes to extend to Maltese workers and their families the facilities available in Australia for migrants to learn English.

Article 15 of the Migration and Settlement Agreement indicates that the migration of Maltese citizens may be considered on the basis of direct applications submit ted in Malta and nominations submitted to the Australian authorities in Australia. In addition it provides that the 2 Governments shall co-operate in such special assisted migration programmes as may be mutually agreed. Under the terms of Article 15, assisted migrants 19 years of age and over will contribute $A25.00 towards the cost of their travel to Australia, those under 19 years will travel free and the Australian Government will meet the balance of the fare. This accords with the conditions available to assisted migrants generally. Special provision has been made for single women with or without close relatives in Australia to be nominated by a relative in Australia or by a friend or by an organisation approved by the 2 Governments.

As in other recent agreements an article has been included in the Migration and Settlement Agreement with Malta which deals with a Maltese citizen’s liability for military service in Australia. Article 18 records that in accordance with the National Service Act 1951-1968 Maltese citizens who have rendered continuous full time service in the naval, military or air forces of Malta or a country other than Australia are granted recognition of such service in determining their national service liability. It also records that a Maltese citizen who was liable to register for military service after 1st January 1967 and who is called up may exercise his option to leave Australia rather than render such service. The reference to 1st January 1967 takes account of the fact that prior to this date this concession did not apply to British subjects including persons from Malta. This concession applies, of course, to nationals from any country who may be called up. The Agreement records that the right to determine who may be admitted to Australia for permanent settlement rests with Australia. The selection procedures provide for an assessment by Australian officers of the general suitability, health, character and the potential of the individual to settle here satisfactorily.

People from Malta were among our earliest arrivals. In the late 1850s a group of Maltese fishermen, domestic servants and labourers settled in Queensland. The first organised group of Maltese migrants arrived in Queensland in 1883 for employment on the canefields. After World War I the inflow of Maltese increased rapidly until by 1921 Australia was taking more Maltese settlers than any other country. The greatest inflow, however, occurred after World War II. when the migration agreement was signed with Malta. Although migration from Malta has diminished in recent years, Australia now receives more than half of the number of Maltese migrants leaving Malta each year. As at the 1966 census there were approximately 55,000 Maltese-born people in Australia, and inthe 4 years ending 30th June 1970 more than 5,000 settlers from Malta had arrived in this country. The population of Malta is not large - 325,600 people at mid- 1 970 - and it would be unrealistic to expect very large numbers of migrants in relation to the total Australian migration programme, but in terms of the Maltese population it is a welcome movement.

The steady movement of Maltese migrants to this country has created strong links of family relationship and of friendship between the 2 countries. Migrants from Malta have played an important role in Australian development over the years. More than half of all Maltese workers in Australia are employed in manufacturing, especially heavy engineering.

It is my firm belief that as Maltese settlers continue to bring to us those qualities of loyalty, valour and determination which have earned the respect of the world, their contribution to Australia’s future will be equally as distinguished. I commend the Agreement to honourable senators.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

-I move:

I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 228

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I present the reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects:

Agricultural, Horticultural, etc., Machinery.

Cherries.

Pyjama Girdles and Girdling (Dumping and Subsidies Act).

Pursuant to statute I present also Special Advisory Authority reports on the following items:

Acetone Derivatives.

Bakers’ Yeast.

Industrial Radiographic Equipment.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 228

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY POWER STATION, ALICE SPRINGS

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969,I present the report relating to . the following proposed work:

Electricity Supply Power Station at Alice Springs, Northern Territory.

page 228

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1971

Bill received from, the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The basic purpose of this Bill is to obtain the approval of the Parliament to an agreement made between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government to regulate the production and marketing of sugar within the Commonwealth for a period of 5 years from 1st July 1969. On 25th September 1969 the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton! made a statement in the Parliament that the negotiations between the Commonwealth Government and Queensland Government for a new Sugar Agreement had been satisfactorily concluded and the basis on which a formal agreement could be drafted had been arranged. The Bill now before honourable senators contains the text of the Agreement as subsequently concurred in by the governments, and provisions to implement the Commonwealth’s responsibilities under the Agreement.

The previous Sugar Agreement, the Sugar Agreement 1962 as varied by the Supplemental Sugar Agreement 1967. had been due to expire on 3 1st August 1968, but the two governments agreed, by exchanges of letters, to the extension of its term of operation until 23rd October 1969, the day on which the Sugar Agreement 1969 was made. A significant reason for extending the term of the 1962 Agreement, which originally had been due to expire on 3 1st August 1967, was the desire to continue that Agreement until the outcome of the negotiations for a new International Sugar Agreement was known. As honourable senators are well aware, a new International Sugar Agreement was achieved late in 1968 but only after protracted and difficult negotiations. When the Sugar Agreement 1969 was finally executed its terms provided for its retrospective operation from 1st July 1969. Previously the traditional starting date of sugar agreements had been 1st September but the change in commencing date on this occasion was made for reasons of administration. In the course of his statement to the Parliament which I have referred to above, the Prime Minister outlined the principal features of the new Agreement. In view of the importance of the Agreement I would (Hee to touch briefly on some of those features again.

The new Agreement, which is the latest in a long line of agreements which go back to the 1920s, is in substance along similar lines to the Agreement it replaces. In this connection I quote verbatim what the Prime Minister said in the Parliament in September:

Experience in operating the provisions of the existing Agreement, since the last major review in 1962, has indicated that some changes can make it more effective in its operation and clearer in its expression. During the drafting of the new Agreement the opportunity will be taken to effect these adjustments, which are largely of a technical or drafting nature and will have no bearing on the principles on which the Agreement is based. This, as previously indicated, will follow the traditional lines of previous Agreements.

The text of the 1969 Agreement as subscribed to subsequently by the 2 governments and as now contained in the Bill before honourable senators is consistent with what the Prime Minister said. For example, under the new Agreement, which will run for 5 years, the State of Queensland, on the one hand, will continue to control the production of raw sugar and will make available, as a matter of priority and at stated maximum wholesale prices, refined sugar and sugar products to meet Australian needs. The Commonwealth of Australia, on the other hand, will continue its embargo on the importation of sugar and of the sugar products, golden syrup and treacle. The maximum domestic wholesale prices for sugar and sugar products as were prescribed in the Supplemental Sugar Agreement 1967 have been continued under the new Agreement.

Features of previous sugar agreements have been the domestic sugar rebate scheme and the export sugar rebate arrangements. Both of these features will be continued under the new Agreement. The objectives in the case of both rebates include that of assisting, by stabilising fruit prices, growers of fruits used in manufactured products. Manufacturers who purchase fruit at prices not less than [hose declared annually by the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, established under the Agreement, are entitled to the domestic sugar rebate on the sugar used in conjunction with the fruit.

Under the export sugar rebate arrangements exporters of products containing sugar obtain their requirements of such sugar at prices related broadly to the Australian import parity price. In short they pay what they would have paid had there been no embargo on the importation of sugar. In the case of domestic sugar rebate the rate has been increased by$5 to$15 per ton from 1st July 1969. This will make the rebate more significant to manufacturers. The higher rate of rebate represents the only major difference between the old and the new agreements. To provide funds to pay the rebate at the higher rate the State of Queensland will increase its contribution from the level under the previous Agreement to a new level of$924,000 a year.

So far I have been speaking almost entirely about the Sugar Agreement 1969 which comprises the Schedule to the Bill. It is now appropriate to turn to the clauses of the Bill itself. The Bill is similar to previous Acts in that it continues the Commonwealth’s obligation, under the Sugar Agreement, to prohibit the importation of sugar, golden syrup and treacle.

In addition the Bill ‘approves’ the new Sugar Agreement as did previous Acts in respect of sugar agreements which were new at the time. In this connection I would remind honourable senators that it was not possible to bring the new Sugar Agreement before the Parliament when it was made by the 2 governments. Accordingly, and since it was agreed by both the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland that it was in the interests of both producers and consumers that the Agreement should be brought into operation as soon as possible, it was decided that the Agreement should come into full force and effect upon its signing in order that the benefits under it could commence to flow without delay.

Clause 6 does not have an equivalent in earlier sugar agreement legislation. It is a machinery clause to place beyond doubt the position of interest or other income derived from the investment of moneys which belong to the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee and which are placed to the credit of the Commonwealth Trust Fund. Clause 6 is intended to ensure that the interest or income will flow to the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee Fund to which it rightly belongs.

The Sugar Agreement Bill 1971 advances further the story of co-operation between the Queensland and Commonwealth governments in the field of sugar, which has fostered the development of the sugar industry and at the same time has ensured full and stable supplies of sugar at reasonable prices for Australian consumers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 230

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– On behalf of Senator Murphy, I move:

I think the Senate is well aware that for many years now the Opposition has been endeavouring to have an examination of the housing needs of Australia made in some depth. On a number of occasions we have moved amendments to appropriate legislation to this end. Up to date we have not been successful in having a committee of the Parliament established to investigate this matter. We now believe that this is an opportune time for such an investigation to be made. We believe thisfor a number of reasons which are outlined in the motion itself and also because, by decision of the Senate in August last year, we now have an appropriate committee ofthe Senate formed but not yet established. We believe that the time is now ripe for the establishment of that committee.

The situation that exists now is that, probably during this session and certainly no later than the Budget session, the Parliament will have before it legislation to renew or re-establish the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement which has existed since 1945 when the then Labor

Government initiated the Agreement for the purpose of providing homes particularly for persons in the lower income groups. We all recall that at that time the basis of the plan was mainly to provide homes Tor rental and to eliminate the lag that existed after the war years, when the construction of homes was very limited because of the lack of materials and manpower.

Since that time, every 5 years the Commonwealth has renewed this Agreement with the States. Various innovations have been introduced from time to time, perhaps to take the emphasis away from the rental section and put it on the purchase section and also to lay down other conditions associated with the loans that are made to the States. We believe that because the Commonwealth has not been able to assist sufficiently to overcome the housing lag that still exists in the community an investigation in depth should be made. The committee whose establishment was proposed in August last year is to have the task of looking into the social environment of people. Its terms of appointment state specifically that it should consider the housing needs of the people. They refer to it as:

The Standing Committee on Social Environment (this shall include Housing, Transport, Communications and the provision of other facilities). So, it is quite obvious that it is the appropriate committee to examine this matter. A further resolution of the Senate, carried in August, slated that the method of setting up the committees would be as follows:

The actual establishment of the total number of

Committees, including the appointment of senators to the various Committees, shall be done over a period of not less than 12 months and not before 2 of the said Committees selected by the Senate for first’ establishment have actually operated and a report of the operation of those Committees has been presented to the Senate by the President.

The Senate has received the report of the President in accordance with that resolution, and the operation of the 2 committees selected for first establishment has been reported upon, as suggested in that resolution of 19th August 1970.

We members of the Opposition believe that it is now incumbent upon the Senate to commence to form and establish these other committees gradually, as suggested by the Senate by resolution, and in a man ner that will increase the number of committees sitting. We believe that the Senate should establish a committee in this field as a first priority. We are bolstered in our view of this matter by a paragraph in the report that the President has submitted to the Senate. Paragraph 54 states:

It is suggested for consideration that, with the successful launching of the first stage of the Senate’s committee system, and the experience gained from the operation of both the Estimates Committees and the 2 Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, the Senate might during the autumn sittings of 1971 embark on the next stage by the full establishment of certain of the 5 committees yet to become operative. For committees vet to be fully established, see page 23.

One of the most important committees remaining to be established is that associated with social environment. I have indicated before in the Senate that the Government’s approach to housing begs the question of what action it will finally take. I believe that the Commonwealth should take a greater part not only in the provision of finance through loans to the States but also in the creation of a standard of housing acceptable throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator Little:

– Housing should ba provided at a lower cost, surely.

Senator POYSER:

– That point is also applicable, particularly in respect of people who have been forced to pay increased interest rates on their home purchase loans over the last 9 or 10 months. The motion indicates that an inquiry into these matters should be established. The States are moving into the housing field, mainly in the area of home ownership and particularly in respect of home units. Government supporters are fond of saying that 70.6 per cent of Australians own or are in the course of purchasing their own homes. They are not so ready to tell us of the tremendous debts that our young people must incur to purchase a home. That is another matter worthy of investigation, particularly as it concerns young people wishing to purchase homes under various schemes, not the least of which are the housing co-operative schemes and the operations of State housing commissions.

Senator Webster:

– What interest rate do the co-operatives charge?

Senator POYSER:

– If I remember rightly it is 6i per cent, which is far too high for a young couple to pay. On a previous occasion I cited figures which I do not propose to repeat today as they are incorporated in Mansard. The effect of the last increase in interest rates imposed by the Government is to raise the cost of a home valued at $10,000 by about $4,000 over a 40-year term, and by more than $3,000 over a 30- year term. A home costing about Si 0,000 to build - I think, all honourable senators will agree - is a very modest home. Under present interest charges people buying such homes will pay almost two and a half times the amount of the purchase price before they become the outright owners.

Difficulties occur also at the municipal rates level. People who have fought and battled hard all their lives to raise families and to buy a home strike difficulties when the breadwinner dies. The surviving partner finds that on an income of the pension it is impossible to pay the municipal rates. Many such examples can be found throughout the nation, particularly in the older established areas of Melbourne and of Geelong, the city where 1 live. Such areas often are re-zoned. The residents there do not want to sell their homes. Often they cannot sell because their neighbours do not wish to sell and one small housing block is insufficient for the commercial enterprise that may be interested. The properties of these people are rated according to the prices that can be obtained for the land when it is used for purposes other than housing.

The Victorian Valuer-General is directing that the valuations of old homes in the inner parts of the cities are to be based on their rental capacity. In the cities of Geelong and Geelong West the old homes are mainly owned by elderly pensioners. The last rating notices issued showed an increase in rates of over 100 per cent. Some of the more modern houses in these suburbs have had the rates reduced. The elderly pensioners are finding that the increase of 50c a week in the pension included in the last Budget will be more than offset by the increased rates they have to pay. These people have battled for 30 or 40 years under difficult conditions to own a home.

Young people today will be infinitely worse off because of the high interest rates imposed by the Commonwealth Govern ment. Their situation is made more difficult because no control has been exercised over land prices. The greatest racket in Australia is the buying and selling of land for home building. Prices have skyrocketed with the result that people are moving into the outer areas of the big cities and into the small towns where cheap blocks without services are available. Within a few years they find that they are in exactly the same position as they would occupy if they had purchased a block of land in a more established area. Almost overnight they face the costs of construction of footpaths and roads and the provision of sewerage and other services. A detailed investigation of these matters is required.

We have now a golden opportunity to set up a Senate committee which, with expert assistance, could bring to light the facts associated with .home construction, purchase or rental before a final decision is made on the renewal of : the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. 1 do not think that many honourable senators are completely happy about the method of construction of rental accommodation, particularly in Melbourne . where there has been a tremendous increase in the construction, of high rise housing, lt is hardly a suitable environment ici which to raise families. High rise buildings of over 20 storeys are being constructed. The Melbourne Apex Club has clearly established that inadequate amenities are provided for young people in those buildings. The Apex Club has gone to great trouble to compile a report that every honourable senator should obtain and read.

The increased high” rise development in the centre of Melbourne means that children must play in pocket-handkerchief sized areas. The experience of the Harlem area of New York will be repeated, I believe, in the inner suburbs of our big cities. We are not giving bur children a real chance because associated with high rise development are existing inadequate schooling facilities. State., governments cannot or will not at this stage increase education facilities and improve the environment of the inner suburban schools to enable proper education to be given to children living in these sub-standard areas. The construction of these concrete jungles is not the way to solve the housing problem of people who are paying rent. This has been clearly indicated. Also, it is not necessarily the most economic way. It may appear to be economic when you say that you can put 2,000 or 3,000 people in a huge concrete block in these suburbs, but you cannot build the type of home unit that Australians wish to have.

At the moment the Victorian Government wants to acquire 15 acres in the area bounded by Church Street, Reid Street, Rae Street and Nicholson Street in Fitzroy. About 170 homes would be demolished. Several months ago the Fitzroy Residents Association spoke to members of more than half the households in the proposed development area and most were reported to have said that they were happy and did not want to move. The Victorian chapter of the institute of Architects said that the scope and arrangement of houses in this area is intimate and involved. The people are not living in sub-standard conditions but are housed al a standard well above the minimal level. The Institute estimates that to redevelop the area with 4 high rise blocks each containing 200 Mats would cost about $14m. For the same amount it could build about 1,270 houses in suburban areas. Const ruction of these high rise jungles is not necessarily the cheap way out of the problem of finding accommodation for those who have fo rent homes. 1 suspect that the move back into the centre of cities such as Melbourne has been designed by the big business magnates who control the golden mile. They want people back in the central part of the city in order to sell their goods. They do not want lo develop other areas that are available, lt may bc said, and it has been said previously, that by moving into outer suburbs and other areas we would be taking people away from the centre of employment.

Senator Little:

– You would have a job to get them away from Myers.

Senator POYSER:

– I would say that would be so in Melbourne and Geelong. The industrial development of Melbourne is going on in .outer areas such as Dandenong and Laverton where land is still available for the. construction of suburban home units and where families have’ a chance. These are the things that the Standing Committee on Social Enrivon- ment should investigate and report on to this Parliament prior to any further agreement with the States on housing. The motion is quite clear.

Senator Webster:

– Do you believe that the unions in Victoria who are associated with retail trade are having an effect on the construction of these high rise flats?

Senator POYSER:

– The unions in Victoria are associated with retail trade because of the gross and unfair exploitation by existing retailers of the workers in that State and other States. Among the worst offenders in the field of land costs are the farming communities close to the metropolitan areas. They have split up huge areas of farm land valued at about S200 a block and have sold it for $2,000 and more. Sometimes the price gets as high as $5,000 a block. Other exploiters besides the retail traders are involved in this question. That is- another matter that needs examination. Of course, the developers have to provide roads and other services.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Order! lt being 2 hours after the time of meeting of the Senate, orders of the day will be called on pursuant lo standing order 127.

Motion (by Senator Dante Annabelle Rankin) agreed to:

That intervening business of the day be postponed until after further consideration of Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1.

Senator POYSER:

– I will not delay the Senate much longer because the motion I read, and which is printed on the notice paper, sets out quite clearly the matters that the Opposition wants investigated. There has not been an investigation into housing in Australia since 1947. At that time there was an investigation in depth which developed what we have today - a system of home ownership and of rental accommodation. But today major things are needed to assist people to obtain adequate housing and there must be some decentralisation of industry in the suburbs.

Some of the major problems facing an industry that wishes to establish itself in an area other than the big metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne, and to a lesser degree the other capital cities, are the availability of labour and houses and other facilities for workers. England tackled this housing problem, and others, immediately after World War II and established 15 new towns. She was able to provide housing, hospitals and educational facilities which enabled industry to go to those new areas. She was eminently successful in this project and took industries away from the swollen purely industrial cities. We in Australia should be tackling this problem in a similar manner. These things could be examined in depth by a committee appointed by the Senate.

Senator Byrne:

– The Committee would not be appointed by the Senate. I apologise, you are referring to the Standing Committee on Social Environment.

Senator POYSER:

– All that is necessary now is for the personnel to be appointed to the Committee. Senator Byrne was not present earlier when I read from a report which indicated quite clearly that this was the present situation. We have the opportunity to carry out the gradual development of our committee system as suggested by the words contained in the report of the President of the Senate. What more important question should we look into than the very vital one of housing? As I said earlier, it will be the subject of legislation in this Parliament this year when the housing agreement with the States is to be renewed. This Federal Parliament has the right, under the original agreement of 1945 - it was subsequently renewed from time to time - to discuss with the States not only the amount of money that the Commonwealth will lend to them for housing but also the type of housing that we believe is needed and the type of environment required. We should not merely provide a lot of boxes in a concrete jungle. We could provide homes at no extra cost to the people, if the Institute of Architects is correct. This is particularly so in Melbourne. I commend the motion to the Senate.

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

(5.04)- I have carefully listened to Senator Poyser because I know he is interested in these matters. But I was a little amazed because he really did not seem to be speaking to the motion. He talked about interest rates, municipal rates, high rise buildings and social amenities, but none of these things is mentioned in the motion.

– Yes, I noticed that. I have looked at this motion on the notice paper and given a good deal of attention to it. For good reasons which I shall enumerate to honourable senators the Government opposes Senator Murphy’s motion. One reason is that the proposed scope of the inquiry is much too wide. It would take ages to produce a report on all the items which are contained in this motion. If there is to be an inquiry into housing problems - and we do not think that this is necessary - I believe it should be into specific housing problems where the matter could be the subject of a quick report. A committee could meet, discuss the matter, obtain information and report back to the Senate.

Another interesting point is that for all these months we have had this matter before the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. This time we are asked to refer it to a committee which is noi yet in operation, lt has not yet been set up. We do nol know when it will be set up. To me this seems to be extraordinary.

In listening to Senator Poyser I have not heard one argument which I feel would convince any thinking Australian that the appointment of an inquiry such as proposed would provide an additional home for a needy family. To suggest that the Government is not continuing to explore the housing needs of Australians and is not considering desirable further action to satisfy as many as possible of these needs is sheer nonsense. A reasonable supply of private finance has been made available for home building and purchase. In 1970 the value of housing loans approved to individuals by savings and trading banks and major assurance companies was a record $773m. In addition the permanent building societies approved housing loans amounting to $339m, a total of $1,1 12m. As all hon~ ourable senators will be aware we recently increased from 35 per cent to 40 per cent the proportion of depositors’ balances with savings banks which may be lent for home ownership and other socially beneficial purposes. Large and increasing Commonwealth advances are being made each year through the Home Builders’ Accounts to co-operative housing societies to assist home seekers on modest incomes to acquire their own homes.

The Commonwealth is also providing large sums for aged persons homes. We are also offering long term housing loans at a very favourable rate of interest to eligible ex-servicemen. In addition we are providing generous assistance to their widows. We are making sizeable advances to the States at a concessional rate of interest to permit them to house needy families at rents which these families can afford to pay. This is being done under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement to which the honourable senator referred. The home building industry does not lack the capacity to build the number of new dwellings needed, nor is there any significant under-employment of the industry’s resources. Lenders are being encouraged to make, and are making, high ratio housing loans to home seekers at what are, under today’s conditions, reasonable rates of interest. This is being done by the offer to insure repayment of principal and payment of interest, both by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation we have set up for this purpose and also by private insurers. Most important, is there any significant number of our citizens lacking shelter? There is not a considerable number, but we are very concerned about those who are living in inadequate accommodation or paying too large a proportion of their incomes as rent. These are matters which concern us.

As I have mentioned the Government is maintaining an economic climate favourable to an increasing flow of private finance for home building and purchase, lt is offering financial assistance lo home seekers in a variety of ways. Our several efforts in the housing field have raised the standards of housing and dwelling accommodation for many Australians - I think this is an important point - and we are continuing our efforts to provide more accommodation for those most in need of satisfactory homes. We have a great record in regard to housing in this country. Most people in Australia are better housed than those in any other country. But we still need more suitable accommodation for some aged and disabled persons, some families without a male breadwinner and some large families on relatively low incomes. These persons and families need housing at rents or prices they can afford to pay. The Government is continuing to direct its attention to these problems which are indeed important. But I ask honourable senators to note that housing for the needy is not among the matters specifically listed for referral to the Standing Committee. The Government is concerned with the practical things that need to be done to improve the housing situation of a number of Australians and not with just theoretical exercises.

A satisfactory number of homes is being commenced to meet the housing needs of the growing number of young married people, migrant families and single persons wishing to establish a home of their own. During 1970 some 143.000 new homes were completed. 1 ask honourable senators opposite a question: Does the Opposition really believe that an inquiry into housing, especially one with the terms of reference proposed in this motion, would produce practical proposals not already being considered by the Government to improve the lot of those in need of better housing? Would the proposed inquiry be likely to be concerned with the real housing problems which the Government is tackling? 1 would say that up to this point we have not been given a scrap of evidence by the previous speaker to suggest this. 1 invite honourable senators to look carefully at what the Standing Committee would be asked to inquire into. It would bc asked to find out what would be future housing demands - not needs but demands - and whether the home building industry is capable of meeting these demands which no-one can accurately forecast some years ahead, lt would bc asked to report on the extent to which private capital can be expected to finance future demands for housing; a question to which no reasonably precise answer could possibly be given. It would be asked to examine the allocation of Commonwealth finance for different types of housing need and for urban renewal projects - for what purpose is far from clear, unless of course the Opposition wishes to allocate less Commonwealth money for housing the needy and to indicate to the States that in their fields of town planning and the provision of urban services they must comply with standards laid down by the Commonwealth in respect of these operations as ari essential precondition to determination of the extent of any new offer to the States of Commonwealth housing assistance. The final matter which would be inquired into - which was added only last Thursday, ] would remind honourable senators - relates to land costs.

I fail to see how the proposed inquiry would assist people to obtain better housing. The motion smacks of time wasting political opportunism by the Opposition. Let us look at the proposed matters which . are to be inquired into one by one. The first matter on the list is forecasts of housing demand in Australia. Forecasts, in this field, must be guesses because any forecast of the number of dwellings that may be demanded in future years must be based on a number of assumptions. I doubt whether any two forecasters would agree on all the inescapable assumptions. Probably the most significant factor affecting future demand is the estimated growth in population and in family formation. This must be based on guesses as to future birth and marriage rates and the future level of net migration. Allowances must also be made for improvements in standards, including the increasing tendency for single people to establish their own homes, for obsolescence and demolitions, for the growing tendency of many to own a holiday home, for the movement of people within Australia and for changes in the number of unoccupied dwellings.

Any forecast of the housing that will be demanded must also take into account changes in the economic climate, which have significant effects on the availability of housing finance, and on the movements in costs, prices and real incomes. All these are factors which will significantly affect the demand for new or better homes. How do we assess their influence in 2, 3 or more years time, or even in 12 months time? 1 should think that most Australians would agree that it is impracticable to guess the nature of the housing demands some Years hence and the areas or regions in which the homes will be required. The most rapidly expanding regions in 5 or 10 years time will be determined by a multitude of private decisions which will be influenced by many factors yet to be formulated. Those are things which I think honourable senators must consider. We will continue to study housing needs throughout the Commonwealth and the extent to which the homebuilding industry is meeting and is likely to meet these needs in the years immediately ahead. If and when We think it necessary we will use our influence to adjust the likely availability of private finance for housing and possibly the flow of finance from Commonwealth sources. But it has yet to be revealed how the preparation of forecasts of housing demand in Australia will add to the number of homes that will be built.

The next proposed matter for inquiry, as we look at the list, is the capacity of the building industry to meet future demands for housing, however uncertain the size of these demands may be. The history of the home building industry in Australia, 99 per cent of which is in the hands of private industry, has been one of continued expansion to meet all reasonable calls on it. In recent years there has been a steady growth in capacity to build the homes demanded. The industry has become more efficient in the sense that now fewer workers than were needed a few years ago are needed to produce the same number of homes. At present there is an adequate supply of all key building materials. I am quite unaware of any residential building that has been held back due to a shortage or lack of building labour, lt is true that there is little unemployment in the building industry, but this is the situation at which we aim. However, the fact that the home building industry is very close to full employment does not mean that it cannot expand as the requirement for its services grows in future. During the past decade the number of dwellings commenced increased, on average, by more than 5 per cent per annum, whilst population increased by about 2 per cent per annum. The number of dwellings commenced rose from fewer than 100,000 in I960 to close to 139,000 in 1970. This expansion in capacity has been the outcome of the many private initiatives.

The next suggested inquiry is into the extent to which private capital can be expected to finance the future demand for housing. In proposing this matter for inquiry, I can assume only that the Opposition is hoping to produce statements that insufficient private capital will be available to finance a high proportion of future home building. This is unlikely to be the case while this Government is in power. As I mentioned earlier, housing loans approved by savings banks, trading banks and major assurance companies were no less than S773m in 1970. Lending for new housing by permanent building societies is also running at a very satisfactory level. Under the stimulus of housing loans insurance, these societies are now attracting a rapidly expanding volume of funds. Over the past 12 months the major lending institutions have increased substantially the volume of their lending for the purchase of previously occupied homes. This has done a great deal to assist home seekers in satisfying their needs and requirements. Encouraged by the favourable climate for investment, brought about by the policies of this Government, more and more inves tors are being attracted to put money into new flats and so increase the amount of residential accommodation available to rent or to purchase. Private capital can be expected to finance future housing demands to an increasing extent, and with increasing effectiveness, as the idea of the high ratio insured loan takes hold.

Private capital will not provide all the finance for housing. A number of home seekers cannot afford to pay the rents asked for private dwellings or are unable to buy a modest home without some government assistance. Governments must expect to continue to provide homes for the neediest among our people - some of the aged and those families which cannot afford to purchase a home or to pay market rentals for reasonable accommodation. The prospects of an increasing flow of private capital to meet the future growth in housing demand are excellent. In proposing this matter for inquiry, honourable senators opposite appear to have overlooked the fact that this Government has been successful in influencing the flow of private investment into housing. Of course, one could not be sure that this would continue if the Opposition became the government. We should never forget that private investment is very sensitive to ‘the political climate and under this Government the climate has been very favourable indeed.

The Opposition then called for an examination of the role of Commonwealth finance in housing. The role of the Commonwealth in this field is to help those needing Government assistance- to .obtain a suitable dwelling at a price that they can afford. I think that is very important. The first essential is, of course, to. determine which groups are most in need, of this assistance. From our own investigations’ and our consultations with the States we have learned a great deal about who comprise these groups and what their, needs are. We have also had the benefit of information obtained from private surveys and advice on this subject by a variety of. welfare and charitable organisations. More ; recently my Department, in collaboration with the States, commenced an investigation into the housing needs of Aboriginals..,! should think that there would be a wide measure of agreement in this chamber in particular and amongst Australians in general as to who are in need of housing assistance and what it is they need. For that reason there is no need for the proposed inquiry.

Commonwealth financial assistance for housing is largely directed towards assisting the less fortunate groups in our community. It is comprehensive and comes in a variety of forms. The most significant form of assistance is that provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, which was referred to by Senator Poyser. The record sum of Si 42.5m will be advanced this year to the States under this Agreement. Close to $94m of this amount will be made available to the State housing authorities. This will benefit those who need to rent a dwelling but cannot afford to pay market rents and those who can afford to buy a home only with the assistance of a very long term loan at a concessional rate of interest. The remaining $49m is the estimated amount to be paid into Home Builders’ Accounts which, together with the addition of some $22m which will be made available from the repayment of earlier loans, is being advanced to co-operative terminating societies and other approved institutions. These advances will provide long term housing loans at a concessional rate of interest to low income families who wish to buy or build a home of their own choice.

Then there is, of course, the war service homes scheme. At least $60m will be advanced under this scheme to exservicemen and ex-servicewomen during the current financial year. Some S20m has also been budgeted for this year to provide generous capital grants for the housing of our elderly and incapacitated citizens under the aged persons home scheme and the sheltered employment assistance scheme as well as dwellings for needy single aged pensioners. We are also providing more transitory accommodation for migrant families in hostels and, for a limited stay of no more than 6 months, self contained flats. We are continuing to help young people to save for their own homes by giving them a tax free gift - the home savings grant. It has been estimated that tax free payments of about $15m will be made this year to young married couples and widowed and divorced persons with dependent children who have saved in an acceptable form for the acquisition of their homes. The Commonwealth’s overall con tribution to housing has risen from Si 64m in 1960-61 to an estimated $288m in 1970- 71. With this help Australians are being better housed with each passing year.

The next matter which has been proposed for investigation is the allocation of the Commonwealth finance between housing for private owners, rental housing, housing renovation and urban renewal projects. Whilst it is our policy to encourage and assist as many Australians as possible to own their own homes, we recognise that many families and individuals require rental accommodation at some stage of their lives. Our policy is to ensure that sufficient and adequate homes become available for those on the lower incomes and to offer them the choice of buying their own homes, if they can afford to do so with some Government assistance, or to rent a home. Given this choice, there is surely no problem in allocating funds between home ownership and home rental - or would the Opposition deny a family on a relatively low income the opportunity to own its own home, as it did under the 1945 agreement?

The Commonwealth Government does not ordinarily make advances to private owners to carry out alterations, additions or renovations to their homes. This is a matter for private initiative and private borrowing, lt does, however, encourage and assist private owners to carry out alterations and additions by its offer to insure the repayment of second mortgage loans for these purposes. As for urban renewal projects, these may or may not include the acquisition and demolition of existing homes or the provision of new residential accommodation. Urban renewal can be a vast exercise involving the determination of new land uses and may include the provision of new social facilities in addition to the building of new commercial, industrial and office accommodation. Much urban renewal is being undertaken in Australia by private enterprise, although public authorities are playing some part in providing housing and new utility services. It is surely for the States themselves to decide how much, if any, of the housing advances the Commonwealth makes under the agreements which have been entered into is to be used to provide new Government housing that forms part of any urban redevelopment scheme. If some large part of the Commonwealth’s finance were to be allocated to assist urban renewal schemes less could well be available to meet urgent housing needs. Once againI stress the word needs’.

It has been suggested that an inquiry should be conducted into the extent to which the allocation of Commonwealth housing finance to the States should be made conditional upon compliance with standards of town planning and the provision of urban services. These standards of town planning and the provision of urban services are State matters.I am unaware of any request from any State for the Commonwealth to lay down such standards. In any case, are there generally accepted standards of town planning? Does the Opposition envisage new Commonwealth-State financial arrangements under which the Commonwealth would make special advances for the provision of urban services?

The last matter into which an inquiry is sought is land costs. Notice was given of this matter only last Wednesday. Without drastic action of a very socialistic nature it would be impossible to control land costs near the centres of our capital cities. I think it is a well known and well recognised fact that the amount of land which is available within 5 or 10 miles of the centre of these cities cannot be increased. With a rising demand the cost of this land must increase. It is true that the States might develop more land on the outskirts of the cities and, by this means, slow down the rate of increase of land prices, but even this is likely to be temporary. Anyway, where is the money for this to come from?

I have traversed in some detail the suggested matters of inquiry by the proposed standing committee. However, I want to make it quite clear that an inquiry of this nature would be most unlikely to serve any useful purpose. I believe that it would be a waste of time and effortto prepare a range of forecasts based on a number of differing assumptions. In conclusion I would point out that the Government is continuing to make progress in the field of housing. It is aware of the difficulty which many people are having in securing a home suited to their needs. It would be foolish and wrong to pretend that we have solved every problem, but no other country can. point to a better record and few can point to one nearly as good. The role of theCommonwealth in the field of housing isto do everything reasonable to help those in need of housing assistance and itwill continue to fulfil this role. It would not be appropriate for a Commonwealth committee to inquire into matters which arc the prerogative of a State without the invitation of that State and its local authorities. For these very obvious reasons, I ask the Senate to dismiss this motion as an irrelevant, time-wasting exercise.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I intend to move that the debate be now adjourned. Because I think the Senate is entitled to know what has inspired me to consider such a motion I would like to point out, with the indulgence of the Senate, that standing on the notice paper under Orders of the Day for debate is the report of the President of the Senate on the establishment of committees generally. I propose to move the adjournment of this debate and, to the motion that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, I have in mind moving an amendment to the effect that such resumption take place only after consideration of Order of the Day No. 1 1 on the notice paper, which is the President’s report on the creation and developing of standing committees. Therefore, I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I move:

That the debate be resumed at 8 o’clock this evening.

I have moved this motion because I understood that the debate on this matter was to proceed. If it were not to proceed 1 would have expected to have been informed of that fact. Instead, I came into the chamber only a few minutes ago to learn that a member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party had submitted a proposal to adjourn the debate, the suggestion being that this matter should not proceed until the report of the President on committees of the Senate had been dealt with. I regard the action taken by the Democratic Labor Party as a means of delaying the determination of the proposition before the Senate. The proposition before the Senate is simple enough, namely, that there shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the question of housing.

Senator Marriott:

– Has the Committee been set up yet?

Senator MURPHY:

– The Committee has been appointed by the Senate. The proposal to appoint the Committee could have included such a proposition. There is no reason why the matters which that Committee would consider could not be determined at any stage by the Senate, including this stage, so that when the members were appointed to the Committee it would then go ahead to consider the matters that had been referred to it. This is a proposition which could well be determined by the Senate. The Senate would decide whether a particular reference was a fitting matter for consideration by the Committee. The Senate would decide whether to accept or to reject the reference. Notice was given of this proposition and we think that it is fair enough that the Senate decide whether the matter now before us should be referred to the Committee. It is sensible that this aspect be decided because if the matter in question is to be considered by the Committee all sorts of preliminary work could be done even before members were appointed to it. I repeat that the Committee has been appointed by the decision of the Senate.

I should like to make 2 observations. The first is that the Party which has moved for the adjournment of the debate has shown on many occasions throughout the last several years since the committer system has been established a disposition to endeavour to sabotage the operation of the committee system. Many valuable committees could have been set up. Many valuable inquiries could have been conducted but for the opposition of the Democratic Labor Party. That opposition was evident when it was suggested that a committee be set up to inquire into the needs of education in Australia. I recall also a proposition for an inquiry into national disasters. Both of those matters were manifestly in the national interest but the inquiries were not conducted because of the attitude of the Democratic Labor Party.

Despite what that Party said about the committee system being a wonderful system and how the Senate had advanced; it must be remembered that the 7 committees were established only in the face of determined opposition by the Democratic Labor Party and with the assistance of a member of the Government parties and the Independent. Here is another illustration of an attempt to delay the determination of propositions. I think it is proper for the Senate to decide one way or the other. If the Senate does not think that this matter should be referred to the Committee or if it thinks that the reference is premature, the Senate will defeat the proposal. But let us decide these matters and not have attempts to defer and delay the reference. I suggest that this is an illustration of what is happening to the Government in Australia. If the Democratic Labor Party is to take over the running of the affairs of the Senate-

Senator Gair:

– We have as much right to be here as you have.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. But if the Democratic Labor Parly is to take control of the affairs of the Senate it will be the Government parties, not the Opposition, which will suffer. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson may have some views on this matter so I will not say any more on it except that it was my clear understanding that this matter would proceed. There was no suggestion that it would be cut off. In the proper course of affairs 1 believe that it should go on and be dealt with tonight so that the Senate decides one way or the other. If the Government does not like the proposition, let it vote against it. If the Democratic Labor Party does not like the proposition, let it vote against it. But this matter should not be deferred.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator MURPHY:

– The time now being 8 o’clock, in order to enable the debate to proceed on a sensible basis I ask leave to reframe the motion which 1 have moved so that the resumption of the debate shall be immediately after the determination of this question. I seek leave to amend my motion to read:

That the debate be resumed immediately after the determination of this question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– I do not propose to say much more. It was my clear understanding that this debate would proceed. Arrangements have to be made to deal with the business of the Senate. I am not suggesting that there was any reneging on the arrangement by the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). I think he was probably unaware of what was happening, so I take that element out of the matter and simply say that I think the debate should proceed and the question ought to be dealt with one way or the other. I ask the Senate to reject the motion that the debate be postponed and to agree that it be dealt with this evening in accordance with the amended motion which I have proposed.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

Senator BYRNE:

– We have always supported commitees. We have always proposed a policy of gradualism. I think that if, particularly at this time of financial stringency, the Senate had embarked lightly and indiscriminately upon the immediate establishment of 7 standing committees with their total infrastructure and consequential expense, it would have been subject today to a charge of gross lack of prudence in the expenditure of public moneys. The fact that wc can present to the public the process we have followed and the practice which we have adopted - that there should to a period of trial and error, that it should be a process of festina lente - enables us to go lo the public and say that these committees operate in the public interest and that we have the public interest in mind in the method by which we establish them, the numbers in which we establish them and the way in which they will function.

Since we have been charged with sabotaging committees, it is interesting to note that there is one very important committee on which we do not serve, that is, the Standing Orders Committee. That is not because we do not want to serve on that Committee. We do want to serve on it but we understand that the Opposition has denied us the opportunity to serve on that Committee. It has opposed our membership of it. To that extent I must rely on hearsay evidence. But that is the reason why, on the notice paper under the heading ‘General Business’ there appears in my name notice of motion No. 7 which seeks the appointment of Senator Gair to that Committee, together with other honourable senators. It is extraordinary that those who would deny us membership of an important committee on which we want to serve should now charge us with sabotaging the committee system as though we did not support it at all. Unfortunately, that is the type of attack to which we have been subjected. We have served on the estimates committees with. I think, constant attendance and I trust with some fruitful participation.

The wisdom of our attitude is demonstrated when one reads your report on the committee system, Mr President, which is now before the chamber and consideration of which is an order of the day. It seems an extraordinary thing that, as the Senate resolved that this should be the method adopted for the establishment of further committees, any move should be undertaken at this stage which in effect would cut across and violate the decision of the Senate. To move now for the creation of any other committee or a reference to any other committee when this report is actually before the Senate seems to me to be trespassing upon the decision which has already been made. I could not imagine a more inappropriate time to bring forward this motion in Senator Murphy’s name or his motion to refer to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare the introduction of a national superannuation scheme, lt would appear to me that prudence itself would dictate that both these matters be allowed to stand aside until a discussion of the President’s report. The infrastructure required for such committees, and the demands on the time of senators have now been investigated. After considering the President’s report we could go ahead and, if necessary, consider the matters which Senator Murphy has placed on the notice paper under General Business for reference to the standing committees.

Therefore, we think that this is the rightful, the prudent and the wise course of action to pursue. We hope that the Senate in its wisdom will agree with that proposition and will let these matters stand aside. Our attitude is not to discuss the merits of these matters at this stage. We may have firm views on the types of reference - we have expressed those views - which should be made to standing committees. Honourable senators will recall that lime and time again we have thought that standing committees were not appropriate for the reference of major investigations which would take long periods of time and probably involve travel from place to place. More particularly is this so when it will result in a queue of references which will have to stand in their place for long periods of time while the personnel of the committee changes and while interest in the subject may well be lost.

Senator Murphy has suggested that housing is a matter of some consequence and should be the subject of immediate reference. Nobody denies the importance of the subject. Nobody denies that it might well warrant some sort of investigation. The question is what is the appropriate body to do it and the depth in which it should be undertaken. Let us look at other notices of motion on the notice paper in relation to the appointment of select committees - in the name of Senator Murphy or of other members of his Party. There is a whole host of them. I have on the notice paper a proposal for the appointment of a select committee on defence. Senator Murphy has given notice of a motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the structure, recruitment and management of the Commonwealth Public Service. Senator Devitt has given notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into and report upon the land tenure and land administration, planning and development in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Murphy also has given notice of a motion for the appointment of a joint select committee to inquire into and report upon the laws and practices presently observed by the Government of the Northern Territory. Those are the major matters.

The point is that if this type of reference is made to standing committees all those motions for the appointment of select committees will have to stand aside and take their place in order of importance and urgency. Personally I do not know just what order Senator Murphy or the members of his Party would give one as against the rest, but it does seem unfair that a motion like the one before us now should be allowed to supersede all the motions for the appointment of select committees. Once we are appointed to one of these committees we are required to forgo membership on select committees. Therefore, to say that this matter is of great urgency is not correct when it is compared with the relative importance of all the other matters to which Senator Murphy subscribes.

There is another notice of motion on the notice paper in the name of Senator O’Byrne in relation to Commonwealth and State financial relations. Some requests for the appointment of select committees have been stood over as orders of the day. There is a host of references. Are all those matters to be put aside merely because of this reference to a standing committee? If we are to embark upon all these things willy-nilly we will get into a position which will be totally intolerable because the demands made upon the time of honourable senators will force them to sever themselves from participation in other committees. That, of course, would be a disaster for the whole of the committee system. The wisdom of gradualism is demonstrated by the notice paper as we now see it.

We have before us a comprehensive report on estimates committees and standing committees which has taken up a considerable amount of your time, Mr President. It is the outcome of consultation with senators who have participated in the various committees to ascertain the difficulties they have experienced - difficulties of accommodation and difficulties in the provision of staff and matters of that character. It seems most appropriate that this report should receive its airing and attract discussion in this place first. When the general principles embodied in this report have received the attention of the Senate we will know where we are going and to what extent motions such as that proposed by Senator Murphy will be accepted or rejected by the Senate according to the capacity of the standing committees to deal with them.

For those reasons, Mr President, I feel that the amendment which I have proposed should have the concurrence of the Senate. It seems an eminently sensible method of procedure. We can discuss the general principles and when we are satisfied that our course is planned and we know where we are going we can take aboard, to use the term of the Leader of the Government, these more specific references to see whether the committee system is able to accept them at this stage. So, Mr President, I commend this course of action to the Senate. I believe that if it is followed we finally will have placed the whole matter on an orderly basis and the Senate will be able to proceed, having satisfied itself that it is proceeding with prudence, in the light of all the known facts and in the light of the experience of the participation of honourable senators.

Then, if it is decided that one or more additional committees should be created, wc will have to decide which of those committees should be made viable. After all, the type of motion that Senator Murphy has propounded contemplates the appointment of the Standing Committee on Social Environment because it contemplates that there shall be an immediate reference to that Committee when the members are appointed. If that motion is carried it is, if not directly and specifically then at least indirectly and inferentially, a decision by the Senate that such a committee should be appointed.

Senator Murphy:

– We have decided that already, have we not?

Senator BYRNE:

– lt is a decision that such a committee should be made viable and the members should be appointed. But, on consideration of the President’s report, the Senate might well decide that the viability of that Committee should not receive thai type of priority but that the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs or some other committee should be the next to be established.

Therefore, I believe that it would be unwise for us indirectly to tie our hands in relation to the establishment of this Committee when the whole structure is coming under consideration and the questions of the establishment of an additional I, 2, 3, 4 or 5 committees and which of those committees, if any, should be established will receive our particular consideration. For all those reasons I commend to the Senate the amendment moved on behalf of the Democratic Labor Party. Mr President, perhaps you could indicate whether that amendment requires seconding. If it does, it will be seconded in due time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I want the amendment to be seconded.

Senator Little:

– 1 second the amendment.

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

(8.22) - I am sure everybody would agree that it is not appropriate - it would never happen in normal circumstances - for me to get myself involved in recounting in the Senate discussions that the leaders have, or what we call discussions at the leader level. Everybody appreciates that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) and I, in our mutual interests and in carrying out our mutual responsibilities, have discussions as to the procedures and management of this place. Normally they are sacred discussions and ones that would not be reflected in any debate here. But I am sure Senator Murphy will not think, and I hope the Senate will not think, that 1 have broken the sacred ruling if I refer to the fact that Senator Murphy and 1 did have discussions this morning, because I believe that they are germane to this situation.

It is true, as Senator Murphy has indicated, that I expressed the view that we should follow on with this motion, which was a notice of motion in his name. Let me say in fairness to him that it is equally true that I indicated that I was anxious to have it disposed of. The reason that I gave in our discussion was that we were in this cycle of sitting for 2 weeks and having I week off and I wanted to keep as close as possible to the work load coming from the other place because I did not believe that wc should get ourselves involved in a Friday or Monday sitting unless it was absolutely necessary. For that reason I was pressing the point. I think it would be fair to say that the Leader of the Opposition agreed with me and that he saw the validity of what I was saying.

So it came about that, although I had to leave the Senate chamber to go to the other end of the building for Cabinet discussions, I arranged with Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin that that would be the work procedure and that we would push on with the notice of motion after certain second reading speeches had been made. I understand that under my guidelines for the management of this place, in fact. Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin moved a motion to bring on the notice of motion in

Senator Murphy’s name. We then had the situation that the 2-hour rule applied. So I gave Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin an instruction, with which she agreed, to move to have that rule in the Standing Orders suspended so that the debate could proceed. That is the situation that emerged. I am informed that at about the time Senator Poyser led for the Opposition - either at some time during his speech or certainly immediately after it - Senator Byrne indicated to the Government Whip that he proposed to move an amendment. Apparently he foreshadowed the substance of the amendment. I was most anxious tonight to let Senator Byrne speak before I spoke and give the reasons for his amendment.

There was one other matter that I discussed with Senator Murphy. I think 1 must bring it out, too, because it is important in relation to this issue. I indicated to him and subsequently to Senator Gair - it was not until during the dinner suspension in the case of Senator Gair, because I missed speaking to him earlier - that I thought that on Thursday evening we should discuss the President’s report because in my view that was not Government business so much as the Senate’s business. I suggested that it would be logical to debate that after 8 o’clock on Thursday night. Senator Murphy promised me that he would take that proposal to the members of his party. I in turn indicated that I would take it to the members of my party, and I have done so. I say this despite my normal judgment that we leaders should not reveal what we discuss. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition I wanted to put this on the record.

– It would still be on the notice paper; whereas if we have a vote on it tonight members of the Government parties will vote against the motion. I do not know what the members of the Democratic Labor Party will do. That is a matter for them to decide. If the matter is deferred, the motion will still be on the notice paper. It may well be that a decision will then have to be taken by the members of the Democratic Labor Party. But we feel that Senator Byrne has made a case for deferment and itis the view of the Government that the matter should be deferred until after we dispose of the President’s report. I propose that we dispose of that next Thursday night.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The one or two points I want to make have become more important because of the speech just made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). The opinion seems to be held around the chamber that we should first discuss whether we should establish the additional committees, and that we are not now deciding whether a committee should be requested to conduct an inquiry into housing. The real question to be decided now is whether the Senate should be permitted to make up its mind about an examination of housing now or at a later date. We are faced with the fact that whatever may arise out of consideration of your report on the Senate committees, Mr President, the Senate has to appoint an additional 5 committees duringt his session.

Some honourable senators seem to have the vague idea that we are deciding now whether to appoint committees, but the Senate resolved on 19th August 1970that the actual establishment of the total number of committees, including the appointment of senators to the various committees, should be done over a period of not less than 12 months. Therefore the Senate has until 19th August 1971 to appoint 7 committees. An arrangement for gradualism in the appointment of the committees was agreed to, in that 5 committees were not to operate before 2 of the committees selected by the Senate for first establishment had actually operated. Two of the committees have actually operated.

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA · LP

– And are hard at work.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The arrangement is not based on the time at which the 2 selected committees submit a report to the Senate, but on a time at which those 2 committees have actually operated. I accept Senator Rae’s assurance that they are hard at work and therefore are in operation. A report on the operation of the committees has been presented to the Sen ate by the President. Appendix D to the President’s report provides:

A report shall be presentedto the Senate by the President not later than the commencement of the first session of 1971 as to the operation of the Standing Committees and their administration, accommodation and staff requirements.

Obviously the report of the President is concerned with an examination of staff requirements, accommodation and so on. But the Senate has decided that we have to appoint 7 committees before 19th August 1971, that is within 12 months of 19th August 1970. If we do not appoint the additional 5 committees during this session, when do we appoint them? It is obvious that the appointments must be made during this session. If as a result of the President’s report we cannot continue to abide by the previous decision on the selection of committees it will be necessary for the Senate to carry a resolution of rescission of the previous decision, in order to supplant it by another decision. The President’s report contains no questions about our capability as a Parliament to provide accommodation, Hansard staff and printing staff for the standing committees. It contains a reference to the difficulties of Senate estimates committees but nothing to justify deferring the appointment of the additional committees.

Therefore we must appoint 5 additional committees during this session. On 20th August last Senator Murphy gave notice of a motion to refer a matter to the only committee available at that time, the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. It is necessary now for the Senate to appoint another standing committee rather than have an inquiry into housing referred to a committee that is already overloaded and possibly would be an inappropriate committee to conduct such an inquiry. Senator Murphy therefore chooses to submit that the inquiry be conducted by a committee that we appoint on this occasion. Whether the inquiry should be referred to that committee is another question. What we mustresolve now is the right of the Senate to say whether the inquiry should be referred to a committee which we have to appoint on this occasion.

Nothing is to be gained by adjourning this matter until after we have considered the President’s report on the standing committees. Whatever we decide about these standing committees, we cannot alter a previous decision of the Senate and therefore 5 additional committees must be appointed during this session. The President’s report contains no advice to the effect that the facilities for those committees to operate are not available. Should we simply appoint them without something for consideration or should we examine the various questions that we may wish to refer to them? One such question is the state of housing throughout Australia and we want a decision on that point now. 1 do not want to be offensive in this matter. I think that an examination of the whole proposal shows that there is validity in Senator Murphy’s claim that the suggested adjournment is simply another way of staving off a vote of the Senate on the point and another adjournment moved by the Australian Democratic Labor Party could be consistent with opposition to the committee system.

Senator Little:

– It could be sensible, too.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator may say that opposition to the committee system is sensible, but we say that the rest of the Senate agrees with the committee system. If the DLP wishes to carry on opposition to the committee system, it should simply carry it on. Senator Murphy has suggested that the DLP was opposed to it from its commencement. The Senate committee system has developed out of 2 decisions of the Senate, one originating with the Government’s proposal to establish Estimates committees, and one originating with the Australian Labor Party which moved to establish standing committees. Each suggestion competed with the other. The Democratic Labor Party supported the Government’s move for Estimates committees and it was successful.

The DLP opposed the motion of the Labor Party on standing committees and effected a compromise for the purpose of defeating the establishment of an effective committee system through the appointment of 7 standing committees, as proposed by the Labor Party. The compromise was that 2 standing committees be appointed for first establishment and that 5 more be appointed at a later date. In order to defeat the Labor Party’s motion for the establish ment of 7 standing committees the DLP compromised on the appointment of 2 committees and an assurance of the Senate that 5 more would be appointed within 12 months of August 1970.

Now the Democratic Labor Party is seeking to starve the proposed standing committee of activities, using as its justification the plea that it is concerned about the Treasury. Surely to God if there is a need for an inquiry into housing the Democratic Labor Party is obliged to agree to that inquiry and should not seek to defer it on the ground that it is concerned about the amount that the Treasury may be obliged to vote for the operations of a committee selected to conduct that inquiry. Such an inquiry would examine poverty and housing in the States represented by DLP senators. I submit that this action truly indicates the opposition of the Democratic Labor Party to the committee system.

We are committed to the appointment of 5 additional committees and we must appoint them. The Labor Party desires to give them the opportunity to work, lt is suggested that one of them should inquire into housing. We do not have to decide on this occasion whether one of them should inquire into housing. The question we are deciding on this occasion is whether we should refer to the Standing Committee on Social Environment an inquiry into housing. The Democratic Labor Party if it so desires, may vote against this when the vote is taken. But let us have the opportunity to say whether we should refer something to these committees which the Senate has decided to establish and which will be established in this parliamentary session.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I ask the Senate to reject the amendment moved by Senator Byrne and support the motion so that this debate may proceed. I indicated the arrangements made for my part and, although I realise that the circumstances which occurred this evening were not the personal responsibility of the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), I expect them to be adhered to. Whether they are or not will be decided by the vote of Government supporters.

As to the arguments put forward by Senator Byrne on behalf of the Democratic Labor Party, I repeat that it is my view that the Democratic Labor Party is endeavouring to sabotage the committee system. Senator Byrne said that this charge was not sustainable. The facts are that the Democratic Labor Party opposed proposals for select committees which were clearly in the national interest, such as the proposal for a select committee to inquire into the establishment of a national disaster organisation, the most important proposal to have an inquiry into the needs of education throughout Australia and also, and perhaps most importantly, the proposals for the establishment of these standing committees about which we are speaking. lt endeavoured to do everything it could to sabotage the motion ultimately adopted by the Senate for the appointment of these 7 standing committees.

Senator Byrne:

– That is not correct.

Senator MURPHY:

– The resolution of 11 th June 1970 was that the Senate should set up 7 standing committees. That motion was opposed and the Democratic Labor Party voted against it. It was carried with the assistance of a Government supporter and the independent senator. Then, in an unprecedented action - I know of nothing to compare with this - on 19th August 1970 when the Government supporter was absent overseas, I understand with the permission of his Party, the proposition was put to prevent the establishment of the 7 committees although the Senate had deliberately resolved to appoint them. Two committees only were then established but il was resolved that the others would be. established. I would be very surprised il, when we come to decide on the report of the President about the operation of the committee system and on what should be done in the future, the Democratic Labor Party does not support some proposal aimed at not establishing the 5 committees but at reducing them to a mere token of one or two and thus prevent the Senate from effectively carrying out its intention that 7 should be established.

Senator Little:

– We will try not to disappoint yon.

Senator MURPHY:

– I have no doubt, and 1 think the Senate will have no doubt.

The realities of politics in this place are that everyone knows that the Democratic Labor Party is endeavouring to sabotage this system. Tonight’s proposal to defer the debate on this matter is part of the same course of action.

Senator Little:

– Tell us how many committees you are on.

Senator Gair:

– He is. not on one committee.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is not true. Senator Gair should know better than to repeat such untruths in this Senate, particularly as he has said it before and it has been repudiated.

Senator Rae:

– This is time consuming. For my information will you answer the interjection?

Senator MURPHY:

– My answer is that I sat on Estimates Committee A. 1 was a member of an important committee which sat for a long time during two parliaments - the committee on parliamentary papers and Government publications, the report of which led to the establishment of the Australian Government Publishing Service. There were many other recommendations which I understand were accepted in toto by this Government. 1 belong also to some other committee. Senator Rae would be able to find out if he looked through the record.

The reality of this matter will be determined by the reactions of those who vote against these proposals and endeavour to sabotage the committees when they are set up. The action of the Democratic Labor Party is simply part of the same course of action. We will see it repeated during the next few months when those who are opposed to the committee system will do their darndest to see that it is not properly established. I hope that those honourable senators with enough vision to realise that the committee system will work effectively in the national interest will see to it that this sabotage does not succeed for reasons of temporary political expediency. I hope they will come to the aid of the committee system and ensure that it is put into full operation. I ask the Senate to reject the amendment and carry the motion.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Byrne’s amendment to Senator Murphy’s proposed motion) be left out.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 24

Majority…… 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Byrne’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Murphy’s), as amended, be agreed to.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 250

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 February (vide page 156), on motion by Senator Dame Annahelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

Senator Georges:

– lt is not quite that. He has to give a reasonable time.

Senator HANNAN:

– No, it has to be the same amount of time and at the same price. Everything has to be equated as far as possible. This can present difficulties. In fact it has presented certain difficulties over the years, especially to country broadcasting stations. Having sold a quarter of an hour or whatever it is to a particular party a station must by law provide a similar amount of rime to other parties which are represented. For reasons which seem good lo the commercial operators - I will not analyse them in detail at this time - they have been acutely conscious of the law of libel and defamation in this regard, and many of them have refrained from letting out their station time to any of the parties because of this requirement. I hope that al some time in the future - tonight is not the opportune time to go into the detail of it - the Government will have another look at this. For reasons which completely escaped me at the time, my amendment was defeated. I suggest to

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, who in this chamber represents the PostmasterGeneral, thai some consideration be given to the problem posed by actions for defamation because it has been agitating the minds of commercial licensees in this country.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You want immunity for them?

Senator HANNAN:

– No, I want qualified privilege. There is a vast difference. I do not believe in immunity - that it is ridiculous - but qualified privilege is another matter. With all the modesty I can summon 1 might say that I have had some experience in libel actions against broadcasting stations and, since the actions which 1 took were eminently successful, I feel that the licensees on the receiving end of this kind of legal process have just reason for asking that their proposition be examined by the Government. I hope that at some time in the future the Government will get around to doing so.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– Prior to Senator Hannan making his speech I was made aware of the fact that he had a considerable background and experience in the field of broadcasting in Australia as a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, so I was looking forward to the comments he would be making because one would have assumed that with a background of that nature, coupled with a legal background, we would have heard an intelligent and well informed contribution to the debate. Had that been the case it would have been my privilege to have complimented him on his contribution. But in view of what we heard that would be the last thing I would do now. By contrast I offer my congratulations to Senator McClelland on his contribution last Thursday and I indicate my support for the amendments which he foreshadowed would be proposed at the Committee stage.

In any debates on broadcasting and television in the past it has been customary for attention to be centred on television and for very little thought or effort to be given to the position of radio in Australia, particularly ABC radio. That is understandable because the great majority of Australians today are more concerned with television programmes than they are with radio, and it is unfortunate that despite the excellent quality of so many of the programmes presented on ABC radio it is becoming the Cinderella of broadcasting in this country and I suspect, is not receiving the attention from the Australian Broadcasting Commission to which it is entitled. I think that some of the programmes which have been produced by the Australian Broadcasting Commission are worthy of comment. I refer in particular to 2 documentaries ‘A.M.’ and ‘P.M.’ which are broadcast each week day for half an hour. They cover current affairs and are probably the best documentaries available on either radio or television at the present time. The producers and officers of the Commission who are responsible for the production of those programmes are to be complimented. I should like to refer also to ‘Correspondent’s Report’ which is broadcast on Sunday mornings. It deals with political matters and is another extremely good programme. ‘Fact and Opinion’ is another programme to which we often see reference. An excellent science programme The World Tomorrow’ is broadcast on Saturday mornings. I have taken the trouble to mention those programmes because they are indicative of the quality of programmes which the ABC is producing on radio.

There is a significant minority in the community which is concerned with radio. It may be only 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the population but the fact remains that those people want a good standard of entertainment in sound. I am concerned that the trend is, and has been over the past few years, to push radio into the background and so there has been a vast investment in television. There would seem to be an awareness on the part of the Commission of the need to show in its annual reports the amount of money which has been expended on radio and television but the amount has not been dissected. Therefore it was with interest that I noticed in the One Hundred and Seventeenth Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts which was produced this year that on page 33 reference is made to this fact in the following terms:

The evidence shows that the dissection between radio and television that had been maintained in I the estimates of expenditure and in the Commission’s annual statements of receipts and payments until 1960-61 was abandoned from 1961-62 in favour of an expenditure dissection that included the integration of radio and television.

The Committee went on to indicate the problems associated with a division of expenditure between television and radio. It is interesting to note that the Commission has seen fit to employ a management consultant for the purpose of determining ways and means whereby these amounts can appear again as separate items in the Commission’s reports.

It is of some interest to me and to a considerable number of my fellow Australians that, despite the fact that the idiot box appears to have taken over in most lounge rooms and the height of one’s entertainment for the evening is to look at inane programmes such as ‘Division 4’ and Homicide’, a significant number of Australians are looking for something better and consequently they are compelled to turn to ABC radio to find it. The people with whom I have some contact in this regard are mainly listeners to music although there are some with political interests and some who want good drama and so on, but primarily they- are people who look to broadcasting to hear good music. To my knowledge this Ls a matter which has never been raised in the Parliament. I do not pretend to be the official spokesman for that section of our community but I do know that a lot of people are concerned about radio. Apparently the Commission itself is mindful of these facts. On page 81 of the One Hundred and Tenth Report of the Public Accounts Committee which was produced in 1969 the following comment appears: lt was said- ,

That is, to the Committee - that while television is essentially complementary to radio broadcasting, radio is still the most effective medium for the broadcasting of serious music, news, market information, weather information and similar programmes. Radio broadcasting was said to be a vital force and a major responsibility of the Commission and it was claimed that radio, perhaps more than television, has a vital part to play in the creation of national unity, particularly through the instrument of the national broadcasting service. The Commission is concerned because in its present position it is unable to meet the challenge presented by radio as effectively, efficiently, or as fully as it ought to.

The challenge which is referred to is not spelt out, but I suspect that it comes from the fact that the Commission has insufficient finance to invest in further radio development in Australia. From information which has been given to me verbally I think this is a fact. It is a great pity that over the years more and more money has been poured into television, a medium which is more restricted than most people realise. I saw only the other day that Mr Rod Taylor, the President of the Australian Association of National Advertisers, said that people are becoming bored by television and are looking for something different in that medium as well as in others. 1 should like to refer specifically to the Australian Broadcasting Commission second network programmes. As I mentioned earlier, and as is mentioned in the passage that 1 cited a moment ago, the ABC second network is primarily directed to people whose interests are in better quality broadcasting, particularly in music, and the trend in ABC radio programmes is, I believe, away from that which those who listen to the ABC second network radio are wanting. They are a comparatively selective group - they are not a mass audience - and they know what they want to hear. If we look at the figures for 1967- 68 in the programme analysis which is provided with the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission we find that the number of hours devoted to orchestral music in that year was 1753. In the following year the number of hours had fallen to 1575 and in 1969-70 it had fallen again to 1550. This is a strange tendency in the ABC’s programming arrangements and I do not think it is consistent with the experience of other things which are referred to in the report.

I must apologise for citing these figures which may sound a little tedious, but I feel that I should state them because nobody else seems to be particularly concerned about them. In 1967-68, we find by comparison, the amount of instrumental music broadcast by ABC radio was 368 hours, in the following year it was 391 hours and last year it was 451 hours. In other words, the time devoted to instrumental music was increasing. Yet the sales of records of classical music showed a reverse trend. Recently I made inquiries on this point from 2 major retailers in Melbourne in an attempt to ascertain the market and the wants of people who are interested in this field. I was advised that three-quarters of classical records sold in Melbourne are made up of orchestral works. But when we come to the concerts which are provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission we find a different story altogether from that which is reflected in ABC programmes. For example, the attendance at orchestral concerts sponsored by the ABC increased by 25,000 in 1969-70 as compared with the previous year and the number of people attending recitals fell from 120,000 to 103,000.

If we look at the figures relating to attendances at ABC concerts we find that for the 1 2-month period more than 900.000 people attended orchestral concerts but only 117,000 attended recitals. This is completely contrary to the policy of the ABC and its programme department. Some people are so concerned about this that we find in Melbourne and Sydney the formation of the music broadcasting societies of Victoria and New South Wales. The reason that these people are making the effort to form their own radio stations is the lack of music being provided by ABC radio. One of the problems of the programme department as revealed by the report is that it is required to cover no less than forty different classifications of subjects during the year whereas on television the ABC is required to cover only half that number. I can fully understand the dilemma of the programme department; it is almost impossible for it to provide the time that is needed in order to give people who want better broadcasts of music the music they require.

Before concluding I should like to refer lo the introduction of colour television. Honourable senators will be aware that probably we will see colour television introduced in this country in the next 3 or 4 years. I would not oppose the introduction if it in the ultimate sense and 1 think that eventually we will see colour television introduced in Australia during this decade, but I think it would be totally wrong for it to be brought here when radio - particularly frequency modulation - is being neglected. I am aware that the committee appointed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is meeting in Sydney to commence hearings next Monday, lt is hoped that the evidence submitted to that committee will be sufficient to convince the

Government that frequency modulation ought to be proceeded with at the earliest opportunity. It would be a great shame if we were to see frequency modulation broadcasting set back some years so that we could see in colour so many of these fourth rate television programmes, such as Donald Duck’ and ‘The Cisco Kid’. There are other things which are much more important and which a significant section of the community wants to hear with the up-to-date technological equipment which frequency modulation can provide.

Senator Hannan:

– Which frequency band would you select for FM broadcasts?

Senator WRIEDT:

– That is a matter with which the honourable senator might have dealt because he has a considerable background and knowledge of the subject.

Senator Hannan:

– I am not chipping you; I am just asking you.

Senator WRIEDT:

– The honourable senator knows as well as I do that there has been a problem in providing a FM band. This is a matter that could be sorted out by people who are conversant with the technicalities of it, and no doubt the problem will be solved. The introduction of frequency modulation broadcasts will not be prevented by an obstacle such as that mentioned by the honourable senator but will be determined by an attitude on the part of the Government as to whether it is prepared to provide the money to build frequency modulation transmitters in this country. I hope that the Government will realise that money expended by the Australian Broadcasting Commission should not be poured more and more into television, and especially into colour television to provide which we will have to spend up to $10Om, at the expense of better broadcasting.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I rise merely to indicate that the Democratic Labor Party supports in principle and generally the provisions of the Bill. There are one or two matters with which we might find ourselves at variance with the Government and those matters may be raised in the course of the Committee discussions. It is interesting and salutary to find this sensitivity and concern regarding the undue control of television stations in a limited number of hands. As is always the case, no matter what legislation is introduced, we find that by some manoeuvre it is possible to bypass the discipline and to go on one’s merry way. The provision that interests purchased in other companies by the use of superannuation funds shall be considered as interests held by the first company is an indication that this practice has become prevalent. This is an attempt to quell it in the future. That raises a question as to the datum point from which this provision should operate. That will receive consideration from the Democratic Labor Party when the matter comes before the Senate in detail.

The necessity for constant scrutiny of the administrative procedures of the Australian Broadcasting Commission becomes apparent also. We see that there is provision in the legislation for the control and audit of accounts and also with regard to the disposal of property and other matters of that nature. This type of Bill is necessary from time to time. It does not embody any great principle; it merely puts emphasis on the practical implementation of certain principles. For that reason we support it.

The provision relating to the service of summonses by mail for failure to have the necessary licence and the consequences to an unfortunate person who may not be served is a matter which will come up in some detail at the Committee stage. At that stage the Democratic Labor Party will indicate its position. I merely mention one other thing. Together with other members of the Senate and the House of Representatives I had the opportunity of being shown colour television in France. I do not know what system was used. I am not technically equipped to recall what the system was, but having seen colour television in the United States of America and Britain I am satisfied that the French system was as near perfection as any I have seen. I most certainly think that if and when colour television comes to this country earnest consideration should be given to the adoption of that or a similar system. The American system, whatever it may have been, is harsh and unattractive and unless I saw it demonstrated on very bad television sets I think it is one which we should try to avoid. Having said that, the Australian Democratic Labor Party substantially supports the Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The Broadcasting and Television Bill seeks to amend in quite a number of instances the original Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1969. A number of these amendments give me some reason to question the wording used. Probably I could deal with them at the Committee stage. Proposed section 27d(1.) provides that the AuditorGeneral shall draw the attention of the Minister to any irregularity disclosed by his inspection and audit which is, in his opinion, of sufficient importance to justify his so doing. This is something which was looked at by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and it may have some validity. I think this is the first instance in which such a provision has been included in an Act of Parliament. I also draw attention to the fact that proposed section 27d (2.) provides:

The Auditor-General may. at his discretion, dispense with all or any part of the detailed inspection and audit of any accounts or records referred to in the last preceding sub-section.

I ask the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) in this place, to provide for me during the Committee stage information as to where that particular provision appears in any other Act of Parliament, lt seems to me that this is an innovation and is perhaps one that may be acceptable. But it appeared lo me to be fairly wide.

Provision is made also for a change relating to the delegation of duty by the Commission, lt appears to me that there are some wide powers of delegation. One which I question particularly is the delegation of power to any employee of the Commission. That seems to me to be fairly substantial and 1 question that it is necessary to do this. I would imagine that the delegation of power could go from the Commission to perhaps an officer or some person in authority; but the wording here suggests (hat this delegation of power can now be made by instrument in writing under the common seal of the Commission to any person employed by the Commission. One questions whether that is necessary.

Other areas of change are quite substantial. I support the changes proposed in relation to the ownership and control of television and radio licences. It appears to me thai the change brought about by amending section 61 of the principal Act - that is, to increase the amount of finance which must be approved by the Minister before it is expended - is one to which we can well agree in these times of inflation. I question whether it is necessary to extend from 5 years to 10 years the period for which the Commission can enter into certain rental and lease arrangements. When the time comes I would like the Minister to give us some indication as to why this change is proposed. Her second reading speech does not disclose the reason.

I would like to mention two other matters to the Senate. The first relates to the encouragement of Australian content in television. Probably this matter has been one of those of greatest interest to honourable senators during the time that 1 have been a member of the Senate. Indeed, those who have taken part in the debate this evening have certainly demonstrated over the past years their great interest in encouraging the establishment of a greater Australian television industry. At the moment we have a quiet situation in relation to the development of a greater Australian television industry. Al the present time there is not a great deal of publicity or a great deal of argument about the necessity to encourage a greater Australian content in television programmes. The community seems to run hot and cold on this issue. Perhaps it is because of the fact that during the last session we dealt with a Bill which proposed that television stations should screen more Australian drama during prime viewing times.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– lt was not a Bill; it was a decision of the Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Well. we did discuss the matter in this place; but it appears to me that when there is great excitement in the community and there is a demand for some change, at that point something is done. I suggest that any ideas that we need to look at the volume of imported film, at the employment of more Australians in this industry, or that we should be encouraging the public to take a greater interest in the types of films produced by Australian producers and should be encouraging television stations to give consideration io Australian productions are left until there is a great cry in the community and there ‘« a demand for some change. There is no forward planning of what we are to achieve in Australia in regard to Australian content in television programmes.

– Senator Poyser ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself for being associated with such a capitalistic outlook as Senator Hannan pointed out. I do not doubt that he was not here when Senator Hannan was speaking. He very often is not here.

The other matter that 1 wish to put to the Senate relates to the importance of the radio and television industry to the Australian community. I suggest to the Government that the management of radio and television services in Australia calls for the appointment of an assistant Minister to the Postmaster-General to deal with this facet of Australian business. With the concur- the Auditor-General for the year 196970rence of honourable senators, I incorporate showing the expenditure on broadcasting in Hansard an extract from the Report of and television services.

Expenditure under the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1969 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905- 1967 in relation to Broadcasting and Television Services is met from appropriations under the control of the Postmaster-General's Department, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Works. A summary of the expenditure for 1969-70, which is shown in Table 5 of the Treasurers Statement, *is* given hereunder followed by a more detailed statement of the expenditure, together with the comparative figures for 1968-69.__ That document indicates that in 1968-69 a sum of $62,407,443 was spent on broadcasting and television services in Australia and that in 1969-70 the figure escalated to $65,731,392. I believe that the very fact of such an enormous expenditure within the Postmaster-General's Department, although there may be subdivision of administration, requires this Parliament to request the appointment of an assistant Minister to the Postmaster-General so that the problems we have discussed over the years may be highlighted and given a greater amount of time than is possible at present. In **Sir Alan** Hulme we undoubtedly have a most capable Minister. But in view of the enormous amount of work that faces him I. believe that it is not possible for him fully to understand the problems that are associated with broadcasting and television in Australia. I suggest that if we are to have greater attention given to this aspect of the Postmaster-General's Department, under which these services come, it will be necessary to appoint an assistant Minister. This suggestion probably will not be accepted by the Government, as there are no assistant Ministers in other fields. There are important aspects of many of the portfolios in the present Federal Government to which this suggestion could apply. I believe that sufficient has been said about the importance of this industry to the community, in the Senate and in another place as well as in the many recommendations that were made by the Senate committee that inquired into television, to indicate that a request for the appointment of an assistant Minister to the PostmasterGeneral should certainly be given some consideration. Generally, I have pleasure in supporting the Bill. {: #subdebate-55-0-s4 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- The new representative on the Government side of the Senate, **Senator Hannan,** made certain comments that induced me to take part in this debate. For that he has to bear the responsibility and apologise to the members of his party who from time to time question my right to speak. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- He should be ashamed of himself. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- That is right. During his contribution, which I found most interesting, he mentioned the series of Labor radio stations that operate in Australia - 5 in all - and indicated that they had the opportunity to broadcast on behalf of the Australian Labor Party the policies of that Party. But in reality that is not so. In reality the radio stations are forced, in effect, to follow the pattern of other radio stations and to operate as purely business concerns, controlled in some way by the people who advertise. I can remember one instance in which 4KQ in Brisbane put certain views forward rather strongly on its political programme. Incidentally, that programme is broadcast for only half an hour fairly late on a Sunday night and is possibly the only political programme, based on Labor policy that is broadcast by the station. At that time the station spoke out very strongly against the very high profit that General MotorsHolden's Pty Ltd had made in that year. As a result of that. GMH decided that it would not sign a further contract with 4KQ. So, that station found, as all Labor stations find, that it had to conform. If they want to exist, if they want to maintain their operations and if they do not want to go completely out of existence they must con form to the general pattern of broadcasting what is virtually entertainment, with a minimum of political views being broadcast from time to time. Labor radio stations throughout Australia broadcast the policy of the Party. We are not ashamed of it. Unfortunately, they cannot exist without payments for advertising. For that reason their operations follow the same pattern as those of other radio stations. In fact, it is very hard to distinguish a Labor radio station from an ordinary commercial radio station, lt is true that the constitution and articles which brought these radio stations into operation provide that their profits should pass into the general funds of the ALP for research purposes. I think it is reasonable that if a Party runs a radio station any profits made should go to that Party so that it can research its material. Surely there is no argument about that. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- I am not opposed to your earning profits. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- But the honourable senator made quite a point of this. If the 5 Labor radio stations each made a profit of $200,000-- {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- That would be one of the top radio stations. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Let us take that for granted. If the 5 Labor stations were each" to make a profit of $200,000 they would earn a profit of Sim for the Party. There are 5 Labor radio stations, but there are 114 other radio stations in Australia which make an annual profit of about S8m. There are 42 commercial television stations operating in Australia earning annual profits of about $15m. Surely the honourable senator cannot reasonably object to the right of the Labor radio stations to make a profit. That profit reflects their efficiency. Each of those stations is conducted efficiently. In fact, 4KQ Brisbane received the lop rating. I had hoped that **Senator Hannan** would reveal the figures relating to the operations of 4KQ, for my own edification. 1 have not been able to obtain them, even though T am a member of the Australian Labor Party. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- They will be available in the Parliamentary Library. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Not for 4KQ. The honourable senator indicated that he took his figures from the 'Financial Review'. He said that he was not entitled to reveal any confidential information received when he was a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Board says that the figures given to it are received in confidence and are used only for licensing purposes. That is fair enough. But the "Financial Review' managed to get some figures which the honourable senator used and so by-passed the requirements which limited his contribution to this debate. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- Let me say that the figures published by the 'Financial Review' were confirmed to me personally by a very distinguished Labor leader in Victoria. I shall not mention his name. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I have a fair idea of his identity. **Senator Hannan** early in his speech made the interesting statement that if a radio station broadcasts election material for one Party it is required to give equal time to anybody else who requests it. My reading of the Act suggests that all radio stations which broadcast election material must give reasonable time to the other parties represented in the House. Apparently the interpretation of 'reasonable time' is equal time. I cannot quite see that. For the sake of this argument let us say that it is equal time. The ALP faced a very embarrassing situation in Queensland because it broadcast over 4KQ at prime broadcasting time, to the disgust of our supporters, Australian Democratic Labor Party propaganda to this effect: 'Put Vince Gair back, the man you can trust.' The uproar caused in ALP circles in Queensland was considerable. It was suggested to the management of 4KQ that it might allocate reasonable time to the DLP at a less popular time during the day. What will happen when next the DLP applies to Labor station 4KQ in Brisbane for broadcasting time remains to be seen, lt will be seen then at what time DLP propaganda will be broadcast. We question whether a radio station is obliged to broadcast what it considers to be offensive material. No station can be forced to broadcast material it believes to be offensive to its listeners. The DLP propaganda to which I have referred was offensive to a large range of listeners but it could not be argued that it was offensive to all listeners. Therefore the DLP advertisements were broadcast in the manner I have indicated. What is right for one station should be right for other stations. I have here a letter addressed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to **Mr T.** J. Burns, Queensland Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. It states: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. have received your letter of 20th January 1971 concerning a decision of station 4BH not to accept certain political material for broadcasting on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. It is clear that one station in Brisbane refused to accept advertising from the Australian Labor Party, but the Labor station was required to accept advertising from the Democratic Labor Party. I think a radio station has the right to make a decision on what it will broadcast, just as a newspaper has the right to decide which material it will accept for publication. The sooner the Broadcasting and Television Act is amended to provide that right, the better it will bc. Quite a number of matters relating to the operation of radio stations concern us in Queensland. Just before **Senator Hannan** sat down he mentioned that broadcasting stations should be given protection against actions for defamation. If that were so, perhaps they would not be allowed to continue their open line programmes which almost always contain some very wild statements about individuals. I have a letter here which I would like to read into the record. It was sent to **Senator Lionel** Murphy by the Queensland Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. It refers to an area which is of great concern to many people. It states: >As the Senate is debating an amendment to the Broadcasting Control Act it might be possible for you and your senators to raise the question of the open line programmes, and the question of broadcasting station 4BH in Brisbane. The letter goes on to refer to ratbags, an expression I do not use. It continues: >Firstly, on open line, the DLP and a few ratbag groups in Queensland use these programmes rather successfully. The stations that are sympathetic to these groups allow spokesmen from the Party to go on under the name of Josie' 'Daisy', etc., and they attack the Labor Party and the trade unions hour after hour, day after day. Speakers who phone to defend the trade unions or the Labor Party are cut off, and under the delay system, the announcer has complete control over what is said. It has been known in Brisbane for deliberate lies and blatant untruths to be used consistently on these programmes. When you contact the station in relation to these matters they refuse to even supply a transcript or a copy of the Jape - e.g.. I attach a photostat copy of correspondence from the particular station. > >In Brisbane have a woman by the name of **Mrs Gabby** Horan running an Open Line programme. She bus been a Liberal candidate and a CMO candidate for the Council. Whilst running an Open Line programme (and acting as Chairman of the Housewives Association) she advertises products in the paper under her recommendation, and. of course, solicits advertising from business houses for her programme. So you can imagine what sort of a fair ilea) the housewife gets. > >We have another. Greg O'Dwyer, who was a Liberal candidate against Manfred Cross, and his blasts against the Labor Party and the Unions are as vicious as one would expect from such a candidate. > >I believe there should be some protection under the Broadcasting Act to guard against the vicious libels th.it are pui forward on these programmes. The stations should bc responsible for the material they allow people to broadcast. If they are not prepared to accept the responsibility they should close down the Open Line programmes. With that I agree. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- They ought to close down the Labor Hour in Victoria, because in that programme they used to refer to me as a monkey, a thief and a liar. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- What was that? {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- The 'Labor Hour' programme in Victoria referred to me on one occasion as a monkey, a thief and a liar. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- If that was the case- {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- You are getting very puritan about what other people do. You had belter look at your own glass house. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)** - **Senator Georges,** 1 think you had belter return to the contents of the Bill. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- In fairness to **Senator Little** I would say that he had the right to lake action against that station for the words used. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- They would not give us the script. You have put your finger on the key. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- That supports the case I am making at present. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- But you said you would close down 3KZ. Why the difference? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I did not say that the authorities should close down 3KZ, 4KQ, 4BH or any other station. I am saying that these Open Line' programmes by which unidentified people can ring up a station and broadcast over a wide area these very savage, libellous and defamatory comments should not be permitted. The 'Open Line' programmes are wide open for the making of defamatory statements. The radio stations accept no responsibility. If honourable senators like to listen to some of the stationS in Brisbane they will hear evidence time after time of plants by certain political parties aimed at embarrassing another political party. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- That is what von are always doing in the Senate. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- You ought to be embarrassed about what von put up in this place. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- For the benefit of **Senator Marriott,** my purpose here is to embarrass the Government as often as possible. My task is made easy from time to time on a variety of subjects and on a variety of attitudes. This Government merely exists, as I have said from time to time, not because of its virtues or the strength of its policies but .because of the support that it receives at every election from the Democratic Labor Party although it sneers at thai Parly from lime to time. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- You would like to have that support. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I would not accept the support of the Democratic Labor Party even if it was given to me. If it was offered I would refuse it if I could. In any case, that is purely hypothetical. It is perfectly obvious that the Government accepts the support of the Democratic Labor Party on every occasion. {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator Sim: -- What did you do in New South Wales? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Who wants lo imagine that the support for the Liberal Party in New South Wales would be so weak that our primaries would pass on to the Democratic Labor Party and increase its numbers in this place? The honourable senator should search out the facts. Excuse me, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** but I must make this point: If our preferences had been given to the Australia Party in New South Wales the result of that election would have been exactly the same. But I ask: Why complain? The Government needs the support of the Democratic Labor Party. It was obvious tonight when several votes were taken. The Government got the support of the Democratic Labor Party. It is perfectly obvious also that the Government carries out the demands of the Democratic Labor Party. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)** - Order! Having made that explanation, **Senator Georges,** I think you should return to the Bill. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- The point made by the author of this letter is that stations should be responsible for the material they allow people to broadcast. If they are not prepared to accept this responsibility they should close down these shows.I was not suggesting, as **Senator Greenwood** tried to insinuate, that the stations should be closed down; I was saying that the 'Open Line' programmes should be discontinued, and that is fair enough. These programmes have descended to the lowest of all levels. This letter continues: >In relationto Station 4BH, this Station was commenced by a man named Chandler, one of the founders of the Liberal Party in Queensland and a former Lord Mayor of Brisbane for twelve years. This station refused to broadcast Labor Party propaganda. I am not suggesting that it should not be permitted to do this, but why force the Labor Party station to accept Democratic Labor Party propaganda? {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- They are so hungry for the dough that they could not knock it back. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: **- Mr Acting Deputy President,** if I am not allowed to continue my remarksI will be accused of trying to keep this debate going until the Senate adjourns. I am not stonewalling, but that will be suggested. I have never been accused of doing that before and I would not like to have to withstand that charge tonight. I want to proceed because I think this letter should be placed on record in its entirety. The author continued: >The present Postmaster-General was a Director of this Station. When he was defeated in 1961 he returned to the Directorship, and when he won his Seat back in 1963 he resigned as a Director. I think he is probably still closely connected with the Station. The Manager of 4BH is a-- The author here uses a term whichI will not use. He states that the Minister is something 'of the first order' and continues: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . viciously anti/Labor, and I attach copies of correspondence in relation to the current fight with them which is self explanatory. I have other letters which have been given to me. I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard rather than read through the whole file. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)** - Is leave granted? {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- No. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Leave is not granted. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I appreciate that refusal. I have a letter addressed to **Mr J.** A. McNamara, Secretary, Australian Broadcasting Control Board, 373 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- What is the date of the letter? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- It is dated 20th January 1971. It states: >Dear **Mr McNamara,** > >Thank you for your letter of 30th December referring to my previous correspondence of 17th November and 14th December. 1970, on Radio Station 4BH, Brisbane. > >WhilstI realise the Broadcasting Control Board apparently has little interest in enforcing these regulations,I am bitterly disappointed at your Board's reply to whatI believe was a deliberate attempt by a Station to refuse political matter because of the Management's political bias. > >Your Board has accepted the Manager's word that he refused our advertising because the commercials were in bad taste and could, in fact, be libellous. As legal advice was obtained that this was not so, his argument cannot stand up. > >The argument becomes weaker when every other Station accepts the advertisements even with 4BH's manager's biassed report attached. > >It would appear to me that your decision means that any Station Manger can now say that political advertising is either libellous or in bad taste, in his opinion, and refuse to accept them. Under these circumstances we could scrap the Act and allow Managements to determine the political view of this country. > >I, for one, and my Party are not preparedto accept such a decision. > >I ask your Board to reconsider, as this is a most important matter of principle and a matter that cannot be decided in such an off-hand way. > >Yours faithfully, > >J. Burns, Secretary I hope **Senator Greenwood** will excuse me for reading this file from the front to the back. I am certain we can get the progression of the material in this way. 1 have a letter here from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board dated 30th December 1970. lt states: >Dear **Sir,** > >I refer to your letters of 17th November 1970 and 14th December 1970, concerning a decision of station 4BH not to accept certain political material for broadcasting on behalf of the Australian Labor Parly. > >The Hoard has consulted the Manager of station 4BH on your complaint. The Manager has submitted the following explanation of the incident: > >On the Tuesday, prior to the final Wednesday on which we were allowed to broadcast political matter, we received an additional booking for the ALP. Recorded copy was submitted to (his station for Federation approval. I am currently Queensland State Chairman of the Federation of Commercial Broadcasters, and the staff executive to whom I have entrusted the job of approving recordings on behalf of the Federation brought the commercials to my attention. He was concerned because he felt these particular commercials were in bad taste and could, in fact, be libellous. My decision as Chairman of FAC!) was to affix the Federation Stamp to the recording, but in addition, I sent a note for the attention of Station Managers suggesting that they should carefully examine the disc because, although the commercials were recorded in accordance with Federation standards as to time and wordage. I felt thai individual Managers should make then own decision whether they should be broadcast. My own decision was that we would not broadcast the commercials in the form presented to us, and we advised the Agency accordingly. The Agency contacted me and 1 suggested a slight revision, which was nol acceptable lo them lt is of interest to note that the suggestion I made, or words to that effect, were used in the press advertisement which appeared the ner day on behalf of the ALP. At no stage did we refuse lo accept a booking on behalf of the ALP, but I considered it my duty as Stale Chairman to question the suitability of the copy. If we had been supplied with acceptable copy, obviously we would have been more than happy to broadcast the scheduled commercials. In the absence of acceptable copy, we had no alternative but lo cross the announcement.; ofl' our schedule. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- The honourable senator ought to get somebody decent to write his copy. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Incidentally, the firm was Garnsey. Greene & Clemenger. The honourable senator is not questioning their standards, is he? {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- We do nol employ them. We have somebody else. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- What firm does the honourable senator employ in Melbourne? {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- We are not letting the honourable senator into that secret. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- The letter continues: >The General Manager's letter explains the circumstances referred to in your letter of 14th December 1970. that the material although broadcast by other stations was not accepted for broadcasting by 4BH. lt also explains the contact which the Manager of 4BH had wilh other stations in the matter. > >The Board notes your view that the broadcasting of the material by other stations tended to suggest that questions of libel or bad taste did not arise. However, the decision on such aspects must be a personal one for each Manager, lt docs not appear thai there was any political discrimination in view of the acceptance by 4BH of other advertising for the Party and the offer made in the particular case lo broadcast amended copy. lt appears to the Board that the Manager of 4BH acted within his perogatives and thai there would not be justification for any action by Hie Board. In future the advice I would give to radio station 4KQ is that when the Australian Democratic Labor Party submits any advertising it is for the manager to determine that he considers it libellous. In that situation the Australian Broadcasting Control Board would support the management of 4KQ in refusing the commercial. From my point of view and the point of view of most members of the Australian Labor Party the DLP commercials have been, perhaps, in bad taste and libellous. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has laid down the guidelines for radio stations when they are given political matter which they do not wish to broadcast. They only have to say that they consider the commercials to be libellous and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will accept that decision by the station. This is convenient for us. The other letters merely lead up lo the letters from which I have quoted. In fairness to the Senate 1 shall take no further time except to reiterate the point I made earlier. In the past the Australian Labor Party has been able to receive the benefit of 5 licences. Throughout the country the interests which support the Government have been able to obtain both television and radio licences which have enabled them to broadcast in the interests of the Government Parties to such an extent that the Australian Labor Party has had difficulty in matching those efforts. It is practically impossible through 5 stations to match the efforts of 114 stations. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- How does the honourable senator think we got on? We do not have any. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- The answer to that question is fairly clear. Not only is the honourable senator not deserving of any but, as **Senator Cant** has said, the honourable senator's Party obviously does not need them because money flowed into the funds of the DLP in quite a considerable quantity. If I were one of the great vested interests in this country which was determined not to see the Australian Labor Party in power and I were faced with the decision of where to make a donation to a political party prior to the Senate election I would not make it to the Australian Country Party because it was so discredited. I would not make it to the Liberal Party- {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- The honourable senator is talking rubbish. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Does the honourable senator question the fact that the number of votes the Australian Country Party received shows that the Party is discredited? They have been slipping away substantially. Many of its supporters in the country areas are now supporting the bogus organisation called the League of Rights. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- I ask the honourable senator not to let interjections mislead him. I thought he was going to get the vested interests to promise us a donation. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- As I said. I would not give the donation to the Australian Country Party. I certainly would not give it to the Liberal Party but I would give it to the Party which would give me the greatest political dividend and that would be the Australian Democratic Labor Party. It has been stated that in Queensland the DLP paid $17,000 to one television station. It would be interesting to find out whether the Commonwealth Electoral Act were contravened in some way. I am told that a similar effective programme was launched in Victoria in support of **Senator McManus.** Let us face the situation. Whether it be the great medical benefit funds, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, the great mining industries or the manipulators on the share market, if they are seeking to obtain a return for their money in this instance they should donate to the DLP. Of course the result would be to their advantage because they would keep the Australian Labor Party in opposition for as long as they possibly could. Do not let anyone in the Liberal Party consider that it . came out of the last election or the previous election with any credit. They should not expect to come out of the election which is likely to be held next year with any credit. It is obvious that the Acts and regulations which control the television and radio broadcasting stations in Australia are in need of review. I trust that in the near future close scrutiny will be given to these Acts and that they will be amended and improved. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 266 {:#debate-56} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-56-0} #### Aboriginals - Illegal Entry of Seamen {: #subdebate-56-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate. I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-56-0-s1 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland -- I want to refer briefly to some problems in Queensland associated wilh the current discriminatory Act applying to Aboriginals. Torres Strait Islanders and others. I shall refer to 3 specific cases because I believe that these highlight the injustices that have been done to these people. I cite the cases of **Mrs McAvoy, Mr Vincent** Starlight and a baby, Inez Walton. I refer firstly to the case of Vincent Starlight who has been prevented - I will elaborate on this in a moment - from visiting his wife or children for about 3 years. On 2nd February I wrote to the Manager of the Palm Island Reserve seeking permission for Vincent Starlight to be allowed to visit the Island. By 17th February I had not received a reply from the Manager, so T forwarded a telegram asking whether the visit could be arranged. The next day I received a telegram from the Manager saying that **Mr Starlight** could not visit his wife because she did not wish to see him. On 18th February I sent an urgent telegram to the Director, Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs, **Mr Killoran,** in these words: >Manager Palm Island Reserve has again refused brief visit to Palm Island to Vincent Starlight. This man has been refused access to his children foi 3 years and now in grave danger of becoming dangerous psychiatric case. Urgently request that he be granted access to island for brief visit and under supervision if necessary. I have not yet received a reply to that telegram which was forwarded 5 or 6 days ago. I appeal to the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin),** who represents in this chamber the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Wentworth),** to intervene for the sake of humanity and to protect these people from this atrocious Act. I shall say more about the Director and the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs in a moment. The Minister for Housing will recall that in this chamber a few days ago, she was able to give me a reply to a question I asked about last June. I asked whether **Mrs McAvoy** was banned from Palm Island because she appeared on a television programme and criticised the management of the Act. The Minister for Housing said: >Confirmation has been received from the Manager. Palm Island, that **Mrs McAvoy** has not been refused permission to enter Palm Island at any time . . . **Mrs McAvoy** decided to leave Palm Island on a permanent basis some time ago. The reason why she left Palm Island was that her son had commenced employment on the mainland because, allegedly, he was no longer under the Act. He could not visit his mother and other members of the family. For the record, **Mrs McAvoy** is a widow. She had no alternative but to leave the Island and to seek accommodation on the mainland. Two witnesses know that permission to visit the Island has been refused because of her appearance on television. I regret that 1 cannot believe the story told by the Queensland authorities. I propose to speak from copious notes so that afterwards there will be no suggestion that I have said something other than that which I proposed to say. I selected these 3 cases because they were fair samples of probably 1.000 other cases not only on this reserve but on every other reserve over which the Queensland Government has control. I accuse the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, **Mr Hewitt,** and the Director of the Department, **Mr Killoran,** of monstrous behaviour in relation to Aboriginals on Government reserves in that State. I appeal to the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs and to his Department to intervene in order to have Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders treated as human beings and not as animals. Under the terms of the Queensland Act, residents on reserves can be moved around at will by the representatives of the Director. This is not the fault of the reserve employees. They are merely victims of a system which is reminiscent of the laws being practised in those parts of the world where slavery is still known. Vincent Starlight, the gentleman to whom I referred earlier, is a former resident of the Palm Island reserve. He has been forbidden access to his children for 3 years. The allegation is that he does not get on with his wife. No white man would tolerate this kind of treatment. For alleged misdeamours he had previously served 2 terms of solitary confinement, each of 6 months duration, on Punishment Island. He was never sent there by an Australian court. The punishment was imposed under the Act. His wife has told both myself and an Aboriginal pastor, Pastor Don Brady, on different occasions and in recent weeks that she would like to see him. The management says that she does not want to see him - obviously at the behest of the Director. Vincent Starlight is now a broken man urgently in need of medical and psychological treatment. He should be allowed to see his children. If his behaviour is as alleged by departmental officers, surely he could see his family under the supervision of responsible people. The second case concerns baby Inez Walton who died in Townsville General Hospital a few weeks ago from the effects of pneumonia. Virus pneumonia, I think, was the term that the doctor used. According to the findings of a post mortem examination, the baby also had a history of diarrhoea. Had Inez lived in a white community she would have been alive today. Ten days before her tragic death I visited the family on Palm Island, with two other people, and baby Inez was a happy, squirming little 2 months old but was being fed on powdered milk and water from a stubby beer bottle. The tiny hut in which the family lives has insufficient space for them to exist in even semihygenic conditions. The mother and father love their children but, on a wage below subsistence level - about §36 a fortnight - it is just not possible to provide adequately for them. The hut has no hot water and no proper sterilisation facilities and it is not possible, on the inadequate wage, for babies to be provided with the diet they so urgently need at this stage of life. No 2- year-old child on Palm Island has ever drunk fresh milk. When the baby died, the mother expressed a desire to have the body placed at rest in the Townsville cemetery and wanted her husband and elder son present at the funeral. Callously, departmental officers gave seats on flights between the Island and the mainland lo shoppers and others. No seats were available for the bereaved father and his son. A complaint was lodged at my office. In a matter of minutes a charter flight was arranged. The cost, S23 or so, had to be paid by the mother from her quarterly endowment cheque of a little over $50. She said to me, in tears, in my office: 'I want them at the funeral. We shall just have to go without food'. The child endowment money was spent because departmental officers callously failed to arrange means of transport for the father and the elder brother to go to the funeral. This monstrous system of dealing with human beings must end, but 1,000 more children on Queensland reserves will die in similar circumstances to those which surrounded the death of Inez while the Queensland Department pontificates and denies human justice. The recent exposition of immorality and drinking on Palm Island is probably true, but is it not more important that we ensure the chance of life for babies on this reserve, and every other reserve in Queensland, and justice for the adults who, by bureaucratic processes, are refused permission even to visit wives, families and other relatives, sometimes for a period of years? Immorality and illegal drinking are not a cause for concern in themselves. The cause of these things is the degrading system under which people are forced to live. A paternalistic government treats black people as animals, locking them up at will, deciding where they shall live, refusing them the opportunity of employment, and then, in those cases where subsistence is granted, making available a weekly wage less than half the wage for which a white man would work. I ask the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs to make urgent representations and, if necessary, drastic intervention to save the lives of human beings, lt does not matter what the colour of one's skin is - whether it is black or white - one should not be discriminated against. If further evidence is needed, 1 can produce from my files large numbers of cases similar to these. I could tell honourable senators about John Logan, who is having a breakdown in his health because of the drastic methods which have been used to keep him apart from his wife and family over a period of years. They get together now and again but there are always problems. I could tell honourable senators about Tan Mi Mi. Tt is true that somewhere along the line fan probably did not do the right thing, but there is no reason why his personal freedom should be restricted. If one indulges in fist fighting or assault the laws of this country can be applied but offenders should not he forbidden to see their families, particularly their children. Starlight's children are now of school age but he has not seen them for some years. Tt is pathetic to see the actions of this man from lime to time. J appreciate that he drinks, but would not others drink if they were frustrated in doing the things they wanted to do? I certainly would. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Who has forbidden him to see his children? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- He has been forbidden by the Director or by those to whom the powers of the Director have been delegated. These powers are provided in this Act which is being applied so rigidly on every reserve in Queensland. T shall come here on another occasion with a hundred documented cases if no action is taken in regard to the matters I have have raised. I think that this is a glaring example of inequality and a glaring example of inhumanity by the Director and the Minister in my own State of Queensland. This has to be stopped before more people are murdered under this rotten Act. {: #subdebate-56-0-s2 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- In returning to the attack tonight I again direct my remarks to the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin),** who represents the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Lynch)** in this chamber. Honourable senators will recall that last week - on 17th February - 1 sought to elicit information about why Australia did not have a consistent policy in regard to the various people who are not immigrants but who seek permanent residence in this country. Honourable senators will recall that I instanced the case of 2 Lebanese seamen who found conditions on a Greek tanker to be so intolerable that they deserted. On the last occasion 1 raised the matter the Minister for Housing read a reply from the Minister for Immigration in which he more or less sheltered behind the policy of adopting a rigid attitude to what he called a high degree of ship desertions. When it was announced in the Press the next day that 2 Russian seamen had been given sanctuary - a decision which I did not dispute but which to my mind illustrated the very inconsistency about which f had spoken - I again raised the matter with the Minister for Housing. In her reply on behalf of the Minister for Immigration she said it was correct that as a general rule seamen who deserted overseas ships were deported. She went on to say that such a policy was essential as a deterrent to this form of entry without permits. The Minister also said that desertions by Greek seamen in particular had been too numerous. Apparently this was the basis of the rejection by the Minister for Immigration of the request by these 2 Lebanese seamen for political asylum in Australia. I took the trouble last week to do further research into the subject. I have in front of me the 'Free Trade Union News', a publication of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organisations. It substantiates all that I have said about the deterioration of industrial conditions anywhere the Greek Government has any influence. Obviously its maritime fleet - its tankers in particular - exemplify all I have said. I do not think it is necessary to go into a long dis course on an article which appears in this publication. I think it is sufficient to say that it refers to bad relations with the International Labor Organisation and the general opinion of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions on this subject. It substantiates the criticisms I have made of the treatment of these 2 Lebanese seamen. Whatever inhibitions I may have had about going on with this matter were abandoned when I read a very informative article in the "Sydney Morning Herald* several days ago on refugees. This article pointed out that the Petrov's are the only people who have been given political sanctuary in this country. Everybody else has, more or less, been given what is called permanent domicile. The article went on further to enumerate the people who had been granted this privilege. I do not criticise the Minister for Immigration for the decision he has made in these cases, but I think that it is interesting to refer to them. They include a former Consul-General for Czechoslovakia and a minor Czech Consul official. Also included are such people as ballet dancers from Prague, a Ukrainian stewardess and of course the 2 Russian seamen 1 have mentioned. This brings me to the $64 question that has never been answered. If we have a policy of granting clemency to victims of extreme left wing governments why do we not have a parallel clemency for people who are the victims of totalitarian right wing governments, such as those of Spain. Portugal and Greece. The Minister has been unable, up to this point of time, to come up with a parallel list of names of people who have been victims of these governments and say: 'Well, we have a pretty broad policy. This is what we have done in this regard'. This is the point I agitated on last week. As I told the Senate, I spoke to representatives of the Lebanese community in Sydney about this subject. They said to me: 'You have already proved that our seamen were victims of a very vicious form of authoritarianism on this Greek tanker. Therefore, why did the Minister not give them the same latitude as he gave the Russians?' This was not a question of sour grapes. All they were asking was why their seamen were not given the same clemency as the Russians. A parallel system of values is involved. This is the criticism that I again voice. Why is the Minister sheltering under some legal subterfuge? He should be firm. I again point out that the article to which 1 referred earlier indicates that, as far back as 23rd November 1957, 8 European countries met at The Hague and drew up a statute which is known as the Refugee Seamen's Agreement. With all our pious platitudes about a fair play policy for people who have been persecuted we find that 13 years later we have apparently done nothing in this particular regard. I certainly do not have any illusions about my legal ability, but I would think that if we are able lo bend things a little bit in regard to the people 1 have enumerated we should be able to do the same for the 2 Lebanese seamen. 1 do not argue that ever)' seaman who deserts a ship has been a victim of political persecution, but do not tell me that in the countries I have mentioned - Spain, Portugal and Greece - there could not be the equivalent of the political pressure that there is in the countries of the people who have been given sanctuary in Australia. 1 am worried about the Government's failure to maintain any form of balance, lt is no use adopting an Alice in Wonderland attitude, closing our eyes and saying that desertions do not exist because the tempo of desertions is going to increase. Progressive Greeks. Lebanese seamen and other non-Greek seamen who sign on Greek vessels will all be victims of the present unsatisfactory situation, lt is also probable that there will be, for the want of a better term, Asian victims of persecution seeking sanctuary in Australia. These people may come from, for example, West Irian. I do not want to go into the merits of the While Australia policy. I merely want to point out that the Government will no doubt get requests for political sanctuary in Australia from people who have run foul of the present government in Indonesia. I do nol have a particularly hard attitude towards the present government in Indonesia nor was I an admirer of Sukarno. I am merely dealing solely with principles. 1 have been unable to ascertain from the Minister for Immigration any case in which seamen such as the Lebanese seamen have been, as it were, taken into the bosom of this country and given sanctuary. Last week when 1 spoke about this matter J cited the British Home Office as an example which I think we should emulate. 1 quoted the case of a young Spanish student who had extreme trepidation about going back to his own country in view of his anti-Franco utterances and attitude. There are quite a number of Spaniards in Australia who, because they have been identified at demonstrations outside of the Spanish Embassy, have been equated with Marxism. 1 ask 3 questions of the Minister: Firstly, when can I get a list of the people who were victims of governments of the right and who were given assistance in Australia? Secondly, what is the reason for the Government being so dilatory in becoming party to the refugee seamen's agreement which was formulated in 1957? Why do we feel that we have to be extra legal to avoid giving offence to the Greek Government? Thirdly, there was gross discrimination against the Lebanese seamen and the Lebanese community has said: The Minister now has had his pound of flesh'. Are the 2 seamen who have been deported to carry permanently the mark of Cain or can they line up in the queue and seek admission to Australia? lt will be only paltry redress if they are allowed to come back. {: type="A" start="I"} 0. feel very strongly about this. I believe there is a gross sense of partisanship in the way in which we evaluate applications from people who want sanctuary. Obviously this is a matter on which **Mr Lynch** will have to make a decision but I should like specific answers to the first and second questions and, in relation to the third question dealing with the readmission of the 2 Lebanese seamen, I feel 1 should get something clear cut on their prospects of coming back to Australia as bona fide migrants. The idea of economy in Government circles is prevailing and I should like to know about other seamen who have been deported. They probably have been flown out of Australia J am curious to know whether the shipping companies concerned have to reimburse us the cost of the fares or whether the trip is on the house. If the latter were the case we would have the Gilbertian situation of those men coming back as migrants. The Minister no doubt remembers the case of the Dalmatian seamen who came back as migrants. I was happy to have them back but it seems to me that we have a rather peculiar attitude if our own Treasury has to pay the fares and then we bring the people back through the other door to meet an outmoded concept of an immigration programme. I leave it on that basis hoping to get specific answers to the 3 questions I have raised. {: #subdebate-56-0-s3 .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP (10.53) - I shall refer the matters raised by **Senator Keeffe** to the Minister in charge of Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Wentworth)** whom I represent in this chamber. The honourable senator has given us a very long list of problems which face people on Palm Island and in North Queensland. We all listened with concern because of the problems facing them. I. am unable to give any answer to him in relation to them, as he would be well aware. 1 did answer a question regarding **Mrs McEvoy** the other day but he has queried part of that answer from the Minister. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- I did not disbelieve you. I know you got that information from the Minister. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- Yes. You did query part of the answer. The points the honourable senator has now raised are very important and I assure him that I will take them up with the Minister, **Mr Wentworth,** discuss them with him and get what information I can for the honourable senator. I shall place before the Minister the strong case the honourable senator has made. **Senator Mulvihill** has raised the matter of deserting seamen on another occasion. He discussed the conditions for crew members on Greek ships. The Department of Immigration is unable to give any information about conditions for crew members on Greek ships but I think **Senator Cotton,** who represents the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Mr Nixon)** will have some information for the honourable senator. He implied that Greek seamen had been deserting only since the present regime came to power in Greece, or rather he felt that that was so in large measure. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- I said the tempo had increased. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- I have some figures here which are rather interesting. First of all, let me tell the honourable senator that Greek seamen have been deserting in large numbers for many years - well before the present regime came to power in Greece in 1967. The figures I have show that in 1963 there were 540 desertions, in 1964 there were 891, in 1965 there were 582, in 1966 there were 325, in 1967 there were 349 - I think that was the year in which the new regime came to power in Greece - in 1968 there were 323, in 1969 there were 464 and to 30th September 1970 there were 345. Those are rather large numbers of desertions and the majority of them occurred well before the period the honourable senator mentioned. The majority of deserters have had residence in. Australia as their main objective, wishing to avoid normal migration procedures and costs. The Minister for Immigration believes that this kind of malpractice clearly has to be discouraged or it will become more prevalent in the future. It is in Australia's interest as an exporting and importing nation, and in the interests of other maritime nations, to discourage a high desertion rate which can be detrimental to shipping movements. The figures indicate that that could be so, and the points made by the Minister are valid and important. It is true, as **Senator Mulvihill** has said and as I have said on previous occasions, that the Minister for Immigration exercises discretion to allow deserters to remain on humanitarian grounds, but obviously if shipboard conditions are bad the remedy lies elsewhere, not in condoning the practice of desertion by seamen from their ships in Australia. The honourable senator has raised 3 points. First of all, he wants a list of people who have been allowed to stay in Australia. I will put that to the Minister. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- I specified 3 countries - Spain, Portugal and Greece. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- Very well. I do not know what information 1 can get but I will take up the request. The honourable senator asked about the refugee seamen's agreement. I shall get what information I can on that. He asked also whether a seaman who had been deported from Australia could apply to come hack to Australia. SenatorMulvihill - I specified the 2 Lebanese who were the basis of my original complaint. How do they stand? {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- It would be improper for me, without consulting the Minister to give an answer concerning 2 people because I do not know enough about the case, but the overall picture is that deserting seamen deported from Australia are not prevented from migrating to Australia subsequently if they can meet normal immigration requirements. That is why I cannot give an answer regarding 2 particular people. I would not know whether they could meet normal immigration requirements or not. I hope that what I have said will be helpful in answering the queries the honourable senator has raised.I will endeavour to get answers to the other questions. {: #subdebate-56-0-s4 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP -- Some notes were passed to me late this evening because it was felt that they might aid **Senator Mulvihill** and **Senator Dame** Annabelle Rankin who in this chamber represents the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Lynch).** I shall put them on the record so that if the honourable senator feels that they might generate further inquiries he can come to me. Although the Department of Shipping and Transport has an obligation in relation to the seaworthiness of all vessels when sailing from an Australian port, it has no responsibilities in relation to the working and living conditions of seamen on foreign vessels. Whilst the Navigation Act is concerned with matters of discipline and living conditions on Australian or other British ships, matters which are policed through the departmental mercantile marine offices, on foreign vessels these aspects are the concern of the consul of the country involved. The manning of Greek vessels is a matter of concern of the Department only in cases where there are likely to be so few persons on board that the vessel cannot be navigated with safety. In such circumstances the vessel could be detained under the provisions of the Commonwealth Navigation Act, but the usual practice is to notify the Greek Consul and request him to ensure that the vessel is suitably manned before it sails. Greece is a signatory country to the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea I960, and the Department checks that current internationally valid certificates are held on visiting Greek vessels. Such certificates relate to the efficiency and adequacy of the radio and life saving equipment and the hull and machinery of the vessel. Greece retains a mariner on the staff of its consulate in Sydney, designated as Officer-in-Charge of Maritime Matters, who deals with all Greek shipping matters in Australia. It is of interest to note that Greece subscribes to the International Labour Organisation and has ratified many of (he conventions appertaining to conditions on board ship and the welfare of its seamen. The Department of Shipping and Transport considers that the motivating influence for desertion is not the conditions on Greek vessels but rather the differences that exist between Greek and Australian living conditions ashore. Question resolved in the affirmative.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 February 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710223_senate_27_s47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate23 February 1971

QUESTION

ABATTOIRS

Senator DEVITT:TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

EYRE HIGHWAY

Senator LAUCKE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator MURPHY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator BULL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS

Senator WILLESEE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

CANBERRA: LAND RENTS

Senator BUTTFIELD:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Senator McMANUS:VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

Senator DAVIDSON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

LAUNCESTON-BELL BAY RAILWAY

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Senator YOUNG:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

PEARS

Senator WEBSTER:VICTORIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator WRIEDT:TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS

Senator BUTTFIELD:

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Senator BYRNE:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GEORGES:QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE EXTENSIONS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

MOBILE POLLING BOOTHS

Senator MILLINER:QUEENSLAND

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Senator WEBSTER:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POYSER:VICTORIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator KENNELLY:VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Kennelly:

The PRESIDENT:

Senate
23 February 1971

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

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

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP