Senate
15 March 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

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

page 477

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL AND DEPARTMENTAL CHANGES AND ARRANGEMENTS

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

– by leave - I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). WheneverI use the first person singular personal pronoun honourable senators will understand thatI am referring to the Prime Minister.

I wish to inform the Senate that on 10th March, consequent on the resignation of the Right Honourable J. G. Gorton as Prime Minister, His Excellency the GovernorGeneral commissioned me, as the newly elected leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, to form a Ministry. On my recommendation the Right Honourable J. G. Gorton was sworn as Minister for Defence on 1 0th March. Pending the formation of the new MinistryI shall continue as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

On 12th March the Prime Minister’s Department and the Department of the Cabinet Office were abolished and 2 new departments were created in their place. They are the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. The new Department of the VicePresident of the Executive Council will undertake a number of functions previously located in the Prime Minister’s Department and in the Treasury. It will be responsible for a wide range of matters. With the concurrence of honourable senators the list of functions which have already been approved for the Department are incorporated in Hansard.

National Library

Archives

Australian Government Publishing Service, including the Government Printing Office

Council of Aboriginal Affairs

Institute of Aboriginal Studies

Office of the Environment

Film and Television Training School

World Expositions

Commonwealth Literary Fund

Art Advisory Board

National Gallery

Historic Memorials Committee

Council of Performing Arts

Assistance to Performers Advisory Board

Grants to National Organisations

National Radiation Advisory Committee

The allocation to the Department of certain other functions is being examined. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Alan Hulme) will answer questions in the House on matters for which this Department will be responsible. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Sir Kenneth Anderson, will answer such questions in the Senate.

page 477

QUESTION

THE PRIME MINISTER

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate give some explanation of the unprecedented events which have occurred in the last week, by which a Prime Minister who waselected by the people of Australia has been replaced as Prime Minister by a person whom the Liberal and Country parties were not prepared to put forward to the people at the last Federal election as the prospective Prime Minister?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI should imagine that Senator Murphy would be well informed of the circumstances of last week; he is singularly lacking in his reading if he is not informed about them. The fact of the matter, is that we now have a new Prime Minister who was elected strictly in accordance with the constitutional provisions of the Parliament and of the Commonwealth. I am certain that the Government parties will demonstrate their great loyalty to the new Prime Minister. Honourable senators opposite are interjecting. They do not like this. I am equally certain that when the time conies to face the electors the Party led by the Prime Minister will have an overwhelming victory.

page 477

QUESTION

WINE

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise been drawn to statements reported in the weekend Press to have been made by Mr Harry Palmer, General Manager of the Australian Wine Board, and Mr Elton Johnson, Chairman of the Renmark Growers Distillery, in which they expressed alarm at repercussions of the incidence of the 50c a gallon wine tax? They stated that the excise is crippling the previously prosperous South Australian wine industry. Is the Minister aware that the Renmark Growers Distillery, a grape growers’ co-operative organisation, and the fourth largest winery in Australia, processing about 20,000 tons of grapes a year and providing an outlet for the vintages of about 400 grower members, has experienced an actual drop in sales of about 30 per cent since the imposition of the tax? As 1 am advised that some other wineries have experienced a 50 per cent drop in sales, quite apart from the normally anticipated annual growth in demand, will the Minister request the Minister for Customs and Excise to consider immediately the abolition of the tax?

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

– I noted in this morning’s Press the reports referred to by the honourable senator concerning the excise on wine and a reported drop in the sales of wine. I therefore asked the responsible Minister to provide me with some information. He has furnished a brief note pointing out that he as the Minister for Customs and Excise is responsible for the administration of the excise on wine. I think we all understand that. I simply represent my colleague; I do not collect the wine excise myself. The Minister for Customs and Excise assures me that his Department is keeping a close watch on the effects of the wine excise and is in close consultation with representatives of the wine industry. He assures me a’so that he will examine matters that are raised. I am asked by my colleague to request honourable senators to place on the notice paper questions on such matters. 1 therefore ask Senator Laucke to be good enough to place his question on the notice paper.

page 478

QUESTION

POLIOMYELITIS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the serious warning given by the New South Wales Director of Health Services that many poliomyelitis vaccines - including, I believe, Salk vaccine - wane or lose their potency over the years, and that unless further immunisation is effected poliomyelitis could again become a threat to the people of Australia, I ask the Minister, who realises the danger of this dread disease: What is the Commonwealth Department of Health doing, or what is it able to do, to ensure that Australian parents are made aware of the warning? Are sufficient doses of the new

Sabin vaccine available in Australia, particularly for children? Are municipal councils prepared to co-operate, as in the past, in further immunisation procedures? Will the Commonwealth Department of Health advise the Stale Departments of Health of its willingness to engage in a publicity campaign through the Press, radio, television and public notices so- that all Australian parents can be made aware of the serious danger of poliomyelitis to their families?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am very conscious of the Press comments referred to by Senator Fitzgerald. 1 think ail honourable senators are concerned about sufferers from the very , grave illness of poliomyelitis. I have some information which should be of assistance to the honourable senator. Poliomyelitis immunisation campaigns are a matter for State governments. The Commonwealth has a responsibility only in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Continuing campaigns of immunisation against poliomyelitis are being conducted in ail States and Territories. All parents should therefore be aware of the need for immunisation. Adequate stocks of Sabin vaccine are held by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the vaccine is distributed free by the Commonwealth to the States. Since the introduction of Salk vaccine in 1956 the public has been warned repeatedly by all health authorities of the need for immunisation. However, should the States consider that further publicity campaigns are necessary, the Commonwealth would co-operate.

page 478

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether it is a fact that New South Wales wheat growers in past seasons and again this season have been permitted to deliver f.a.q. wheat against hard wheat quotas?

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

– The short answer to the honourable senator’s question is no. The honourable senator may recall that one of the objectives of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation when it put forward its delivery quota proposals in 1969 was to avoid the curtailment of production of types of wheat which could be readily sold. This was the principle behind the proposals for -supplementary quotas for prime hard wheat. These supplementary quotas may not be filled by the delivery of wheat of other descriptions. The figures which I have here in regard to New South Wales show that in the 2 seasons in which quotas have been effective deliveries of prime hard wheat have not been sufficient to fill the quotas. In the 1969-70 season when the quota was 7 million bushels the delivery was 5.8 million bushels. In the season just gone by - that is 1970-71 - the quota of prime hard wheat was 12 million bushels of which 11.3 million bushels were delivered.

page 479

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RENTAL CONCESSIONS

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. What percentage deduction under the telephone rental concession scheme is allowed to eligible aged, invalid and widow pensioners? Does the deduction apply only to the rental portion of the pensioner’s account? Has the percentage deduction been varied following the last increase in telephone charges? If so, to what extent and why? Has- the percentage deduction been previously altered at any time since the introduction of the scheme?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator has asked an important question. I think it proper that . I should obtain a detailed reply for him from the Postmaster-General.

page 479

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Supply whether it is a fact that a West German firm is interested in using the Woomera Rocket Range in South Australia for design purposes for a re-usable manned space craft? If this is so. can the Minister say when the firm is likely to begin operating at Woomera?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Some time ago I sought some information about this matter. In February 1970 Mr Mysliwetz of the West German firm Messer.schmittBolklowBlohm visited Australia to ascertain what work was being conducted here in hypersonic research and to see what the possibilities were for promoting joint Australian-German research in this field. Mr Mysliwetz’s current interest was in the lifting bodies and shapes for vehicles returning to ground from low earth orbit missions. One application for this would be to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration re-usable space shuttle programme. Discussions were held with the Australian National University which has a small hypersonic wind tunnel which can test small models up to mach 20.

Mr Mysliwetz then visited the Department of Supply and the Aero Department of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough which has been involved in this research and certain discussions have taken place. The Department of Supply suggested that if the company were interested it should make representations through the British Government. It was also pointed out that for a programme to commence in Australia late in 1971 it was advisable that the United Kingdom’s agreement in principle be obtained by August 1970 and that an indication of United Kingdom support be received in Australia by 1970. No further approaches have been made and the United Kingdom authorities have not officially raised the matter with my Department. Accordingly, there can now be no question of the tests proposed by the company being carried out during 1971. If I receive, any further information I shall make it available to the Senate.

page 479

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 ask the Minister for Supply whether it is a fact that further retrenchments are likely in the Australian aircraft industry; that about 100 skilled aircraft workers are being retrenched from the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd and that that enterprise will now be based on a production of only 30 per cent capacity? Will the Minister conter urgently with the heads of the departments to ascertain to what extent new work can be given to the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, and re-examine procurements from overseas sources which might be diverted to the Australian industry? Finally, what new plan has the Government to give long term stability to the aircraft industry?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Senator Bishop has asked a very comprehensive question. Perhaps I should give a short answer now and at a later dale give more detail by way of a statement. I received a signal late on Friday afternoon, but I had been informed before then, that the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd proposed to retrench certain workers at its establishment. A figure of 100 has been mentioned. As I understand the situation, the retrenchment of those 100 workers will be phased; the 100 will not be retrenched immediately. On a number of occasions in the Senate I have mentioned that the defence aircraft industry, by its very nature, is subject to fluctuating work loads. We should understand that management must be permitted to adjust its work force to the work load on hand. That is exactly what is happening at CAC. The Government and the industry are doing everything possible to ensure a continuing work load for the industry and to try to smooth out these fluctuations, which are very serious matters particularly for the personnel employed.

The Senate will recall that recently an announcement was made as to the light observation helicopter project. The services will take 75 aircraft. In fact, they will be manufactured here commercially, in conjunction with the Bell company. Most of that work will be done by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation. That was a decision of the Government which was taken perhaps 2 or 3 weeks ago. That is evidence of the Government’s anxiety to preserve the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation as a viable establishment. It has more operatives than either the Government Aircraft Factories or the Hawker company. Offset orders from the United States of America are being actively sought. It is a fact that the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation has received from the Boeing company an order in relation to offset work. As I said at the time, it was not enough; we wanted more. My efforts and the Government’s efforts have been directed towards getting more offset orders. As 1 have explained in the Senate, the Government’s policy is to maintain an efficient defence aircraft industry. However, fluctuations in work load will occur. Unfortunately for those immediately affected, these fluctuations must reflect on the work force employed. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation is making every effort to assist the surplus employees to find suitable alternative employment. I accept what Senator Bishop said. The

Government will help these surplus employees in any way it possibly can. We will be in communication with them.

page 480

QUESTION

APPLE AND PEAR INDUSTRY

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister, representing the Minister for Primary Industry;., fs it a fact that the Government is to proceed with a stabilisation scheme for the apple and pear industry in Australia? Can the Minister inform the Senate as tq the background of negotiations with the t industry which prompted the Government’s move? Will the implementation of this scheme be expected to be of benefit to growers, of apples and pears? What effect will the. proposals have on growers of pears in the Goulburn Valley area of Victoria who at this time are faced with extreme financial hardship because large volumes of fruit have bee,n left to rot due to the inability of processors to reserve slocks for manufacture? ..

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– It is a fact that the Government has announced that an apple and pear scheme will be introduced shortly. It has -been negotiated between the leaders of the industry and the Government. Honourable .senators opposite are interjecting.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Obviously honourable senators do not want to hear the Minister’s answer.

page 480

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My- question is directed to the Minister ‘representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It has nothing to do with the Murray by-election. Is the Minister aware that during the Senate election campaign in November 1970 the Minister for External Territories stated at a public meeting on the Gold Coast, Queensland, that he was not perturbed at the loss of the Chinese market for Australian wheat as in any case we were disposing of only our inferior wheat to that country? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether only inferior grain, which is unsaleable elsewhere, was in fact being sold to mainland China and whether the statement by the Minister for External Territories has contributed to the apparent loss of this market?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– As usual, Senator Keeffe has his facts very mixed up. 1 am not aware of what the Minister for External Territories said. I am aware that the Australian Wheat Board does not sell only inferior wheat to China.

Senator y Byrne:

– lt sells it elsewhere?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That interjection was not funny either. The Australian Wheat Board did sell some wheat which was not in the f.a.q. sample to China. China sought that wheat because it had use for it. So the Australian Wheat Board made a contract. If Senator Keeffe has any objection to that, let him stand up and air that objection.

page 481

QUESTION

CIVIL DEFENCE SCHOOL

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 1 am not quite sure which department of the Commonwealth covers the matter. I ask: Which department of th.2 Commonwealth owns and operates the Civil Defence School at Macedon in Victoria? For what period of the year is the school operative? What numbers and types of personnel are attached to the establishment? ls the school partially selfsupporting or not? If not, could the Senate be advised of the cost of operating the school?

Senator Si» KENNETH ANDERSONI think I should ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice so that I can obtain a precise answer for him. There is some doubt in my mind concerning the relevant department. It is certainly not the department under my jurisdiction. I will provide an answer tomorrow.

page 481

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted with approval the decision of a meeting of the Australian National University student body to dismiss from office the member of the Students Representative Council appointed to supervise the university publication Woroni’? Does the Minister welcome this student endorsement of the recent decision of the Senate calling for a sense of responsibility, a regard for the University’s good name and a rejection of pornography in student journalism?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI can only rely upon what I have read in the

Press about this matter. I did read with a high degree of satisfaction that there had been recognition of the responsible point of view expressed in the Senate. I say no more except that I was pleased, as I am sure everyone was pleased, to know that the points that were made in the Senate and the responsible arguments advanced in this place had an influence for good.

page 481

QUESTION

APPLE AND PEAR INDUSTRY

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr President, will you permit me to readdress to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry the question that I addressed to him previously? I would like an answer to it.

Senator Poyser:

– I rise to order, Mr President. Can a Minister reply to the same question twice in the one question period? The Minister replied to the question and resumed his seat. He said, in effect: ‘Yes, a stabilisation scheme is being introduced.’ That seemed to be the only answer requited to the question. It was obviously a question asked for propaganda purposes. A full statement has been made by the Minis’.er in the Press and has been issued to all members of the Senate. I suggest that this question is out of order because a Minister cannot answer the same question on 7. occasions in the one question period.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is not out of order. Grave discourtesy was shown to the Minister when he was endeavouring to reply previously. I do not approve of the way in which he was treated.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Let me say at the outset that in the Senate I have answered some questions on the same matter 14 times. All I can say to Senator Webster is that there is an apple and pear stabilisation scheme and that it will have the same effect on the apple and pear growers in the Goulburn Valley as it will on growers throughout Australia. At a meeting in Melbourne on 3rd February last the leaders of the apple and pear industry together with growers from the Northern Victoria Fruitgrowers Association met representatives of the Government and discussed this matter. There was some cause for worry so far as the northern growers were concerned but the Government has given an assurance on this point. 1 appreciate that the honourable senator is expressing his concern on behalf of the Northern Victoria Fruitgrowers Association.

page 482

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as representative of the Treasurer. In view of the deep concern of wide sections of the Australian public about current trends in the national economy, will the Minister endeavour to prevail upon his colleague the Treasurer to make a detailed and comprehensive statement to the Parliament on the present state of the economy and thereby provide much needed reassurance to the Australian community that the difficulties being encountered over wide sections of national endeavour are not as serious as they appear to be?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– lt is my understanding that both the Treasurer and the former Prime Minister have made statements in relation to the national economy, but I will take up the point made by the honourable senator to see whether it is intended or desirable, as his advocacy suggests, to make a further statement on the issue.

page 482

QUESTION

RHODESIA

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

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs make a statement to the Senate informing us on the present position in regard to Rhodesia? What has been the effect of sanctions on Rhodesia since the beginning of the Smith regime? If there has been no effect, is it not time that we accepted the status quo and put Rhodesia on the same footing as is South Africa?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator asks that consideration be given to the making of a statement, i gather that he is suggesting that a detailed statement be made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs rather than by myself. I agree that that is the proper way in which to do it. I will raise the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 482

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware that new episodes of the Australian programmes ‘Homicide’ and ‘Division 4’ are being stockpiled by commercial television stations until September next so that the stations concerned can -get credits for such programmes when the new Australian drama quotas come into effect and that old repeats of these productions are now being forced by the stations onto the Australian viewers? Does the Minister agree that if the allegation is correct the commercial licensees, who as late as last week illustrated their influence on the ranks of the present Government, are seriously violating the aim of the quota, which is to secure increased local productions, and that while Australian artists do not receive residual payments for repeat programmes their skills, abilities and talents are being exploited by commercial licensees? Will the Minister refer this matter as one of urgency to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and insist in the public interest and on behalf of those engaged in the television industry that action be taken by the Board to stop any stockpiling that is being indulged in while repeat programmes become the order of the day?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator says that there is stockpiling of programmes while viewers are forced to see repeat programmes. I personally am not aware of this but I shall take the matter up with the PostmasterGeneral and convey to him the honourable senator’s opinions.

page 482

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Has Qantas Airways Ltd recently been refused permission 10 operate a trans-Pacific charter flight by the United Stales Civil Aeronautics Board? If so, what were the reasons’ for the refusal? Does the Government propose any action to ensure that Qantas will be permitted to operate charter flights in the future?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– My only information at present comes from a newspaper report in the ‘Canberra Times’ of Monday, 15th March, lt is reported that the. Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States of America has denied permission to Qantas Airways Ltd to operate a charter flight across the Pacific. No doubt later this afternoon I will receive an official report as to whether this is so. Quantas’s position is quite a simple one as far as the Department of Civil Aviation is concerned. We seek to protect the market share of Qantas, which is owned by the Australian people. The Department tries to ensure that Qantas has equal access to the opportunities that arise. In the past we have had applications from various United Staves airlines to operate more charter flights, but in the view of the Department such flights would have harmed Qantas’s share of the Pacific market. So at all times we look to the maintenance of the present position. If in the process of defending Australia’s interest there is some retaliation by other parties, we will accept it. We will see what it is all about: we will investigate it and see whether we can fix it. But we cannot fix it by giving away our business.

page 483

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Who instructed Commonwealth police officers to come to my home in Perth during the Christmas holiday week to ask questions about an advertisement relating to the National Service Act which hud appeared in the ‘Australian’? What was .the purpose of the visit? Does the Attorney-General or the Commonwealth police intend to take any further action? if so, what action will be taken?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The honourable senator will realise that this question relates to a particular incident. I think I would be wise to check the files before purporting to .- answer any part of the question. 1 will do that.

page 483

QUESTION

SOIL EROSION

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 1 ask: ls the Minister aware whether the Commonwealth Government has received any approach from the Victorian Government for assistance in combating erosion on the foreshores of the Portland area of Victoria? Is the Minister aware that quite serious foreshore erosion has been caused to an area known as Dutton Way and that a number of homes are being threatened with demolition by the sea? ls he aware that a Minister in the Victorian Government is said to have described the Commonwealth Govern ment’s refusal to give financial assistance to fight erosion as a blatant example of the Commonwealth’s efforts to avoid and shed its responsibilities? If no application has in fact been made to the Commonwealth Government would this comment not be inconsistent? As the Commonwealth has offered funds to Queensland to combat foreshore erosion will the Commonwealth consider providing similar assistance to Victoria?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The honourable senator has asked whether requests have been made by the Victorian Government to the Commonwealth Government for assistance to combat soil erosion and whether consideration will be given to providing such assistance. Frankly 1 am not in a position to say whether a formal application has been made, but 1 will seek this information. If the answer to this question is no the second part of the honourable senator’s question will have to be looked at.

page 483

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the relatively high fatality rate among Australian crop dusting pilots due to the failure of the Department of Civil Aviation to police effectively the 900 flying hours per annum ceiling that has been imposed for safety reasons? Does the highly competitive nature of the work cause some employers to falsify log books to circumvent the current annual flying hours limitation? Have any prosecutions been launched against offending employers?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Being conscious as he is and, indeed, as I am of the importance of maintaining a tight control over air safety regulations, the honourable senator was good enough to let me know in advance that he had this question in mind. Accordingly I obtained some information from the Department, which I will give to the honourable senator. However, before doing so I would ask the honourable senator to indicate whether he has any additional comments to make as I would like to have them as well.

Senator Mulvihill:

– My question was based on information 1 received from people in the industry.

Senator COTTON:

– I thank the honourable senator. I understand that there is no evidence which would suggest that fatigue has been a factor in fatal agricultural accidents. An investigation of the 6 fatal accidents which have occurred in agricultural operation since 1968 has produced no evidence of any breach of the flight time limitations. In each case fatigue was not considered to have been a contributing factor. There is also no evidence available to show that the actual hours achieved by pilots engaged in agricultural operations have exceeded the limits set by the Department, so that there has not been any basis on which to launch prosecutions. The fatality rate for agricultural operations in Australia for the 3-year period 1968-70 was approximately 1.7 per 100,000 hours flown. The rate in the United States of America for the 2-year period 1967-68 was 3.4 and in New Zealand for the 2-year period 1968- 69 it was 3.25. Those are the most recent figures available for Australia and the other 2 countries. The comparison between Australia and those 2 countries is very favourable. Nevertheless, if at any time any information is available to honourable senators which will help the Department and myself to keep a tight hand on these operations we would be glad to have it. On the information we have so far we cannot see anything to support the claim which was put to the honourable senator by somebody else.

page 484

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories: Have extra permits been granted to Filipino workers to enable them to work On a road construction project in the New Guinea Highlands? If so, how many permits have been granted and on what grounds have they been granted? What steps had been taken previously to fill these positions with New Guinean workers?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 am not possessed of information about that particular transaction. I shall obtain it for the honourable senator at the earliest opportunity.

page 484

QUESTION

FRUIT

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– My question, addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, refers to a question. I asked on 16th February. It could be suggested that some parts of my question have been answered by recent statements. The 2 parts I wish to raise are as follows:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the disastrous circumstances of the fresh fruit growers in the Harcourt Valley in Victoria? fs the Government aware that grower co-operatives and canneries are paying ordinary overdraft rates of interest on money that is being used to finance these primary producers in their difficulties?

The Minister replied to my question by saying that he was not aware of the details but that he would take the matter up with the Minister and obtain some information. J now ask the Minister: When am I likely to get the information?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I would hope the honourable senator will get it very shortly. I will make inquiries for him.

page 484

QUESTION

COMPANY INVESTMENTS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to an article headed “Funds Scandal’ in Jobson’s Investment Digest of 3rd March relating to an analysis of the Australian Fixed Trust group? This group advertises for public investment and has succeeded in attracting thousands of dollars from small investors. Do the backers of the group list Sir John Hurley, C.B.E., as a director? Are the funds of the group stated to be in excess of Si 00m? Do the assets on the balance sheet include the face value of shares held in bankrupt and near bankrupt companies? In view of the clearly scandalous position disclosed by the article, will the Government ascertain whether the interests of the many thousands of small investors are adequately safeguarded? Does the Government consider that directors whose negligence or downright dereliction of duty is so plainly shown in their failure to detect the shocking position now revealed, or their deliberate acquiescence in a perpetuation of the same, are fit and proper persons to remain in control of such a vast aggregation of the savings of men and women with small resources? Does the Government agree, that there should be some public warning to such investors to the effect that the mere inclusion of a titled person on the directorate of an investment company is no guarantee of the soundness of the investment but that sometimes the position is to the contrary?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I have not seen the article referred to by the honourable senator. 1 would not want to make any comment on the judgment that he obviously has made on the basis of reading something in a Press article. All I can say is that I think he should give me information about the article and let me refer it to the Treasury.

page 485

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: What is the quantity of wool at present stockpiled by the Australian Wool Commission? What percentage of the Australian wool clip sold since Nos-ember 1970 does this represent? What procedure does the Commission intend to adopt to sell this accumulated stock? In what bale quantities will it be sold? Will sales be guaranteed as to type and quality by the Commission?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I do not have all the details. All I can say at this time is that the Australian Wool Commission has announced that it will not sell any of the wool it has bought except when no more of that particular wool is available for the season and except when the buyers negotiate for a particular type of wool that is in short quantity. 1 will seek the rest of the information for the honourable senator and let him have it as soon as possible.

page 485

QUESTION

INCINERATOR AT SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I address a question to the Minister for Works. Is it a fact that a huge incinerator, built in 1968 by the Department of Works at a cost of well over $100,000 at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport, has never been used? Is it a fact that the Department of Civil Aviation refuses to take delivery of the incinerator from the Department of Works until the incinerator becomes operational? Can the Minister say whether, after the original specifications were prepared and tenders were invited, the specifications and tenders were scrapped and new tenders were invited on revised specifications? Will the

Minister provide details of the lowest tender on the first specifications, the tender price accepted on the second specifications, the total amount expended to date on the incinerator and details of when it is likely to raise a spark?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator can be assured that at the earliest possible opportunity I shall provide him with all the details for which he has asked. He referred to some unfortunate experience with the incinerator when specifications failed to provide for the exact type of moisture content involved in the material which was to be treated by the incinerator. That led to some adaptation of the incinerator. From memory my latest advice is that the machine is in operation and is working satisfactorily. However, if I am in error in that I shall get the earliest correction for the honourable senator. I shall be pleased to provide him with all the financial and other details for which he has asked.

page 485

QUESTION

CHERRIES

Senator BISHOP:

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry refers to the reported acceptance by the Government of the Tariff Board report recommending removal of protection against imported cherries. It has been claimed by the growers’ associations that this will threaten the industry and will close down a number of South Australian and Victorian processing plants. It has been claimed that there will be a loss to South Australia of $150,000. Will the Minister, before accepting the report, arrange to meet the growers and the State Ministers who so request, including the South Australian Minister, with a view to considering further action in respect of the Tariff Board report?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I shall need to find out the facts. The normal procedure is for a reference to be made by the Department of Trade and Industry on behalf of the Government to the Tariff Board, for the Tariff Board to take evidence and for everybody to have an opportunity to appear before the Board and give evidence, for a recommendation to be made to the Government and for the Government then to make up its mind to accept or reject the recommendation. I am not informed on the current situation so I cannot give a positive response to the proposal put by Senator Bishop. I shall get the facts as a first step and, once I have them, I shall take the matter on from there.

page 486

QUESTION

MUTIARA I

Senator WILLESEE:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, is the prawn trawler ‘Mutiara V being held under order by fisheries, officers in Darwin? Is this the same trawler which was seized by fisheries officers for 3 days in Karumba in February without any reason being stated? Will the Minister now state the reasons for these 2 seizures?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I saw the report of this incident and I have sought some information on it. I do not appear to have thai information yet, but I shall let the honourable senator have it tomorrow, when perhaps he could ask his question again.

page 486

QUESTION

BRAZIL

Senator GAIR:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs any information on the persecution and imprisonment of members and chaplains of the Young Christian Workers organisation in Brazil? Has the Australian Ambassador in Brazil ever registered an official protest, on behalf of the Australian Government, with the Brazilian authorities about their treatment of YCW personnel? If not, will the Australian Government consider lodging such a protest?

Senator Ssr KENNETH ANDERSON:

I shall seek information from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to the question asked by the honourable senator. Perhaps when 1 have the information I can inform the honourable senator or, if necessary, refer the recommendations contained in the question to the Minister for Foreign A fla i rs.

page 486

QUESTION

HOME NURSING

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health advise now or obtain from the Department of Health advice on which domiciliary nursing services are available free to pensioners in each State? If such services are not free will she advise the scale of fees charged to pensioners?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– A number of details are involved in the question asked by the honourable senator and I shall be pleased to get for him all the information I can. Under the provisions of the Home Nursing Subsidy Act non-profit nursing organisations are encouraged and subsidised by the Commonwealth Government. At 30th June 1970, 83 home nursing services were in receipt of a subsidy. Commonwealth subsidy payments amounting to over Sim were paid during 1969-70. I will endeavour to obtain further details for the honourable senator.

page 486

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories: What power does the Minister possess to direct Dillingham Construction Corporation to pay a Filipino work force operating in the New Guinea highlands the same rates of pay as would apply to Australians?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I understand that I am asked what power the Minister for External Territories possesses to direct that Filipino workmen be paid by Dillingham Construction Corporation the same rates as an Australian citizen would receive. I believe that that would be governed by the relevant awards that apply to workmen. We know that considerable attention has been given to the terms and conditions of workmen engaged on undertakings in New Guinea. I assume that the honourable senator is referring to the work carried out by Dillingham Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd for Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd at Bougainville. 1 believe that those matters would be the subject of the relevant awards and not of a particular direction by the Minister. However, 1 shall ascertain the position at the earliest opportunity and shall advise the honourable senator.

page 486

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the

Minister for Air whether he is aware that a meeting of about 70 wives of Royal Australian Air Force tradesmen stationed at Williamtown base in New South Wales was held at Raymond Terrace last week to discuss complaints about conditions of pay, overtime and postings of their husbands, and also the poor condition of housing, transport, medical and kindergarten facilities within the Williamtown area? Will the Minister investigate the grievances of these women and take action to ameliorate the conditions about which complaints were made?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I am aware of the meeting. I have a record of each motion that it passed. The honourable member for Newcastle and the honourable member for Lyne have visited me and have discussed with me representations made to them. At one stage I hoped to see the women very shortly, but I have had to put that off because of the sittings of the Parliament. Perhaps I will be meeting them at a later date. 1 draw the honourable senator’s attention to the fact that many of the requests that the women have made are at present being studied by the Kerr committee set up by the Government to investigate the pay and conditions of the three Services, lt would be wrong for me to comment at a time when a top level committee is investigating the matter.

page 487

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it correct that it is within the capacity of the Government to introduce legislation to give some partial justice at least to the pensioners in the community? If that is so is it intended to follow such a course? If it is, why did the Minister suggest some weeks aso when he was asked about this matter in the Senate that it could not be done?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

In the circumstances I think that question had better go on notice.

page 487

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator MURPHY:

– Have we reached the stage where the Senate is not entitled to be told what is being said elsewhere and what is becoming a matter of public property? If these announcements are to be made surely they should be made in a proper way and should not be used as a means of making debating points or of avoiding criticism in the course of the debate. Surely on such important national matters the Houses of Parliament including the Senate are entitled to be informed at the earliest opportunity.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– ls this a question?

Senator MURPHY:

– This is the question 1 am asking: Has this practice been abandoned? Are we now to have these important national announcements made in circumstances where even the Leader of the Government is not told of them beforehand or is not given an opportunity to inform the Senate?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I have been sitting in my place since 3 o’clock. I do not think it is appropriate that Senator Murphy who has not been here can come in and obviously allude to something which is taking place in another House. When he does that he does me a grave discourtesy as the Leader of the Government. 1 have been handed a piece of paper. I cannot be expected to give a responsible answer to the Leader of the Opposition about something which he has presumably heard. I do not even know whether he heard correctly. If there are any statements to be made in this place they are made at the proper, time in accordance with the procedures, of this House. With great respect to Senator Murphy I think what he has done today is singularly inappropriate and, on reflection, .1 hope he will think so.

page 487

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has ‘the attention of the Minister representing’ the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the reported statement that fish and oysters in Botany Bay show a considerable content of chemical matter? I believe it is mercury, ls the Department of Primary .Industry taking any action as any foreign matter in fish and oysters is too much?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I knew we were having trouble with our fish and oysters in Western Australia but I did not know there was trouble in ‘Botany Bay. 1 shall make some inquiries.

page 487

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– 1. direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. When a foreign seaman is to be deported from. Australia for illegal entry and is subjected to a medical check, what becomes of his medical record? If the same seaman ‘subsequently applies to return to Australia ‘ as a migrant are the previous medical ‘records used or are fresh ones made?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– When a seaman deserts his ship and is arrested he is given a medical examination to determine whether he should be detained or whether he is fit and well enough to travel. I inform the honourable senator that the examination is a limited one and is purely for that purpose. It is by no means the equivalent of the thorough examination required for migration and could not be regarded as a substitute for it.

page 488

QUESTION

CI TIZEN MILITARY FORCES

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence inform the Parliament why soldiers of the Citizen Military Forces below the rank of sergeant are not issued with polyester shirt and trousers for summer uniforms? Will the Minister agree that the CMF is under strength and that the treatment of other ranks by the departmental issue of second class uniforms is not helping recruitment figures? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether there is any likelihood of the neat polyester shirt and trousers becoming the general issue for all members of the Citizen Military Forces?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator suggested that because polyester shirts are not issued to members of the Citizen Military Forces below the rank of sergeant there is something radically wrong with the CMF. That is how I interpreted his question. With respect. I think that the matter is an administrative one. I will obtain the information for him. if he likes.

page 488

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It follows the question asked of him by Senator Lawrie. Does the Minister recall my asking him some time ago about diseases in oysters and fish in the estuaries and rivers of New South Wales, to which he replied that the Government considered that because oysters and fish were not export products the problems were for the Government of New South Wales and not for the Federal Government? Does the Minister still adopt that attitude so far as the level of mercury in fish and oysters in Botany Bay is concerned?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– If my memory serves me correctly, I asked the honourable senator to put his question on the notice paper and the Minister for Primary Industry supplied the answer; I myself did not give the answer so I did not recall its contents when I replied to Senator Lawrie. Now that the honourable senator has drawn the facts to my attention I do recall them. He asked me a question. I asked that it be put on notice. It was answered at a later date.

page 488

QUESTION

SENATE

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 1 refer to the vacancy in the representation of New South Wales in the Senate which has existed since the death of Senator Ormonde on 30th November last. My understanding is that the long delay in attending to this matter will be corrected tomorrow when it is intended that the Houses of the Parliament of New South Wales will elect a person to fill that vacancy. Because of the lengthy delay, will the Minister use his good offices, as I will use mine, to endeavour to see that the filling of the vacancy is expedited? In relation to the filling of other vacancies this has been done by sending telegrams and so forth.

Senator Byrne:

– Do you know whether the matter will be debated in the State Houses?

Senator MURPHY:

– I think there will be no debate. It is not for me to suggest what might occur, but I understand that the matter will be a non-controversial one. Will the Leader of the Government use his good offices to ensure that the filling of the vacancy is expedited so that the person appointed to fill the vacancy will be able to take his place in the Senate at the very earliest opportunity - I would hope tomorrow evening - and New South Wales will not be robbed of a representative any longer than is absolutely necessary?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON I am aware here I agree with the Leader of the Opposition - that there has been a long delay in the appointment of a new senator to take the place of the late Senator Ormonde. Without canvassing whether it is because of a constitutional argument or point of view which apparently does not apply in all of the States, 1 point out that 1 have heard that the 2 Houses of the Parliament of the State of New South Wales, meeting tomorrow at some time after 4 o’clock - at 4.40 p.m. or something of that order - will appoint a replacement senator. I: is also my understanding that, in the tradition of replacing a deceased senator wilh a senator of the same political persuasion, it will be a formal appointment of a Labor senator. 1 understand that there is a requirement which will involve the presentation of papers to His Excellency the Governor of the State of New South Wales who- in turn will convey papers to His Excellency the Governor-General. Then the papers will come to the President of the Senate so that the new senator can be sworn and can take his place. That would be the normal procedure. But there are precedents for the procedure being short-circuited by means of a series of signals or telegrams between the Commonwealth and the State concerned. I can assure the honourable senator that both the Government and I believe that it is desirable that the replacement senator should take his place at the first opportunity and that any good offices 1 can use in the circumstances will be used. But, in fairness, let me say that it is a matter between the Premier of New South Wales, His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales, His Excellency the GovernorGeneral and the President of the Senate. I will do whatever I can.

page 489

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator DEVITT:

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. By way of preface, firstly, I remind him that on 24th February I asked a series of questions concerning the operation of Australia’s overseas shipping line and certain limitations upon it as a consequence of a contractual arrangement made in the particular conference of which it is a member. The second point I want to make by way of preface is that since I asked him that question about 3 weeks ago a number of apparent Press releases dealing with certain aspects of the information I have been seeking have been made. 1 now ask the Minister: Is it possible for mc to receive a comprehensive answer to the question I asked 3 weeks ago, or must I continue to receive the information that I want by means of apparent Press handouts made from time to time?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have a note of all the honourable senator has said. I will chase the matter up for him and see where the answer has got to.

page 489

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the question asked by Senator Lawrie in relation to water pollution justify the new Prime Minister revising the priorities of his’ predecessor and implementing in full the ‘findings of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I would need to have notice, of thai question in order to examine the implications of it and refer it to the Prime Minister.

page 489

QUESTION

STEVEDORING MACHINERY

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to either the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport or the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service because the matter may come under the safely division of the Department of Labour and National Service. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether machinery used for the discharge of cargoes on wharves in Australia is examined regularly by any safety officer prior lo its operation? Is he aware that cargo weighing 25 tons fell from a ship at the Newstead wharf on Monday afternoon last? Will he make available a copy of the report that should be submitted on the reasons for such accident?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am not aware of the incident to which the honourable senator refers. 1 shall use every endeavour to see that the report, when available, is made available to him. As to (he frequency and type of examinations made of stevedoring machinery, I will have to check on that in order to obtain an answer that will be useful to the honourable senator. I shall do so happily.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Minister for Air aware that at a cost of many thousands of dollars Royal Australian Air Force pilots were trained in the flying of the Fill? Is he also aware that in regard to the aircraft coming to Australia for demonstration purposes it has been stated that only American pilots will fly them because of the incompetence of Australian pilots? ls it a fact that the Fills will not be allowed to fly in Australia because of the fear of political repercussions if one of them failed in mid-air?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator has been completely misinformed. He has misunderstood what he has vend. An invitation was sent to air forces in various countries including Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States to send representatives to the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Royal Australian Air Force. The Americans replied that they would like to send 4 FI IIA aircraft. They are doing so. The aircraft will be flying to Australia, wilt land at Amberley and refuel, and then will fly to Richmond where they wilt be on display. Following that they will then fly to Fairbairn where they will again be on display. These are American F111A aircraft, they are in American squadrons and they are being flown by American pilots. What that has to do with Australian pilots or Australia’s FI 1 1C aircraft, 1 would not know.

page 490

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question Nil 603)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Do permits to visit Aboriginal reserves always expire on 31st December in any year.
  2. ls the Minister aware that a Mrs Bin Kali, who lives on the Kennedy’s Hill reserve at Broome, was visited by her daughter. Mrs Irene Wyble early this year and that the visit was suspended until a new permit was obtained.
  3. Will the Minister lake ihe appropriate action to ensure that, at least as far as families arc concerned, members of the family may be free io visit reserves at any time.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (0 I had the honourable senator’s question referred to the Western Australian authorities who advised that not all permits are required for an indefinite period and in those cases the expiry date has been dependent on the period of entry to the reserve as requested by the applicant. Where, however, the period involved is for an indeterminate period, permit issues are made to the 31st December of that year as it is not always possible to assess if the same conditions of application would apply at a future date.

  1. and (3) Mr Douglas Wyborn (the European husband of Mrs Irene Wyborn) was issued with an entry permit on 20th June 1970, which expired on 30 June 1970.

Mrs Irene Wyborn. the daughter of Mrs Bin Kali, is a bona fide native in law and does not, at anytime, require to obtain a permit. The District Officer. Broome, reported that when Mr and Mrs Wyborn were visiting the Broome Reserve a short time before leaving the State in fate July or early August the local police were there in connection with another matter. Mr Wyborn was asked to show his permit which was found to have expired, lie was advised to have it renewed. There was never any question of Mrs Wyborn being denied entry to the reserve.

page 490

QUESTION

ROADS

(Question Nit. 836)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How much has been made available to date to each of the States under the Commonwealth Aid Roads scheme.

    1. How much has been spent in (a) rural and (b) urban areas.
    2. Docs the Commonwealth receive a New South Wales breakdown of the amounts spent in specific shires and municipalities, and by the Department of Main Roads: if so, can this information be supplied.
    3. ls the Minister aware that there is consider-, able agitation on the far north coast of New South Wales for the sealing of the uncompleted section of the coast road between Cabarita and Hastings Point, amounting to a mere 3.8 miles, but which when completed will greatly improve, road facilities in thai area, thus reducing costs of production for the local farming community.
    4. What action, if any, can the Minister lake to see that this particular work is undertaken.
Senator COTTON:

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

  1. The Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969 provides for the granting of SI 93m to the Slates for roads for the financial year 1969-70 and $218m for the year 1970-71.

The grant has been allocated to the Slates as follows:

  1. The Act provides that the grants will be expended by the States in four specific categories, namely urban arterial roads, rural arterial roads, other rural roads and planning and research. In addition, supplementary grants are being made to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.

Distribution of the grunt by category for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 is as follows:

All States are required to produce statements certifying the expenditure of these funds. Statements are not yet available in respect of the year 1969- 70, the first year of operation of the Act.

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. It is my responsibility to declare roads within categories for the purposes of the Act, but this is done on the advice of the Stale Ministers, who make recommendations in accordance with the road programmes of their States. It is the responsibility of the Slates to develop their own programmes and to allocate the funds provided for each road category as they think fit.

page 491

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 622)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Who is responsible for the administration of Kalumburu Mission station in Western Australia.
  2. Is it a fact that the superintendent of the Station takes disciplinary action against Aboriginal residents who complain about living conditions to Native Welfare officers.
  3. Is it also a fact that children on this Mission are locked in dormitories during the week and only allowed to be with their parents on Sundays?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The Mission is administered by the Benedictine Community of Western Australia Incorpor ated, New Norcia. The Superintendent of Kalumburu isthe Very Reverend Father Serophim Sanz, O.S.B., M.B.E.
  2. The Western Australian Commissioner of Native Welfare has advised that the Mission was visited 3 times during the last 12 months and the District Office, Wyndham, reported that there was no evidence that any Aboriginalhas been punished for complaining to the Native Welfare Department officer about living conditions, disciplinary action or victimisation to the District Officer, Wyndham.
  3. The children at the Mission are not accommodated in dormitories. Theylive with their parents. However, 4 orphans and1 abandoned child are accommodated together and share a sleeping unit supervised by the nuns. They are not locked in at night and have access to relatives on the Mission at all times.

page 491

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

(Question No. 820)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What coverage is given under our national health scheme where Turkish national custom requires circumcision at 8 years and not at birth to a male child born in Australia to migrant parents.
  2. Is it a fact that this practice could cause higher medical fees for the parents and would the medical benefit be the same us a similar operation performed at birth.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. The following items in the Medical Benefits Schedule cover benefits for circumcision:

Item 3751 - Circumcision of a person under 4 weeks of age

Item 3755 - Circumcision of a person under 10 years of age but not less than 4 weeks of age

Item 3756 - Circumcision of a person under 10 years of age but not less than 4 weeks of age by a specialist in the practice of his speciality where the patient is referred

Item 3760 - Circumcision of a person 10 years of age or over

Item 3761 - Circumcision of a person 10 years of age or over by a specialist in the practice of his speciality where the patient is referred.

Accordingly, the child of a Turkish national covered by themedical benefits scheme who undergoes circumcision at 8 years of age would qualify for benefit under eitheritem 3755 or Item 3756 according to the circumstances.

  1. The most common fee; combined Commonwealth and fund benefits and balance payable by the contributor where the common fee is charged for the above items in New South Wales are as follows:

The reason for the higher common fee and benefits for older patients is the greater difficulty in performingthe operation as the age of the patient increases. However, the balance payable in cases where the most common fee is charged varies only between$1.50 and$3.

page 492

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

(Question No. 840)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. What criteria does the Post Office use to determine which sporting results are given in the telephone sporting information service.
  2. Why it is that Hobart, Perth and Sydney are the only capitals not receiving a Totalisator Agency Board racing information service.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. The selection of sporting results featured in Post Office recorded telephone sporting information services is made with the objective of meetingthe requirements of the general public as far as practicable. Information concerning horse or greyhound racing is not included because it is considered more appropriate and satisfactory for totalizator or racing authorities to conduct their own telephone information services for this purpose.
  2. So far, the totalizator authorities in Perth and Sydney and the racing authority in Hobart have not established recorded telephone information services similar to those which are conducted privately by the totalizator authorities in Melbourne. Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. However, in the case of Perth the TAB authorities provide a personally answered service for race results, dividends, etc., which is listed on pages 390 and 391 of the current Western Australia telephone directory.

page 492

QUESTION

PARENT AND CITIZEN

(Question No. 841)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Is the Postmaster-General aware that the journal of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations called ‘Parent and Citizen’ satisfies the following criteria -

    1. it contains news and information of special interest to people in country areas and that the majority of its circulation goes to country areas;
    2. it is published by the Federation which is a registered charity in the State of New South Wales;
    3. it contains a substantial content of news and information regarding educational matters.

  2. Will the Postmaster-General therefore investigate the classification of the ‘Parent and Citizen’ for the purposes of bulk postage with a view to having it reclassified in category A.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. and (2) The postal classification of the registered periodical ‘Parent and Citizen’ has been carefully re-examined and it is considered that the journal cannot be placed in category A.

A substantial part of the news and information in the publication is not of special interest to country people as distinct from city people as it contains information of common interest to people in all areas.

There are various Commonwealth and Stale Acts referring to charitable organisations and registration under one Act does not automatically lead to registration under another Act. As far as the postal legislation is concerned, charitable organisations are considered to be those which devote a substantial and continuing effort to the relief of the poor and afflicted and has this as one of its principal objects. It is not considered that the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations meets this requirement.

Educational organisations must have the dissemination of knowledge as their principal object to be eligible for category A. It is not considered that the Federation is an educational organisation in the generally accepted sense of the term in that it does not have a substantial degree of systematic or formalised education in its activities.

page 492

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF DC3 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 842)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Supply upon notice:

  1. How many DC3 aircraft does the Department of Supply currently have in its possession.
  2. Are there any plans for the disposal of these aircraft and, if so,to whom and at what price.
  3. How many of these aircraft hold current airworthiness certificates.
  4. For those aircraft without such certificates what is the estimated cost of the maintenance work necessary to bring them to the standard required for the issue of a certificate.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are:

  1. Six DC3 aircraft are currently held by Department of Supply for disposal. Five are ex-RAAF and are at the RAAF Station, Laverton. Victoria, and I ex-Bureau of Mineral Resources is at Fairbairn Airport.
  2. Tenders were invited publiclyfor 3 of the ex-RAAF aircraft but sales have not yet been effected. Tenders for the other 3 aircraft are expected to be invited shortly.
  3. Service aircraft do not operate under DCA Certificate of Airworthiness conditions butto Service standards. These aircraft have been removed from the RAAF register and would require work to be done onthem before being placed on either civil or military register. The ex-Bureau of Mineral Resources aircraft does have a current Certificate of Airworthiness which is due to expire in October 1971. Renewal of this Certificate would necessitate a major overhaul of the aircraft.
  4. The cost of bringing the ex-RAAF aircraft to Certificate of Airworthiness standard without change to their existing military configuration would vary with the circumstances of each case. An average cost of $15,000 per aircraft would not be unreasonable.

page 493

QUESTION

WITHOUT HARDWARE

(Question No. 848)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Prime Minister’s Department studied the book ‘Without Harware’ written and produced by a Mrs Catherine R. Dalton and will the Prime Minister make a statement on the serious allegations made about the operations of foreign political agents in Australia with the resultant tragic consequences to the lives of Australians.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

No. The honourable senator’s attention is invited to the answer given in the House of Representatives by the Attorney-General on 17th February 1971 to a question without notice on the same subject.

page 493

QUESTION

QUEBEC AGREEMENT

(Question No. 849)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was a secret agreement entered into by the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada in November 1945 known as the Quebec Agreement?
  2. Was the agreement for the exchange of atomic, chemical and biological warfare and rocket information?
  3. Did Australia subsequently become a party to this agreement and if so. who signed the agreement on behalf of Australia?
  4. Did the Agreement provide for the signatories to establish forces within Australia to protect their interests in relation to any activity in Australia; if so, could such foreign forces take any action to protect the interests of their Government without reference to the Australian Government?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply: (1), (2), (3) and (4)I have no knowledge of such an agreement.

page 493

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 864)

Senator McMANUS:

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

  1. Are A. R. Scoones and Coy of Kyabram, Victoria, of whom Butler Aero Services is a subsidiary, the only importers charged duty on a Cessna 310 aircraft, all other imports of this model having been duty free? If so, what is the reason for the discrimination?
  2. Is the Department of Customs and Excise also holding up duly free importation by the same firm of 3 twin engined Commanche aircraft? If so, why?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No. The Department of Customs and Excise wrote on 6th January 1971, to the customs agents acting on behalf of Butler Aero Services seeking further necessary information. To date this information has not been received.

page 493

QUESTION

MAKINE CHARTS

(Question No. 865)

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

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

Is it a fact that only one distributor of marine charts under class B is permitted in each of the designated centres to sell these charts to the general public? If so, willthe Minister give consideration to allowing other suitable agents to make application to the Department for the right to sell these charts?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

There is no restriction on the number of distributing agencies for marine charts which may operate in any designated area.

page 493

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF DC3 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 876)

Senator GEORGES (through Senator

O’BYRNE) asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

Can the Government purchase by private treaty, goodsto the value of $250,000, for exam- ple, the six DC3 aircraft purchased by the Department of Foreign Affairs from Jetair Australia Limited.

Should such a purchase have been made by inviting public tenders. If so, what action will be taken to cancel the purchase and seek offers from other suppliers including the Department of Supply.

Yes. Treasury Regulation 52 under the Audit Act provides that invitation of public tenders may be dispensed with where the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, or an officer authorised by him in writing for the purpose, certifies that invitation of tenders would be impracticable or inexpedient. The regulation docs not impose any limitation on the value of contracts for which public lenders may be dispensed with.

In the circumstances of this purchase, no good purpose would have been served by the calling of public tenders. The availability situation as known to the Department of Supply at the time of entering into the contract with Jetair may be summarised as follows:

There were 56 DC3 military and civil aircraft in operation or declared for disposal in Australia. Of these 5 were already owned by the Department of Foreign Affairs for overseas aid purposes. Of the remaining 51 aircraft only 13 were ‘on the market’ to the timing required to meet such overseas aid purposes. These were: 5 military aircraft ex-RAAF and held by Department of Supply for disposal, 6 civil aircraft on offer from Jetair, 1 specially fitted aircraft ex-Bureau of Mineral Resources, 1 civil aircraft owned privately in Darwin but not in active service.

It was clear to the departments that the cost of buying the 6 aircraft in the required civilian configuration from Jetair to meet foreign aid purposes represented considerable savings to the Commonwealth as against meeting the requirement from the other available 7 aircraft which would have required substantial work to bring them to the desired standard and configuration.

page 494

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP OF MAIL

(Question No. 878)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

Is mail sent from Australia to Rhodesia and Northern Ireland subject to interception and political censorship when it reaches those countries.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

No ease has been brought to my attention where mail from Australia to Rhodesia or Northern Ireland has been subject to interception and political censorship on reaching those countries. Conditions of handling of mail within the country of destination are the responsibility of that country, and such mail is normally subject to customs inspection.

page 494

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF DC3 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 884)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. What are the latest developments in the Jetair DC3 case.
  2. Has the government completed the transaction? If so, (a) what price was paid for the aircraft, (b) what will be the cost of converting themto the required standard, and (c) what will it cost to ship or fly the aircraft to their overseas destinations.

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

  1. See reply to (2) below.

  2. The formal documentation needed to complete the transaction was finalised on 19th February 1971 when an Order was issued to Jetair Australia Limited for the supply of 6 DC3 aircraft and spares.

    1. The purchase price for the. aircraft and spares is $275,000.
    2. and (c) As indicated in my statement on 25th February it is estimated that minor repairs to the extent of $4,000 will be necessary on each aircraft and that delivery costs will be of the order of $10,000 per aircraft. Actual costs must await the outcome of public tenders which will shortly be invited separately for each of these tasks.

page 494

QUESTION

OFF-SHORE OIL

(Question No. 886)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Have applications been called for off-shore oil prospecting rights in the coral reefs surroundingthe Trobriands and other islands in the general area of Papua.
  2. Are some of the richest coral reefs in the world in this locality.
  3. Will the Minister suspend exploration for, and possible exploitation of, any oil or gas fields in this locality until such time as the findings of the royal commission into oil prospecting on the Great Barrier Reef are made public.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)Yes.

  1. There are reported to be more line-miles of live reef in waters adjacent to Papua and New Guinea than in the Great Barrier Reef. I am not able to say whether or not these are some of the richest coral reefs in the world.
  2. No. Exploration in the first two or three years will consist of aeromagnetic and marine seismic surveys using non-explosive methods, which will not harm the reefs or marine life. It is hoped that the Great Barrier Reef royal commission will have reported well before any drilling is planned. If as a result of the report, any controls relating to drilling or other operations are considered necessary, directions will be issued under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act.

page 495

QUESTION

YUGOSLAVIA

(Question No. 911)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Is it contemplated that Australia will sign an extradition treaty with the Government of Yugoslavia todeal effectively with Ustashi terrorist groups, as did the Government of West Germany.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

There is an extradition treaty in force between Australia and Yugoslavia.

page 495

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 932)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Supply, upon notice:

  1. How many aircraft, excluding the F111, have been purchased by the Department of Supply for government departments since 1st January 1965.
  2. For which departments were the aircraft purchased: how many were new; and how many were second-hand.
  3. Were all the aircraft purchased by tender, excluding the Jetair DC3s. If not, what other purchasing methods were followed.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. Apart from the military aircraft manufactured locally by Department of Supply, 8 aircraft have been purchased, since 1st January 1965 for government departments.
  2. The 8 aircraft purchased, were the 6 ‘secondhand’ aircraft purchased from Jetair (Australia) Ltd. and 2 new aircraft for the Bureau of Mineral Resources.
  3. No. All 8 aircraft were purchased by private treaty. The 2 new aircraft for the Bureau of Mineral Resources were specific types needed for specialised purposes and each was available from only one local source of supply.

page 495

QUESTION

SALE OF AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 933)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. How many government-owned surplus or obsolescent aircraft have been sold in Australia since 1st January 1965.
  2. How many were sold by public tender or auction and how many were disposed of by private treaty.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. Forty-four.
  2. Thirty-seven were sold by public tender or auction and 7 were disposed of by private treaty, including the 5 ex-RAAF DC3 aircraft purchased by Department of Foreign Affairs for foreign aid. The other 2 aircraft disposed of by private treaty were a Mosquito and a Fairy Firefly sold for use in a London to Sydney air race and to a British military museum respectively.

page 495

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF DC3 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 936)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

Has the contract entered into by the Department of Supply to purchase DC3 aircraft from Jetair (Australia) Limited been finalised? If not, is it stillthe Government’s intention to complete the purchase.

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

Yes. For further details, refer to the reply to Question on Notice No. 884.

page 495

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 23rd February 1971 Senator Devitt asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, the following question:

Is the Minister aware of any circumstances which have arisen recently which would necessitate or justify notifications being sent by Stale Departments of Education to winners of Commonwealth scholarships that funds for the purpose have been reduced and that scholarships are not available now?

The Minister has now provided the following answer:

I am not aware of any circumstances which would make it necessary for such a notification to be sent to winners of Commonwealth scholarships. Nor amI aware that either the State Departments of Education or State Offices of my Department have dispatched these notices. If the honourable senator would care to give me details of any case which he has in mind,I shall investigate it and furnish him with an explanation as soon as possible.

page 496

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– On 17th February last Senator Wriedt asked me the following question without notice:

Can the Minister for Air advise the Senate of the charges on the airline operator who recently lifted merino rams from a Royal Australian Air Force base? How do these charges compare with the charges made for the use of civil airports in Australia?

I am now able to answer the honourable senators question. The answer is as follows:

In accordance with the provisions ot the Air

Navigation Charges Act 1952-70, under which Act charges arc payable in accordance with the schedules of that Act in respect of the use by aircraft of aerodromes, routes, airway facilities, meteorological services and search and rescue services maintained, operated or provided by the Commonwealth, an amount of $932.80 for the period calculated under the Third Schedule of the Act was collected from the captain prior to the departure of the aircraft from Australia. This charge is (he same us if the aircraft had used civilian airports in Australia.

page 496

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

(4.24) - I move:

That Government Business orders of the day

Nos I to 10 be postponed until after consideration of order of the day No. II. lt will be recalled that this item deals with the arrangements of the Senate in relation to committees. 1 think it would be appropriate if we could dispose of that matter. If we run into difficulties we could report progress, but I would like the matter to be brought on at this time to see whether we can dispose of it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

That notice of motion No. 1 under Business of the Senate be postponed for 3 sitting days. 1 do so with a view to fixing some formal time at which the mailer could be dealt with.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 496

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is concerned with a grant which was announced on 1 5th June 1970 to be made under the new national water resources development programme. The Government has agreed to a request from the State of New South Wales for a grant under ihe programme of up to S9m for assistance with flood mitigation works on 1 1 New South Wales coastal rivers. The new national water resources development programme was announced by the former Prime Minister in October 1969. Under the programme, the Commonwealth proposes to allocate to the States SI 00m over 5 years for rural water conservation and supply works and flood mitigation and water measurement over and above the States’ own programmes for these purposes. The new programme follows the original national water programme which provided over S50m in grants to the States.

Under a previous measure of assistance, which terminated at 30th June 1969, the Commonwealth Government provided assistance to the State of New South Wales of S8m towards the cost of flood mitigation works on 6 coastal rivers - Tweed, Richmond. Clarence, Macleay. Hunter and Shoalhaven - to be spent in conjunction with contributions by the’ State Government and local government authorities. The new programme involves additional works on the rivers included in the original programme but it has been expanded to include 5 further “ rivers - Bellinger, Hastings, Manning, Hawkesbury and Moruya* - thus enabling1 ; completion of comprehensive flood mitigation works on the upper and lower reaches of all the major coastal rivers in the State. The financial assistance does not include maintenance of existing works, but is directed to the carrying out of new works, and will enable the local government authorities concerned to accelerate the completion of those works. The proposed works will provide a high degree of protection for areas subject to periodic minor- and nuisance flooding., and will make an important contribution towards strengthening the rural economy of coastal areas of the State. Drainage works will enable flood damaged fields to return. to production in the quickest possible time after major floods. In addition, flood damage to urban areas and to public installations such as roads, bridges and railways will be reduced. More detailed information on the schemes is contained in the explanatory memorandum distributed with the Bill.

I turn now to the Bill itself, which has been designed to follow the general pattern of legislation for projects assisted under the national water programme, but also taking in features of the earlier legislation providing financial assistance to New South Wales for flood mitigation works. The local government authorities participating in the scheme and the rivers on which it is proposed that the works be carried out are listed in clause 3 (i). which also defines other matters relevant to the operation of the Act. Commonwealth financial assistance towards the cost of the flood mitigation works is provided under clause 3 (i) of the Bill for a period of 7 years commencing on 1st July 1969. A fundamental feature of the arrangements is that the level of assistance to be provided to the local government authorities, which, of course, are representative of the landowners and Other people most intimately affected by floodings, will depend on the amounts provided by the authorities themselves from their own resources towards the cost of flood mitigation works. The State is to subsidise local authority expenditure at the rate of $3 for $1 in the case of the Hunter River and $2 for $1 in other cases. The Commonwealth assistance will match the State contribution.

Honourable senators will observe that the Bill does not contain provision for Commonwealth approval of the individual works to which the Commonwealth assistance is to be applied. The programme involves a large number of individual items including levee banks, river channel improvement and drainage works on 1 1 river systems. The proposals put forward by the State are subject to some amendment in the light of final investigation and design. We regard the final selection of such individual works as a matter for the State and the local authorities concerned.

The Bill does, however, contain provision for the Commonwealth to be kept suitably informed about the works and to be furnished with information relating to expenditure and progress on the works. I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Fitzgerald) adjourned.

page 497

COMMITTEES OF THE AUSTRALIAN

page 497

SENATE

Report

Debate resumed from 25 February (vide page 413), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That, with reference to the Report by the President upon Committees of the Australian Senate -

In relation to the Estimates Committees -

The Senate adopts the recommendation that not more than two Committees should sit simultaneously;

Meetings of the Committees should be held, when possible, in the Senate Chamber and Senate Committee Room, L. 17; and

The additional Estimates, as contained in the Papers presenting the Particulars of proposed Provision for Additional Expenditure, should be referred to the Committees in the same manner as the annual Estimates.

In relation to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees -

The Senate, believing that there should be a clear recognition of the different roles to be performed by Standing Committees and Select Committees, and affirming the need for the continuing role of each, resolves -

That the Standing Committee system be varied, in the manner set out in the following paragraphs;

That each Standing Committee consist of six Senators, three to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party or by any minority group or groups or Independent or Independents, in the manner referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Resolution of the Senate dated 19 August 1970;

That the quorum of a Standing Committee be four;

That the Committees to be next fully established be -

the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts; and

the Standing Committee on Social Environment;

That, unless otherwise ordered, matters referred to Standing Committees should relate to subjects which can be dealt with expeditiously; and

That the Senate authorises the televising of public hearings of Standing and Select Committees, at the discretion of each such Committee.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– When the debate on this matter was adjourned on 25th February I was in the situation where 1 had examined the committee system of the Senate in some detail and had related the experiences of various honourable senators in the undertaking of their duties on various Senate committees. Attention had also been drawn to the value of the President’s report, its impact upon and its import to the processes of the Senate and, indeed, its influence on the role of the Senate and the total conduct of the Parliament. In relation to item (1) (b) of the motion 1 had indicated that I had some preference for the pattern of having only 2 Estimates committees sitting at the one time to allow for the widest possible participation by non-involved senators. By non-involved senators 1 mean those honourable senators who are not involved in the activities of other committees which are sitting at the same time and who would therefore have an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the deliberations of the 2 committees which are sitting. It is true that there is a risk that if only 2 committees are sitting the Senate will not get through the same amount of business as it would if perhaps 3 or more committees were meeting at any one time. However, it would be the responsibility of the chairmen of the committees concerned and of honourable senators to ensure that the committees accomplished their business.

I wish to refer now to item (2) (f) of the motion which relates to the televising of public hearings of standing and select committees. This matter is also referred to in the President’s report. 1 suppose it is true to say that, as public participation in political affairs becomes greater and as public interest in matters relating to the Parliament and public affairs become more widespread, honourable senators and others who sit in parliamentary places - in this case I am referring to honourable senators in particular - will become subject to examination by the various media. Such an examination may be very entertaining to sensation hungry viewers and it may be very attractive to publicity seeking senators. I would point out in all seriousness that there are advantages to be gained from this contemporary opportunity of the presence of the television media at the sittings of a Senate committee. I mention this matter if for no other reason but to sound the warning that in any great demand to share the deliberations of the Senate and its committees through the television media we should be ever on the watch to ensure that the agencies and institutions of the communications media do not dominate the situation and that deliberations, decisions and processes of any Senate committee remain in the hands of that committee and are not dictated to by outside influences, such as. in this case, (he public media.

One of the basic reasons for establishing a committee system is to facilitate the conduct of parliamentary business whilst at the same time giving it a higher level of consideration. I think it is true to say that a committee system enables a greater amount of work to be performed than would be the case if the Senate as a whole were to examine each matter in detail. I believe that the proper use of a Committee system enables problems’ to be examined more fully and more speedily than the operations of the Senate of the whole would allow, ft is pertinent’ to observe here that the standing committee system fulfils a couple of roles in facilitating the speedy conclusion of parliamentary business. A standing committee performs firstly a specialist function and secondly acts as what I will describe as a watchdog. A standing committee, by virtue of the intensity of its deliberations, the domination of the work which it undertakes and the degree of authority or power which it has is able to act in a specialist capacity, indeed, it may be described as a specialist organ of Parliament or of government. I have referred to the fact that standing committees play a watchdog role. I would point out that such committees act as a watchdog for not only the Parliament but also the ‘administration. They are able to examine problems away from the main political arena, that is the Senate chamber, and ensure that legislation is fully understood when it finally conies before the Senate.

It is important to realise that in a parliament such as ours, where there is a party system of government, the role of a standing committee is of greater importance in that it provides a greater opportunity for a larger number of members of the Senate to be involved. However, whilst we may have great enthusiasm for committees and whilst we may approach this question with an extended degree of enthusiasm, we must always remember that authority must remain with the Senate. The Senate must maintain its authority, its leadership and its particular place in any discussion on legislative matters and the business of the country. Parliament has the authority and the Senate within that Parliament must not neglect its responsibilities in the field of debate or in the field of hard work.

There are only 2 other matters I want to mention before I conclude. Firstly I want to draw attention to the influence of an extended committee system on the relationship of a senator to his State. Honourable senators now find that they are here in Canberra every week during which the Parliament sits and are engaged in the business of Ihe Senate, and that in the recess weeks they are engaged in the business of Senate committees. This may be part of our duty, and senators are not afraid of work or of the duty they owe to the Parliament. However I hope that as the pattern of committees grows, bringing with it demands on committee members to be present in Canberra or at some other place appointed by a committee, the new and changed relationship to the constituency will be understood.

The other point J want lo refer to concerns paragraph 84 of the report presented by the President. It concerns the process of referring a Bill to a standing committee and particularly refers lo the passing of the question for the second reading of a Bill. In illumination of this point I refer the Senate to ‘Australian Senate Practice’ by J. R. Odgers in which the relationship of the second reading speeches to the reference of a Bill to a standing committee is examined. Mr Odgers states:

The purpose of referring Bills .to standing or select committees is that of providing more time and opportunity for members to reach an understanding of the purposes and effect’s of a bill, particularly in relation to long and technical measures.

I have only one brief point to mention and that is to inquire of the relationship of the Minister from whose department a Bill emanates. One of the disadvantages which Ministers in this chamber suffer is the problem that confronts them when presenting a Bill on behalf of a Minister in another place. They struggle bravely and effectively but nevertheless with difficulty to present the Bill, line by line, clause by clause, question after question and argument after argument. 1 wonder whether there is any way of overcoming this increasing difficulty. Perhaps the committee system will have an effect.

In some other legislatures the Minister from the other House attends and takes charge of his Bill. I am not sure of the advantages or disadvantages of this practice; nor am I aware of all the problems that exist. 1 would like to retain the authority of the Senate. The Senate is master of itself and it should proceed in the manner it desires. I have drawn attention to some of the problems that arise as a result of the introduction of the committee system and ask whether the system may have some effect on this particular problem and whether it may be of assistance in overcoming it. However our purpose at the moment is to deal with the matter contained in the item of business before the Senate. I hope the Senate will support the motion proposed by the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson).

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I welcome an opportunity to say something about the committee system as it has developed over the past several years. I think most honourable senators would agree that this innovation, the promotion of the committee system, has been very welcome. It has given to the Senate a new role, a new sense of purpose, and a new opportunity for honourable senators to serve the interests of the parliamentary system a great deal belter than was formerly the case.

Senator Davidson mentioned that the Senate is debating a motion proposed some days ago by the Leader of the Government in ‘ the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) relating to the committee system and suggesting that there is a need to set up additional committees. I feel we are running into some difficulties. In addition to the normal obligations of the select committees and the standing committees of the Parliament, that is committees consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament, we saw the development last year of the committee system for the examination of the Estimates. Five estimates committees were set up. Subsequently we agreed to the establishment of 2 additional committees consistent with the recommendations referred to on page 8 of the report of the President. Seven committees were listed on that page. There seems to be a tendency to use the forms of the Senate to establish additional committees to look into a multitude of things.

Before being more specific about my attitude to the particular question now before us I want to say that I have been one of those - 1 think I am among the majority here - who have welcomed the establishment of the committee system in this chamber. I have felt that there has been a very great waste of talent in the Senate and a waste of the resources of the chamber, because when we have been engaged in our normal and traditional role of debate in this chamber there has been an obligation on all members to be present. This has precluded any other form of activity that might otherwise take place. This was realised, of course, when the estimates committee system came into being and the sitting of the Senate was suspended to enable those committees to fulfil their functions. This has been a great innovation and I believe it has done a great deal for the parliamentary system.

As far as I am concerned, work on the estimates committees has been a comforting job. The establishment of the estimates committees enabled direct confrontation between the elected members of the Parliament and those working in the various sections of the parliamentary system who are responsible for preparing the Estimates. I found I could rise in my place and address a question directly to the officer advising on a particular matter. I then received a direct answer from the source of knowledge and understanding. Naturally this process was supervised all the time by the chairman of the particular committee, and there was very able assistance from the Minister who was in charge of the particu lar estimates. This was a very comforting sort of operation, and one could go away feeling that something had been done. Previously, when we dealt with the Estimates in the Senate chamber there seemed to be a feeling of remoteness or abstractness. Sometimes one felt, for very substantial periods of time, that the forms of the Senate debate on the Estimates did not allow a direct or close relationship with the adviser or the Minister such as that permitted by the estimates committee system. Consequently 1 have welcomed the estimates committee system as a concept and I welcome any extension of it. As has been pointed out, there have been problems. Naturally there aTe physical problems relating to the ability of the numerical strength of the Senate to cope with all the work that is now being put on to the various committees as a consequence of decisions taken in this chamber.

A suggestion has been made in the motion proposed by the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) that only 2 committees should sit at the one time. Whilst I shall not be dogmatic about it, I suggest quite seriously that if we cut down on the rate of progress of the committees we will find ourselves in very great difficulty. Already we are pretty much tested by the demands made upon our physical and mental resources. We spend very little time at home these days. I suggest strongly that the recommendation that only 2 committees sit at the one time be re-examined in the light of the fact that we have to accomplish a great deal more work than we are doing bow. One would imagine that with the knowledge, experience and expertise gained by the people engaged on these committees, and by the committees as a whole, we might expect to be able to dispatch our business more quickly than has been the case ir. the past. Naturally as one goes on one learns. This must happen. Somebody raised the point that soon new personnel will be coming into the Senate. At that time those honourable senators who are already members of the committees will have to attempt to acquaint the incoming senators with the functions and attitudes of the committees and the way we dispatch our committee business so that there is no slowing up of the work of the committees.

I find some difficulty in accepting Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s proposition that we should limit ourselves to 2 estimates committees sitting at the one time. We will just have to build up our administrative resources to deal with the work, and I fear that we will have to speed up our own activities in this area. If we do not do this 1 see the position becoming quite hopeless, for us in our attempts to achieve the objectives set out in the report Committees of the Australian Senate’ which was presented to the Senate by Sir Alister McMullin who has listed in paragraph 43 of the report the standing committees to be set up. At present we have 3 estimates committees doing extremely valuable work. With those committees we had our teething troubles, but we are over the worst of them. This year we might well expect to be able to dispatch our business more expeditiously than we did last year. If that is the case - we can expect it to be the case - it would be a retrograde and undesirable step to limit the performance of that function to 2 estimates committees sitting at the one time. Last year we had 3 estimates committees sitting at the one time, and of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees referred to by Mr President already the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare and the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade are silting. If we hope to man another 5 committees and have them function adequately and properly it will be necessary to speed up our work somewhere. At the moment I am unable to see how we can achieve this.

Senator Prowse:

– You have not solved the problem of how lo be in two places at the one time.

Senator DEVITT:

– Naturally we have had problems, but the intelligent approach will be to assess which is the worst problem to be faced and lo deal with it. We would then deal with other problems and rationalise the situation to the point where we could get on with the work of the committees. I have said already that the committee system is testing the time and energies of members of the committees, but this is work which must be done. Otherwise we cannot possibly hope to achieve what the President’s report says we aim to achieve. That is one aspect of the matter. I welcome the committee system and I want to see it extended. 1 believe ‘hat we need to speed up the functions of the committees and that in order to achieve their purpose of dealing with and delving into all the areas listed we will have to iron out and overcome the problems that so far have been encountered and get on with the job as speedily as we can.

I propose now to refer particularly to paragraph (2) (d) of the resolution proposed by the Leader of the Government where the Minister recommends that the committees to be next fully established be the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts and the Standing Committee on Social Environment. As to how one sees the need for committees to examine particular areas of responsibility becomes largely a question of priorities. Whilst the Minister has no doubt in his own mind adopted as the proper order of priorities the 2 committees mentioned in his resolution, I am very much drawn to the argument which was put by Senator Byrne earlier in the debate that at least 1 of 2 committees now to be set up should be the ‘Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations (this shall include finance for States, statutory authorities and Local Government)’ which is mentioned in paragraph 43 on page S of the President’s report. My thoughts on this accord with those expressed by Senator Byrne, that here is an area of responsibility that very badly needs to be examined. My view is supported by many years of experience in the field of local government in Tasmania. The problems which I encountered there are similar to problems being encountered by local governments in every State of the Commonwealth. I am seriously concerned about a number of matters which are rapidly becoming more serious and which should cause us grave concern about the trends in local government in Australia at present.

To cite an instance of what 1 feel and what I fear, recently in the southern part of Tasmania there was a series of fires in schools conducted by the Education Department. Thousands of dollars worth of damage was done to those institutions and this was a very great blow to the State’s education system. I was impressed by a comment made by a member of the fire brigade who attended those fires, I fancy on a night when 3 fires occurred, at which time the resources of the fire brigade were seriously extended. The spokesman for the fire brigade said that the work of preventing substantial damage to the school buildings was seriously hampered by a lack of sufficient water. Immediately my mind went back over my years of experience in local government, during which time I had seen similar things happening from time to time as a direct consequence of a lack of planning in the initial stages of the installation of water schemes. These comments could apply to so many other things, but the particular point to which I refer is the water supply.

I wish to highlight the point that the shortcomings of the planning and the shortcomings in facilities provided by local government are not immediately evident, lt takes some years before the shortcomings of a local government system become evident. The present position no doubt originated some years ago when local government authorities with limited financial resources were not able properly to plan works on a scale sufficient to take into account the development of the area. The resources available for developmental schemes’ were so stretched that on the occasion to which I have referred a substantial amount of damage to buildings might well have been prevented had the local authority been able to plan and install a water supply scheme on a greater scale. The cost may have been increased by some thousands of dollars, but that must now be offset against the considerable damage done by fire.

Many similar instances have occurred in respect of sewerage schemes and the provision of roads and a multitude of other services which traditionally local government authorities provide. The load is getting heavier and heavier. Ratepayers are being called upon to pay greater amounts in rales year by year. The serious stage has been reached at which local government institutions are very seriously hampered in their operations and their standard of performance in the community has dropped and is continuing to drop. I suggest something must be done quickly to understand local government problems and to provide expert advice so that present difficulties can be overcome.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You are suggesting the American Senate process of the pork barrel.

Senator DEVITT:

– I do not know whether I am suggesting that because ] am not too sure what it means. I want to pursue the point about the problems of local government and to suggest quite seriously to the Senate that the stage has been reached at which the type of people we would want to see engaged in local government activities are thinking twice about offering their services. I remind honourable senators that such services are largely unpaid. They are reluctant to volunteer because they realise that they will be involved in less than a first class performance.

Senator Wright:

– How does this all add up to an argument that this committee should be preferred to the 2 committees suggested by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson?

Senator DEVITT:

– 1 am submitting that rather than pursue the 2 committees suggested by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, at least one of the 2 should be that to which I am referring. The situation of local government authorities in Australia is very serious indeed. I have previously referred to grants for particular local government purposes. We should concern ourselves in that area. The States are in rather straitened financial circumstances and therefore cannot help to the extent that they would like to help. The problem comes back to this Parliament. T am reminded of the situation of education a few years ago when it was argued that the Federal Government had no responsibility in that field. There was such a public outcry about declining standards of education in Australia and such emphasis upon the point that the Commonwealth Government had the money and in the ultimate analysis ought to accept some responsibility that finally grants were made available by the Federal Government to improve the education system of the nation. The local government system is in very much the same position. 1 think it has been proved beyond doubt that the States do not have the resources to assist local government bodies. As a consequence this extremely important area of public endeavour is languishing.

We must devise a way of coming to grips with the growing problems of local government in Australia. I have dealt with the problem of the numbers of committees. lt must be overcome if we are to achieve the objective set out in the President’s report. We must speed up our work and make better use of the Senate’s resources, lt could very well be that an increase in the number of senators will eventually be necessary. That is something for the future. If we are to set up these committees and help them to function properly in the work they are intended to perform we must find the appropriate methods.

I think it is a wonderful committee system. Its onset and development in this Parliament has certainly improved a great deal the performance of the Senate, lt has made it a worthwhile place. Every senator, irrespective of whether he wishes to speak here frequently, can perform a very useful function as a committee member. To serve in that way may particularly suit the personalities of some honourable senators. As a senator over the past five or six years I have noted the excellent work done by standing committees, short term committees, Estimates Committees and the like. I believe that the committees we are to set up in the future will give an even belter and more acceptable performance 1 seriously submit to the Senate that there is a very great need to examine Ihe financial situation of statutory and local government authorities. Honourable senators are well aware of the day lo day problems arising from the financial relationship between Ihe Commonwealth and the States. However, we should not forget that other areas of activity badly need assistance. I hope that my few comments have been of assistance to the Senate. Problems remain to be solved but we have gone a long way towards making the committee system work. We are called upon to be more active and to increase our output. We ought to be prepared to do so to make sure that this very worthwhile, beneficial and productive system which has been introduced into the operations of the Senate can show major results as quickly as possible.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (5.4) - I must confess at the outset that I have never risen with more reluctance to speak in the Senate because the debate proceeding now on the report of the President in the context of instructions laid upon him by the Senate fast year and the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Sen ato: Sir Kenneth Anderson) comes at a time when it is manifest that honourable senators are preoccupied with other matters. The exercise of removing this from the notice paper and making it a matter of debate by honourable senators at this juncture is a device to keep the Senate occupied while other matters are decided. I regret this because the subject matter of the debate which is the President’s report on the Committees of the Australian Senate and the form of motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate is a matter of great importance to the future of the Senate, how it will conduct itself and what its role is going to bc. This debate should engage the attention of the Senate on a more formal occasion than it is doing at” the present moment.

This motion was discussed on 25th February and the debate was .postponed. Today we have had to pick up the pieces. I do not think we will conclude the debate today and it will continue at some other lime. However wearisome this may appear lo be I intend to take up some time in canvassing the problems which confront honourable senators with their general interests. I think there is almost unanimous interest in understanding that the Senate has to strike out into an area of responsibility which it has not accepted for the last 69 or 70 years. Before I open that aspect I cannot help but refer to Senator’ Devitt who has just resumed his seat. When he espoused the cause of local government I interjected and said that he was suggesting the creation of a pork barrel system when he referred to the Committee on which he had fixed his interest, namely, the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. This Committee which is intended to deal with finance for the States, statutory authorities and local government is mentioned in paragraph 43 of the President’s report. The honourable senator said that he did not know to what 1 was referring. I think it is important that I should describe what I meant by thi pork barrel system*.

In the United States Senate the expression ‘pork barrel’ has grown into usage.

The Budget is brought before the Senate by the President of the United States and his budgetary office and it is referred - to the appropriate committee which could be a committee such as this Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The Budget is bottled up until the committee has spent some time looking at it and demanding the pork. In other words, under this system, the Budget would not pass by the Senate until, perhaps, $100,000 were made available to Senator Devitt’s local government authority in Tasmania. Another SI Om would have to be made available to Senator Cotton so as to assuage Mr Beale for flood mitigation and control in New South Wales. The President would have an interest in what is going lo happen in the Hunter River Valley and I can see Senator Webster saying that the pear and apple industry in the Goulburn Valley needs $500,000. All these sums of money are then put into the pork barrel and finally incorporated in the Budget. In America, honourable senators go away from the Senate happily because they can go to their local areas in the various States and say: ‘Well, I got you some pork this year.’

I do not make these references to my colleagues in any derogatory sense. I have been dealing with subjects which are of interest to all politicians. Unless the system of committees is under some sort of control, unless it is effective and unless there is some executive authority the committees tend to move into the area of executive responsibility, if 1 may use the American term, or into the area of the jurisdiction of the Crown which I know is the expression Sir Robert Menzies would prefer me to use. I suggest to honourable senators that we go. back and look at this problem.

Senator Devitt:

– I am indebted to the honourable senator for the little story about the pork barrel. Thank you.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I did not mean my remarks lo be offensive. The story about the pork barrel system was given by way of explanation to Senator Devitt. I know that the observation that the wheel of history turns very slowly is rather trite. But it is perfectly true of parliamentary procedures. In the internal self-government of parliament the changes in parliamentary procedures move so imperceptibly that those who are involved in such change in their lifetime cannot see the wheel move very quickly. But in retrospect and with the lapse of time it is possible to see the wheels move. My interest in the role of the Senate goes back many years to 1953 when I spent some 6 weeks in Washington to observe the operation of Congressional committees. The committees were interesting and also alarming in some of their aspects. An example of this would be the committee I have just mentioned in connection with the pork barrel. Some honourable senators have retired after a long and honourable service in this Senate. They have been replaced by younger honourable senators. In this change in the wheel of history there has been a perceptible movement to examine what significant role the Senate should fill in the next 30, 40 or 50 years. Honourable senators have been quite properly converted to the concept that a committee system should be introduced in the Senate. But I suggest that what is important is how the committees work, the role they are going to fill, and whether they will impinge upon executive authority. In looking at an account of one American Senate committee I was interested to note that the author of the book concerned takes a quotation from that luminous mind of the 18th century, Edmund Burke. I shall read the quotation to the Senate so that honourable senators may mark it because the establishment of committees cannot be divorced from the character and quality of men who serve upon committees in Parliament. It states:

The distempers of monarchy were the great subjects of apprehension in the seventeenth century; in the eighteenth century the distempers of Parliament.

That is why there arose in the United States of America the concept of the clear or supposedly clear division of power between the executive and Congress.

Senator Hannan:

– For the simple minded, what is a distemper?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKWell, I do not know. Dean Swift would probably describe it as a pox.

Senator Murphy:

– It would be a departure from temperate behaviour.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

That is really what it amounts to. 1 am glad Senator Murphy has returned. I am quite sure he will agree with me that we have had many interesting conversations on the question of Senate committees since he first came to grace the Parliament when he sat on the back bench on the other side of the chamber. Now he is brought by virtue of his own capacity and quality to the front bench on your left hand, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am of the firm belief that we are in a bit of a jam at the present moment basically because the problem of committees - how they were to be served, the number of committees to bc established, who was to serve on them, and the arrangements and processes by which committees should perform - were brought into the Senate too hurriedly. We are now in the situation where we are attempting to solve the problems which should have been solved by a committee of some expertise amongst honourable senators such as the Senate Committee on Standing Orders.

Senator Wright:

– An attempt was made.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

–

An attempt was made to solve the problems. The committees were set up following debate on a report of the Standing Orders Committee of the Senate. The matter has now flowed on to the floor of the Senate. We embarked on the committee system without a clear and coherent idea of what we were attempting to do or how the committees should be manned and served. It has been said that on the present motion we will have a free vote. 1 have not the faintest idea what will result from a free vote, but I imagine that some hotchpotch situation will arise. We are in a hotch-potch situation at present because the original motion was to debate the report of the President. He faithfully obeyed an instruction of the Senate.

So that the Senate could deal with the matters formally, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson moved a motion on which there will be a free vole. From my parliamentary experience, I am afraid that unless the Senate has a formal proposition placed before it, supported by a close examination of what is required to be done the Senate because it has the character and quality of men sitting in large committees will patch the situation. After all, the Senale is a committee of 60. What emerges in the end is not as good as we seek. We have to take it back, re-patch it and so forth, it is of no good to say that an original proposition contains all the wisdom of the ages. I do not say that at all but at least a concrete proposition has to be placed before the Senate. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has placed before us a concrete set of arrangements in the form of order of the day No. II on the notice paper - Committees of the Australian Senate.

Senator Devitt:

– Did not much the same kind of thing happen with the estimates committees and did we not straighten out those problems and overcome the initial difficulties that we met?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I am prepared to accept that proposition, but I think that the estimates committees are in a separate category altogether. If I were pressed I would make, a forecast about some dangerous aspects that could easily emerge, for one reason or another, from the estimates committees. I would not like to see this happen with the estimates committees. I think that circumstances such as the problem qf the future conduct of estimates committees, which problem has not existed in the past, will have to come back into the Senate and be examined by the Senate.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators some problems that I see emerging. I know that the committee system works in the United States of America. We know that basically the system is a good one that provides some checks on the untrammelled power of the Executive in the complexities of a modern society, with vast areas of technological and scientific opinions and conclusions that lie behind so much of the policy with which modern governments find themselves invested. Perhaps the true significance of a modern society lies in such a wide dimension of knowledge. For example, this afternoon Senator McClelland asked a question about the supposed increase in the content of mercury in sedentary fish in Botany Bay and in the estuaries of New South Wales. One Sunday newspaper contained an allegation that the mercury content is high. This morning’s papers contained a statement by the Director of Health in New South Wales that the mercury content of fish, oysters, etc., in the estuaries of New South Wales is well below the standard now acknowledged to be safe by the

Department of Health in New South Wales.

In the ebb and flow of debate and comment - this is pertinent to the argument that I will put to . the Senate in a moment. - this is an area illustrating a vast scientific problem, a vast pollution and health problem. The problem will not be resolved as a result of questions asked of a leader in the Senate, whoever he might be, nor will it be resolved by debate. The real need is for committees to be able to ascertain what is involved in solving a problem such as that which I mentioned - the mercury level apparently caused by discharges from paper mills and so forth, which is a hazard to health. That is the kind of matter which a parliamentary committee should examine. A decision has to be taken by the Senate as to what kind of committee should examine and report to the Senate on the matter. A select committee might be appointed to look at the problem and to report’ back to the Senate, or the Senate might say that the matter should be referred to a standing committee of the Senate so that a report may be brought to the Senate as to the need or otherwise of the Senate to take formal notice of the matters which are of some concern.

At that stage the Senate encounters a problem which has been tackled in pan by Senator Devitt, but which he did not explore, and which concerns all honourable senators who sit on committees. I refer to the problem of manning committees and of providing committees wilh the expert information and advice that will enable them to form their own opinions. To illustrate this, if I may be forgiven for doing this, 1 refer to a select committee, of which 1 am Chairman, which at the moment is examining the securities industry in Australia. 1 refer to the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. I say this in no derogation at all, but this Committee found it impossible to find within the Commonwealth Public Service an area of expertise and knowledge that would enable it to fulfil its function of reporting back to the Senate on the securities industry of Australia. The Committee, having found itself in this kind of bother, started to look around and decide how it could get attached to it persons with the expertise and knowledge that would enable it to pursue its investigations. The Commit tee came to the conclusion that (here was only one way in which this could be done and that was to go outside the ambit of the Commonwealth Public Service. The Senate had set up this Committee to examine and analyse a matter that concerned the Senate. There were not within the Commonwealth Public Service, so far as we were able to discover, men who could provide the analysis, the examination, the pursuit and the investigation of matters which the Committee was charged to examine. The Committee went outside the Public Service and drew men from the universities. This is a characteristic of the United States Senate system. The United Slates Senate, for the maintenance of its committee system, does not have to rely upon the Public Service. In our system we have to rely on the Public Service.

Senator Devitt:

– Do we? Are we limited in that respect?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

We are not limited to the Public Service, but the system in our nation is a Public Service system. It is quite proper that we should bc able to say that we shall take Mr X from the Queensland University to assist a Senate committee. He then has to come on to the committee and be subject to Public Service conditions and so on, and the Senate has to obtain extra appropriations which are specially allotted to the committee concerned to enable it to fulfil ils functions.

Let me demonstrate this in a vivid way. As a result of some failures on the New York Stock Exchange over the last 3 months a sub-committee of the Economic Committee of the United States Senate has been reformed to look at what has been happening on the New York Stock Exchange in much the same way as the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange is examining the securities industry in Australia. Compared with the vast corpus of the New York Stock Exchange, perhaps the aggregation of slock exchanges in Australia is minuscule. The initial appropriation lo service the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange is $20,000. That is a pretty handsome sum. Because I am used to coolie work, it presents no pain to me.

Senator Webster:

– What is limited to S20,000?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKThe initial appropriation to service the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. I am not making a complaint about it. What 1 want to demonstrate is that the initial appropriation for the corresponding committee of the United States Senate is $500,000: yet our Committee is expected to carry out literally the same responsibilities as that committee of the United States Senate.

Senator Webster:

– Who limited the appropriation to $20,000?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

That is the initial appropriation. Do not let us argue about whether it is $20,000 or not. The point I want to make is that when a parliamentary committee is operating it has to have an appropriation behind it to enable it to discharge its responsibilities to the Parliament, lt must not be restricted in employing people who are able to provide it with the necessary expertise, administrative capacity and investigative intelligence, and such people might not be available in the Public Service. No departmental head wants to second a man from his own department to a committee when that man will be used to produce, perhaps, an analysis and report that condemn the departmental head. So, the manning of committees is of paramount importance to the committees themselves. If we are to build up this body of expertise which Senator Devitt and others have been mentioning, we cannot do it unless we change the system in a rather dramatic way.

Supported by my colleagues on the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, I have brought men from the universities of Australia on to that Committee. I do not suppose this has been done before. The importance of attaching men or women from the universities lo committees of the Parliament is that it provides the nexus between the intellectual and academic world and the active world of politics. I believe that this is of paramount importance to the working of the Senate committee system. I speak from my experience as chairman of 2 select committees. The problem exists whether the committee is a select committee or a standing committee. Without such people it will he impossible for any committee to work effectively, efficiently and expeditiously and to produce, for the benefit of the collegium of the Senate to which the committee-! are responsive, those total concepts that will enable the Senate to make a judgment on the matters it has referred to its committees.

Although the comment has been made quite properly by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and other honourable senators that we cannot divide ourselves into 20 parts and go from committee to committee and although an attempt is made to limit the number of committees sitting at the one time because of the inability of honourable senators to serve on additional committees, the fundamental error that is made is in not recognising that a committee system can work effectively only according to the skill, efficiency and quantity of the people who can be attached to the secretariat. It is not within the capacity of members of Parliament to carry out the investigative role and to immerse themselves in the totality of the problem unless they are serviced by expert and efficient servants.

Such people have to be brought on to the committees simply because of the enormous technical problems that are involved in finance, economics, science, industry, education and so on. 1 suggest that they can be found only outside the Commonwealth Public Service and only in- the universities. 1 believe that the success of the American committee system is dependent to a large degree upon the vitalising and reinvigorating effect that exists in Washington. lt is the most exciting city in the world because there flow into it. from all parts of the United States new concepts, new scientific analyses and new- intellectual qualities which constantly reinvigorate and reinforce the United States centre-of government and Congress. I suggest that we will not be able effectively to discharge the committee role in the Senate of- the Commonwealth of Australia unless we acknowledge these facts.

I have talked for perhaps too long. 1 have been talking not in order to. deprecate the committee system at all but simply to point out to my Senate colleagues that, if we wish to make the committee system work as effectively, as I believe we all do, we must step outside the area of conventional management of committees and conventional responsibilities of committees. I am grateful to you, Mr President, for endorsing the new concept of bringing men from the universities. 1 wish to tell honourable senators that I was able to obtain an enlargement of the initial appropriation of $20,000 for the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange only through your ability to pull levers, press buttons and turn wheels in relation to the Treasury. Your action will enable the Committee to discharge its responsibilities. I hope that it will not embarrass you when I tell you that I am writing you another letter this afternoon.

What I suggest .to honourable senators with no facetiousness at all is that we have had some experience with standing committees and select committees and that the Senate, at a later stage in this debute, might consider not coming to a resolution in the terms of the motion as it stands at present but sending the matter back to the Standing Orders Committee and letting that Committee have a further look at it. I am sure that in the light of some of the things I have said today Senator Murphy will agree that that might be a wise procedure. Do not let us, by taking a vote on this motion or by’ making amendments to it, come to a conclusion which subsequently we could regret.

There is already a substantial body of opinion among honourable senators who have served on select committees and standing committees that the answer is not quite as simple as it looks. I commend to the Senate for its embracing the proposition that we should pursue the committee system but that we should go cautiously and try to arrive at a system that will eliminate some of the faults 1 have demonstrated this afternoon.

Senator Byrne:

– Would you support the appointment of two additional committees or none at all? Unfortunately, I missed a great deal of your speech.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– 1 do not mind that because perhaps you have been spared some tedium. I would support without any hesitation the appointment of two more committees but I must say that I believe that those committees will not be effective unless some of the reforms I have mentioned and which . I consider to be absolutely necessary are instituted. That applies whether the committees concerned be select committees or standing committees. There must be a major reform in the back-up facilities available to committees so that they can discharge efficiently the responsibilities that the Senate places upon them.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– In addressing myself to the matter of the committee system I shall refer to some of the difficulties that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has mentioned. I agree with him that there is need for a thorough examination of the committee system so that we can advance upon the experience we have gained from the committees which already have been established. Whether this is a matter appropriate for the Standing Orders Committee or whether it justifies a lengthy debate in this House, [ do not know. Senator Sir’ Magnus Cormack has presented some of the problems that he sees and some of the remedial measures that he believes should be taken.

I am concerned about the motion now before the House because it seeks to make many alterations to what’ this Senate decided previously should be the basis of operation of the committee system. For example, it seeks to reduce the number of members of committees because, as the Leader of the Government ‘in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) has said, the Government parties are finding difficulty in obtaining the required numbers to man the committees. He mentioned that 1 member of the Government parties is on 7 committees. I agree with the Minister that it is impossible for any honourable senator to do justice to 7 committees meeting between sittings of the Parliament. Whoever the individual is, I believe that he would not be acting at his best if he were a member of 7 committees. That situation suggests to my mind that there is not full co-operation among Government members in appointments to committees.

Senator Byrne:

– Was not that the case on your side of the Senate with the estimates committees? A lot of members elected not to serve on the estimates committees and others, therefore, accepted a double burden.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I shall deal wilh estimates committees during the course of my remarks, but on no occasion did any honourable senator hold a position on more than 2 estimates committees. Compare that with the present position of a Government member who is on 7 committees, whether they be select committees, standing committees or estimates committees.

Senator Webster:

– What is the point you make about Senate committees? What relevance has that to the argument?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is one of Ihe reasons advanced by the Leader of the Government in the Senate for reducing the number of members of standing committees. He said that Government members were overworked with committees and he illustrated the fact by pointing out that I Government member is on 7 committees. I agree that that member rs overworked and possibly cannot give proper attention to any one committee. Of course the question is whether that Government member is on 7 committees because he wishes to be, because of his popularity which leads him to seek appointment to committees, because he has some hunger or because there is a lack of active participation by other members of the Government parties.

Senator Byrne:

– It is not the Party to which I belong. The smaller Party likes to be represented on committees and therefore members have to double up and even treble up.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, it is not the smallest Party. The honourable senator concerned is a member of the Government parties.

Senator Byrne:

– To my knowledge it is a Country Party member. The Country Party likes to be represented on committees.

Senator Webster:

– That means little if the committees do not sit.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The committee system provides that a certain number of members shall be appointed by the Government and a certain number by the Opposition, and provision is made for other groups in the House to be represented. The Country Party member is a member of the Government. It did not occur to me that the Country Party wanted to be represented on every committee. If that is to be the criterion, then we shall have to reduce the number on committees to accommodate the smallest group in the House, and after July that could well be .i Independents. There are many committees on which the Australian Democratic Labor Party has not been represented and I do not think it has felt aggrieved by that, lt knows that because it has so few members it cannot meet all of its commitments.

I was a member of one select committee of the Senate from the time it was established until it submitted its report lo the Senate. I am now a member’ of another committee. I am high in praise of Ihe select committee system because, as Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has suggested, a select committee appointed to inquire into a certain problem can call before it the evidence of experts. I do not agree that all experts come from a university, lt depends upon the issue under notice. Extensive lime and travel are involved. There is no question before us of the elimination of select committees, and it would be unfortunate if a standing committee were appointed to inquire into an important matter which should bc investigated by a select committee. I think there are limitations on the investigations that can be carried out by standing committees.

I deal now wilh standing committees As a member of the Standing Orders Committee I supported Ihe appointment of committees by the Senate as well as the suggestion that the Clerk of ihe Senate should bring down a report on the operation of the committee system within the Senate. I think the report was presented first to Ihe Standing Orders Committee. Then when it came before the Senate the Government gave notice that it would accept the appointment for this year of 5 standing committees. At that lime I raised the question of the development of the committee system and asked whether estimates committees were the best form of committee for experimentation in the committee system. Possibly estimates committees were the worst example of committees carrying out investigations which could well bring the whole committee system into disgrace and lead to the termination of the committee system.

Senator Young:

– Are you in a fair position to pass that comment? To my knowledge, you did not attend any meetings of the estimates committees.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Long before we decided on the appointment of the committees J expressed a doubt whether the appointment of estimates committees was the correct procedure to adopt to gain experience which would guide us in appointing standing committees. The Odgers report, when it came to the Senate, did not contain any recommendation in relation to estimates committees but the Government decided upon estimates committees, as an alternative to the recommendation contained in the Clerk’s report to the Senate, as our introduction to the committee system. An alternative motion moved by Senator Murphy related to increasing or decreasing the number of committees and recommended a minor alteration in the names of the committees. Then there was a further amendment by the Democratic Labor Party. On a free vote, with the DLP supporting the Government, the Senate decided to adopt the Government’s proposal. That gave us the estimates committees. Then the Senate adopted Senator Murphy’s proposal relating to standing committees. So an original proposal and an alternative or competing proposal were adopted at the one time. Where there are mass appointments outside the range of the planned appointments there must be birth pains.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– To epitomise what I was saying prior to the suspension of the sitting, 1 am all in favour of Senate select committees on questions that the Senate thinks are important enough to be thoroughly inquired into and which inquiry necessitates the collection of greater evidence and opinions than might be found in the ordinary channels of the Senate. I am in favour of standing committees but I agree somewhat with the Government’s proposition that there should be some limitation on the activities of standing committees. 1 am opposed to the proposal to limit the number of members on the standing committees, the justification given being the inability of Government supporters to cope with the number of standing commit tees. I submit that this is not because some Government supporters are overloaded with work because insufficient Government senators participate in committees. The desire of the Country Party to be represented on all committees would limit the number of committees, and their effectiveness, to the minor groups of the organisation. The basis of representation is that a certain number are to be appointed by the Government - they do not have to belong to one of the coalition parties - a certain number to be appointed by the Opposition and one to be appointed by the Australian Democratic Labor Party or the Independent group. These appointments need not of necessity be of the members of their own party.

I have no opinion as to what are the next 2 standing committees to be constituted. I accept the Minister’s statement that the total number of standing committees should be appointed over a period of not less than 12 months. His legal advice has been that we cannot appoint all of them within the 12 months but that at least one of them has to be appointed outside that period. But. as an alternative, I suggest that we appoint the two additional committees in order to get the system under way and then appoint all but one of the remaining committees after 1 9th August this year in accordance with the motion already carried.

I am concerned with the motion proposed by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson which sets out the principles under which these committees will operate. His motion reads in part:

Thai the Senate authorises the televising of public hearings of Standing and Select Committees, at the discretion of each such Committee. 1 understand that that is one of your recommendations, Mr President, because we have received such good publicity in the Press. I think we should seriously consider the televising the proceedings of the Parliament, even if it is only the proceedings of Senate standing committees, before we permit it. It could do an injustice to some committee members; it could unduly enhance the prestige of others. All such questions need to be taken into consideration. The televising of these proceedings for short periods could give a false impression of the capabilities and activities of members of the committee. I do not completely condemn this procedure if that is what is desired, but I really think it is deserving of further consideration before the Senate expresses the opinion that it should be adopted. Possibly this question could be considered by one of the standing committees. However, I urge caution. Although it is proposed that the decision to televise a meeting of a committee should bc left to the committee itself, I think there are occasions when even committees and individuals need some protection from themselves. I believe this question needs thorough investigation. 1 do not know whether we arc doing justice to the standing committees in the initial stages by referring to them questions in relation to which we do not think we would bt- successful in obtaining the appointment of a select committee. Such inquiries necessitate the gathering of an abundance of evidence from sources outside the Parliament. The Standing Committee on Health and Welfare is endeavouring to resolve some of the questions we have referred to it. 1 do not know whether it is the right procedure to refer to standing committees questions that should go to a select committee. I wrote to the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry ;ind Trade and referred to it a matter which- 1 believe was urgent - that is soldier settlement - but. with Ihe work the Committee has on its plate at present it does not look as though il will be considering the matter until June this year. So I do not know whether it is wise simply to refer everything to a standing committee. Wc should have some hesitancy in what we do refer to a standing committee. I question whether it is necessary for a standing committee to find solutions to all the problems referred to it. Perhaps it should report to the Senate when it considers an issue lo be such that il should be referred to a select committee of the Senate. The standing committee having discharged its function, it would then be for ihe Senate to decide whether it should appoint a select committee.

I believe ‘that all matters raised in petitions presented to the Senate should be referred to a committee. It is of concern to mc that petitions are just received and read and then pigeon holed for evermore. The electors who petition the Parliament do not know what has happened to their petitions other than that they have been received. As far as they are concerned, their opinions as expressed in a petition never receive any consideration. I have presented only I petition to this Parliament. I successfully moved that it be referred to a standing committee and I believe that committee is now in the process of inquiring into it. A petition could raise most contentious issues which need the greatest investigation. 1 do not propose that committees should inquire into all the details raised in petitions, but the petitions should be considered because they express what is concerning the electors and what they think should be done. A petition may contain a matter for reference lo a particular department: it may be a suggestion that a matter be referred to a select committee; it may be that the petition calls for an answer from a standing committee. I note that in the pamphlet which has been distributed there is mention of this for the first time.

The elector as an ordinary citizen, has the right lo petition Ihe Parliament and have his petition considered by one of the institutions of the Parliament - one of our standing committees. Although such a committee may not do anything more than refer the petition back to the Senate with the comment that an insufficient number of people signed it or there was no substance in it at least the electors would know that if they have some grievances arid petition ihe Parliament about them their petition will be considered bynisation of the Parliament. If such a petition were considered by a standing committee to be important enough to be referred back to the Parliament it would open up avenues of discussion.

Bills about which more information were required than the appropriate Minister or department could supply could be referred to a standing committee on the ground that Ihe Senate were not satisfied wilh ihe information that the appropriate Minister or department had supplied and thought that it should seek information elsewhere. In this way people who could be affected by the legislation could be asked their views. I think this procedure is necessary in relation to the consideration of Bills. However, the Senate must not fall into ihe habit of referring everything to standing committees simply because they are there or because the Senate cannot refer a matter to a select committee as there are insufficient honourable senators to man such a select committee. I think that there is a place for standing committees in the committee system of the Senate but I believe that we should proceed with caution. I believe that the maximum number which it is possible to establish under the previous resolution should be established.

I turn now to the establishment of Estimates committees. Mr President, the main basis of discussion of the Estimates committees in relation to your report is their operation. I was opposed to the establishment of Estimates committees because 1 believed that they would not function effectively. However, the Senate saw fit to establish these committees and to appoint members to them. I gave as my reason for not being a member of an Estimates committee the fact that there were so many meetings of the Estimates committees 1 desired to attend and I wanted to be free of responsibility to a particular committee so that I could go from one to another. Honourable senators are no doubt aware that 1 was locked out of the meeting of the first Estimates Committee I had an opportunity to attend. I received an apology from the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the actions of this committee were not in accordance with the instructions he had given to its Chairman. However, 1 felt that on principle I could not attend any of the other meetings of this committee. 1 had not done anything to interfere with the activities of this committee. Instead of attending any of its meetings I relied on the assurance given by the Leader of the Government that 1 would have a right to express my views on the Estimates in the committee of the whole. However, because the Leader of the Government decided that there was some filibustering in the consideration of the Estimates in the committee of the whole this right was denied to me. As a result, many question which I had a responsibility, as a servant of the public, to bring forward were not brought forward by me. I hope that they were brought forward in the meetings of the Estimates committees.

Now that we have seen the Estimates committees in operation we must examine whether they have functioned efficiently. I have worked out that only 35 of the 60 members of the Senate participated in the activities of the Estimates committees. In other words, just over one-half of the membership of this chamber participated in the consideration of the Estimates this financial year. It would appear that the Leader of the Government has justified this by saying that the Estimates committees spent more time considering the Estimates than the committee of the whole had in previous years, but the fact is that fewer members of this chamber participated in the consideration of the Estimates this year than on previous occasions

Senator Wright:

– Is the honourable senator saying that the whole 60 members of this chamber have participated on previous occasions?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No. I am not saying that the whole 60 members have participated.

Senator Wright:

– Has the honourable senator seen any more than 30 honourable senators present at any one time during the consideration of the Estimates?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes. throughout consideration of the Estimates.

Senator Wright:

– In fact,, has the honourable senator not seen as few as 3 honourable senators present at times?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– There may have been only 3 honourable senators present during the consideration of a particular section of the Estimates, but a perusal of Hansard will show that a much larger percentage than one-half of the members of this chamber participated in the Estimates debate in the committee of the whole.

Senator Little:

– ls the honourable senator suggesting that the Estimates committee system is a failure?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Estimates committee system is a failure. Firstly, it has reduced the number of honourable senators participating in consideration of the Estimates to a little over one half of the membership of the Senate.

Senator Young:

– If the honourable senator has a look at the notice paper he will see that there were 5 Estimates committees of 8 members each, including the Chairman of each committee.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I should not have thought for a moment that my arithmetic would have been queried. Let us examine how many honourable senators were on more than one Estimates committee. Senator Bishop. Senator Douglas Scott, Senator Donald Cameron, Senator McManus. Senator Maunsell, Senator Malcolm Scott, Senator Webster, Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood, Senator Wilkinson and Senator McClelland were all on 2 committees.

Senator Webster:

– I do not think that I was on 2 committees. I do question the honourable senator about that. 1 do not think the honourable senator is accurate in my case.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I may have made a mistake with regard to Senator Webster. I think he was Chairman of one of the Estimates committees.

Senator Webster:

– That is the only one of which I was a member.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 thought that the honourable senator was also on another committee at the time. If Senator Webster says that he was not a member of 2 Estimates committees, 1 may be mistaken on that score. However, it is no good multiplying the number of committees by the figure of 8 to ascertain how many honourable senators participated in them because some honourable senators served on 2 committees. In fact, Senator Turnbull did not attend any meeting of an Estimates committee.

Senator Marriott:

– The honourable senator should be fair and say that he was on leave at the time performing other duties.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator should not accuse me of being unfair. I was going to say that there was a reason for his non-attendance. He was overseas. Let us examine the attendance record of the Estimates committees. Everyone was present at the first and second meetings of Estimates Committee A, but there were 3 absent from the third meeting and 2 from the fourth meeting. Everyone was present at the fifth meeting. I have already indicated that Senator Turnbull was absent from every meeting of Estimates Committee D and there was one other absentee from the third meeting of that committee. I turn now to Estimates Committee B.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It was a good committee.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Two of the 8 members of Estimates Committee B were absent from the second meeting and I from the third and fourth meetings. I do not think that Senator Mulvihill would want me to mention who was absent from the fourth meeting. However, there was at least 1 absentee from every meeting. Some honourable senators visited committee meetings but in the main they were members of another committee. They never introduced new elements to the questioning. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) visited a number of meetings and I noticed that the President visited Estimates Committee A on the occasion when a photograph was taken.

Senator Marriott:

– Are you saying that the photograph was taken because Ihe President was in attendance?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Obviously it was for no other reason. I am trying to say that there was no active participation in the work of the Committee. I agree that we did not have the proper facilities to conduct these meetings - facilities that we need in view of the possibility of some of the meetings being televised in the future. The Minister for Supply, in moving his motion, excluded the use of a Party room. Really we could hold only one Estimates Committee meeting at a lime and it would have to be in the Senate chamber. There are no other rooms adequate for such meetings. We have insufficient reporting staff for more than 2 committees to meet at the one time. This is agreed. It will take a long time to discuss the Estimates properly if we continue with these Estimates Committees. Therefore there must be some revision of the way in which the Estimates Committees operate. Other things besides lime and facilities concern every honourable senator present. Whilst we know that every honourable senator can attend a committee meeting we find that Estimates Committee D, according to its minutes, carried this resolution on 17th September 1970:

That visiting senators be afforded an opportunity to ask questions on an item after members of the Committee have completed their questioning.

This means that if 1 am not a member of that particular committee 1 am a secondrate senator behind those who have been appointed to it.

Senator Little:

– Has this something specific to do with the committees we are discussing tonight?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes. If Senator Little, an elected senator for the State of Victoria, is prepared to accept a second rate position on a Senate committee, it would suggest that he is prepared to accept that Victoria is of less importance than the other States. I am not prepared to accept such a position. As far as I am concerned all honourable senators are equal and have the right of recognition.

Senator Wright:

– You do not claim that that entitles all honourable senators to go on any committee, do you?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No. But every honourable senator has a right to attend and to participate.

Senator Wright:

– But you are complaining about the priority of the call.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Of course I am.

Senator Wright:

– The President determines in this place whether you are called first or fifty-ninth.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I think 1 should have equal opportunity with a member of the committee. I should not be placed in some lower position than members of a committee.

Senator Gair:

– Aren’t you popular?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If I am not popular with my Party and cannot be a member of a committee why should 1 be excluded from asking questions and not have equal opportunity with another fellow in my organisation who is popular? I am elected by the people of South Australia and should be treated on an equal footing with the Leader of my Party.

Senator Murphy:

– But you were allowed to ask questions on those occasions.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, I was permitted to ask questions after everyone else had finished. 1 am talking about Estimates Committee D.

Senator Murphy:

– Nobody did that at any other committee meeting.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Estimates Committee D passed a resolution saying that visiting senators would be afforded an opportunity to ask questions on an item in the Estimates after Committee members had completed their questioning.

Senator Murphy:

– Who ran that Committee?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am referring to Estimates Committee D. Senator Mulvihill takes pride in the way it was conducted. This resolution is recorded in its minutes. The minutes state that Estimates Committee D met on 17th September 1970. The sitting of the Senate was suspended at 12.55 p.m. and Estimates Committee D met in Senate committee room L22 at 2.15 p.m. in private session. This decision was made in private session. Those honourable senators who were not members of the Committee were not permitted to attend and they do not know what was discussed. There, is no Hansard report of the private session. The minutes I have show that Senator Cant dissented from one of the resolutions carried. We do not know the reason for Senator Cant’s dissention. No other honourable senator knows to this day. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson appeared before Estimates Committee A accompanied by 12 advisers. Honourable senators know what happens. We saw departmental advisers hanging about the corridors. Those advisers were from the Department of Primary Industry, the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Department of the Army. On one occasion he had 14 advisers.

Senator Byrne:

– What is the matter with that? Are you criticising that aspect?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Of course 1 am criticising it. ls not the Minister responsible for knowing what happens in his Department? There were 8 senators on the Committee and the Minister had to have 14 advisers to answer the questions they asked. This affects the cost of the parliamentary procedure relating -to the examination of the Estimates. I refer the Senate to the proceedings of Estimates Committee E. I think it provides us with a great illustration. Every member of .that Committee was a member of another committee, lt may be that those arranging the affairs at that time were unable to’ get senators to stand on the committee. I do not know.

Senator Webster:

– Just to correct the record, can you indicate which other committee 1 was on?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– You cast some doubt upon what 1 stated. I said that you were on 2 committees.

Senator Wright:

– May 1 question you about whether any member of Estimates Committee D was on another committee with the exception of Senator D. B. Scott? 1 question whether you were accurate in respect of any member of Estimates Committee D, including Senator Webster.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Let us see who was on Estimates Committee E.

Senator Webster:

– You will find it if you turn to page 2255 of the current Senate notice paper. I do not want to upset you. I merely want you to be accurate.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have a great desire to be accurate. Senator D. N. Cameron was on the Committee. Senator Keeffe withdrew from the committees. Senator Cameron was on 2 committees.

Senator Marriott:

– Which Senator Cameron?

Senator CAVANAGH:

- Senator D. N. Cameron.

Senator Marriott:

– Which committee?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I think wc might bc at cross purposes. You are talking about general committees, are you not?

Senator Webster:

– Senator Cavanagh said thai every member of Estimates Committee E was on another committee. That is an unfair statement.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I cannot find the information in this information that I have.

Senator Byrne:

– Would it not be on the notice paper?

Senator Webster:

– It appears at page 2255 of the notice paper.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am referring to the reports of the estimates committees as presented lo the Senate. They are all here. Senator McManus is mentioned. How many was he on?

Senator Little:

– The Senate would like him to be on all of them.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He may have been a member of all the committees for all 1 know. Senator Maunsell is another member.

Senator Young:

– On how many committees did Senator McManus serve?

Senator Webster:

– Did someone prepare this information for you?

Senator Gair:

– Perhaps it was the author of the book on the Bogle case.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– lt is a bad leader who blames someone else. Somewhere I have become mistaken about the number.

Senator Wright:

– In respect of every member of Committee E. with the exception of Senator Scott.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No. Let me say now-

Senator Wright:

– That you withdraw that argument?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No. not the argument, but I shall withdraw the statement. I have since been passed information showing the numbers serving on the various committees. I should say that I had nol looked at the membership of Committee E. although I did have this information in a list that I had prepared earlier. Let us consider the discussion that look place during the proceedings of Committee E which had the important responsibility of discussing 5 very important departments, namely, the Department of Air, the Repatriation Department, the Department of Primary Industry, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy.

They are the departments which have caused so much conflict in political circles in Canberra during the last fortnight. The Bulletin’ published a report, alleged to have come from Mr Fraser, that the Army in Vietnam was in revolt. Many questions could have been asked by the Committee on this subject. At its first meeting on J 7th October Committee F. sal for 15 minutes from 12.45 p.m. to 1 p.m. At its second meeting it sat for 4 hours, at its third meeting for 3 hours 32 minutes and at its final meeting for 1 hour, making a total sitting time of 8 hours 47 minutes. This was not long for such an important committee dealing with such responsible matters.

Senator Byrne:

– How does this compare with the time given to these departments under the previous system of a discussion of the Estimates by the Committee of the whole? That would be the best basis for comparison.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, it would not.

Senator Marriott:

– Does the honourable senator think that the length of time spent is more important than the way in which it is spent?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, but I have mentioned the time spent by the Committee in discussing the estimates of these departments to compare it with the discussion that took place before the Committee of the whole. Apparently the Minister attaches some importance to this. I suggest that the committee system takes longer than the previous system which allowed for a fuller discussion of questions. 1 ask honourable senators to correct me if I am wrong, but I suggest that members of that Committee were not overworked. The Committee was not visited by many senators for the purpose of asking questions and inquiries were left to the 8 members of the Commmittee. At 2 meetings 2 members were absent. That Committee was the first of the committees to submit its report, and yet it had to deal with the important questions of the Departments of Air, Repatriation, Primary Industry, the Army and the Na»!y. Nevertheless, the Committee was able to complete its inquiries within 8 hours.

Senator Webster:

– What is the criticism?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That members of the Committee were satisfied with the answers they received.

Senator Webster:

– Is the honourable senator saying that every member was satisfied with the answers?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The 6 or 8 members present were satisfied with the answers, but when the estimates for these departments came before the Committee of the whole many other honourable senators who had been unable to serve on the Committee and to ask questions were unable to discuss these estimates. The operation of the Estimates Committee was simply a gag on honourable senators who were not present at particular meetings of the Committee. Committee E is responsible for dealing with the estimates for the Department of the Army. Members of the Committee were armed with the Auditor-General’s report showing that something was wrong with the operations of the Army, a fact that has been canvassed to a greater extent over the past few weeks. The AuditorGeneral found, among other things, that 200 utility trucks had not been delivered by the time payment was made in June 1969 but were delivered progressively during July 1969. He observed that the irregularities had been introduced so that payment would be made in 1968-69 to achieve expenditure programmed for that year. This was an important item. The Army had paid for the trucks, although it had not received them, to ensure that it was able to get its appropriation for the following year. This was a subject which warranted criticism and open inquiry, but where in the Hansard reports of the Committee proceedings do we find any reference to this? Apparently the 6 or 8 members of the Committee did not have any knowledge of this transaction.

Senator Webster:

– If the honourable senator will forgive me for interrupting him, that statement is entirely incorrect. I would not want him to be too inaccurate.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator might have had knowledge of this transaction, but he did not make use of that information.

Senator Webster:

– If the honourable senator is aware of what other committees are doing he will know that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts questioned representatives of the Army precisely on this matter. Yet the honourable senator says that we did not know.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 am talking about the Estimates Committee which takes glory from the fact that it has heads of departments before it for the purpose of asking questions. The Chairman of Committee E had knowledge of what had been done by the Public Accounts Committee in respect of this transaction, but he did not press questions on the subject. Some honourable senators in this chamber who wanted to ask questions about this matter were denied an opportunity to do so.

Senator Young:

– Were you denied an opportunity to go to that Committee?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, I was denied the opportunity to go to any committee because of the attitude taken by a committee on the first occasion that it met.

Because of that attitude, as a matter of principle I am denied the opportunity to go to any other committee. Unless I am appointed to the committee. I must take my place as a second rate senator. So on no account can I go to an estimates committee. I want to reserve my right to discuss the Estimates as I see fit.

Senator Byrne:

– Was the Estimates debate gagged in this chamber?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Yes, before the Committee of the whole.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– J am sorry to have to interrupt my friends. I have some rights in the Senate and I rely solely on the Chair to preserve those rights for me. The question raised by Senator Webster related to the purchase of amplifiers in relation to which the Auditor-General had reported in these terms: . . my report dated 1 8th August 1969 referred to the purchase from commercial sources for $US405,602 of 370 amplifiers required for operation in both a vehicular and manpack role. Mention was made of the Department’s awareness, after the event, that the amplifiers supplied were unsuitable for either of the roles for which they were purchased, and of a technical report which was being considered following tin investigation as to the feasibility of modifying the amplifiers for use in either role and the probable cost involved.

The question arises here of a transaction in which 370 amplifiers were ordered to cer!am specifications but were found on receipt to be useless. No member of the Committee wanted to ask anything about that. When 1 attempted to raise the matter in this chamber, despite my objection the gag was applied to the debate. These are matters which should be examined thoroughly. Perhaps if they had been examined we would not have arrived at the situation in which, because of the deplorable state of the armed forces, there has been a need to sacrifice a Prime Minister. This matter was the subject of comment by the Auditor-General in 2 annual reports. It was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee but was not made the subject of questions by senators serving on the Senate estimates committees. I think all honourable senators should be concerned about these matters. If we are to have estimates committees better opportunities must be provided for senators to participate in their sittings.

I am surprised to learn of the new procedure that when a Minister cannot supply the answers requested he is to furnish an officer to supply them. Tonight I was questioned as to whether I was raising this matter or whether someone had asked me to raise it. It could easily have been passed over. When questions are directed to a Minister, he must accept the responsibility to answer them. If a department is unable to supply information, the Minister who administers that department must accept responsibility for the inability of his department. The right to question a Minister must be retained at all times. If it is found that a Minister is unable to supply information lo the satisfaction of an estimates committee, consideration should be given to referring the matter to a standing committee of the Senate. I oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. There is no question that in future I must oppose the establishment of estimates committees and support the setting up of standing and select committees.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– J will noi take much time of the Senate in dealing with a few points relating to the President’s report on the operations of Senate committees. The first point I wish to raise concerns the estimates committees and is relevant to some remarks that Senator Cavanagh addressed to the Senate. He emphatically criticised the estimates committees, saying that as officers of the departments are present during their sittings, they provide an escape for Ministers. They do nothing of the sort. Each Minister retains his full responsibility and at the same time provides first hand witnesses of the operations of his department. Departmental activities have become so comprehensive today that one officer is not enough. A number of officers are required to attend, each of whom will have a fairly ready acquaintance with the subject matter under consideration. Should the relevant officer not be present 1 do not think a Minister would ever take the course of not providing any officer that the committee thought fit to attend.

Any honourable senator who attended the estimates committees’ hearings would have appreciated the advantages of hearing from an officer with first hand knowledge of a particular job, operation or expenditure and would not bide in the invincible ignorance displayed by Senator Cavanagh in criticising the committees as a retrograde step. He would applaud the opportunity that has been offeredto his Parliament whereby the new system supplants that of questioning of a Minister by one of 60 senators, in a sequence decided by the Chairman of Committees. Senator Cavanagh should consider a little more deeply the point that the estimates committees provide a unique opportunity lor members of Parliament who are willing to do the work, to direct their efforts to a real examination of theEstimates andto analysethe Estimates with an efficiency never before seen.

Asto the duplication of members of the estimates committees, Senator Cavanagh was quite embarrassed by the mistake he kept repealing. I have checked the membership of the estimates committees and there are 3 senators each of whom served on 2 committees. Senator Douglas Scott served on committees A and D: Senator Bishop served on committees C and D; and Senator McClelland served on committees A and B. It is not therefore remarkable that Senator Cavanagh’s deductions ended in error when his facts at the base were so erroneous. I come nowto the point in relation to the time of consideration given by the committees. I offer some criticism of paragraph 28 oft he President’s report, which states:

The over-alltime occupied bythe Committees in question and answer sessions totalled 74 hours.

That means to say that the 5 committees shared 74 hours between them. It does not mean that each of the 5 committees sat for 74 hours. The report goes on:

In addition, a further 15 hours were taken in the Committee of the Whole stages of the Appropriation Bills, making a total of 89 hours. In comparison, the lime spent in examinination of the Estimates in Committee of the Whole over the previous eight years averaged 40 hours.

That is comparing incomparables. From the point of view of senator participation in an examination of the Estimates, when 8 senators examine the Estimates for 74 hours, that produces 592 senator hours. Taking the 15 hours spent by 60 senators at the Committee of the Whole stage, on the same basis that produces 900 senator hours, making a total of 1,492 senator hours. In previous years when 60 senators examined the Estimates for 40 hours, 2,400 senator hours were involved, butI hasten to add that each of the calculations is phoney. When the Estimates were examined by the Committee of the Whole, only on rare occasions during the 40 hours thus spent would more than 20 of the total of 60 senators be present.

Let us take it the other way and consider the efficacy of an individual senator as a questioner or critic of the Estimates. When 3 committees are sitting at the one time, only one voice can be heard before each chairman, but there is an opportunity when senators split up into 3 committees to submit the Estimatesto a very full examination. On that basis it appears that the committee system affords a greater number of instances of senators’ exercising their rightto raise questions on the Estimates. However, my complaint is that in the first instance the division into 5 estimates committees was reduced to a division into 3 estimates committees because of failure to provide accommodation and facilities. But as a compromise, being an easy going person after 1 5 years-

Senator Byrne:

– Does the honourable senator mean an inability to provide, not a failure?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I did not go into the question of merit or fault. I think I would agree with the honourable senator that it was a question of ability for that year but not for the next year. Having excused the reduction in the number of committees from 5 to 3 1 find it completely inexcusable to have it suggested that the number should be reduced to 2 so that the number of senators employed officially as members of committees will be 16 instead of 60 during each hour of Senate Estimates examination. I understand the reason given is that people want to move around the corridors for the purpose of going from one committee to another. The fact is that there is no such purpose. There will simply be a reduction of senator effort. I think it is a terrific blow to the strength of the committees that we proceed upon the basis of economising in the use of honourable senators. The whole purpose of dividing into 5 committees instead of 1 was to enable 5 processes of examination to go on at the one time.

If the records are looked at as to our performance last year honourable senators will find that there were broken times instead of continuous times and this led to an increase in expenditure in the attendance of officers, a good deal of disruption in the tempers of officers and a good deal of disruption in the interests of honourable senators. During a certain period of our work Estimates Committees should have a real priority to enable a continuity to be maintained in the tedious and baffling challenge of examining the financial figures put up by skilful people from the Treasury and other departments. Any honourable senator who pretends to understand the figures without the most persevering inquiry is a better man than I. Therefore I am all for the machinery which will enable honourable senators faithfully discharging their job of inquiry to have the maximum time to examine the officers who know something about the situation and the facts which go to justify the expenditure of the nation. They are examined, nol through the screen of Ministers but directly under the supervision of the Ministers.

Having been in the Senate for some 20 years I say that the performances of the Senate estimates committees last year, even subject to the defects which I have mentioned, were 100 times more efficacious in examining the Estimates than the token routine speechmaking which goes on in this place under the form for the examination of estimates. In relation to the Standing Committees f persist in the opinion which I formed when we discussed the subject last year. If we are going to maintain the present concept of Standing Committees we are going to submerge the whole idea of the Senate’s operating effectively as a means of inquiry into pertinent, political matters. The efforts of those committees will produce no more respect than the efforts of the chamber as a whole. 1 emphasise that we should have a standing committee which is constituted ready to accept an assignment to inquire into a matter on behalf of the chamber. The subject should be capable of brief consideration and deliberation and the committee should report within a fortnight or 3 weeks. Delay is going to destroy the system. We have a typical instance in the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade which has a reference on Tasmanian shipping and freights. That reference was resolved 1 think on the motion of my colleague Senator Rae, at a time when it was a matter of very great concern to the people of Tasmania.

Time has gone by and any report on a decision administratively made 12 months ago will be of no practical value. What is wanted is a report so that honourable senators can consider what has been found out at 2 or 3 sittings and make a decision such as a board of directors would make upon reports from sub-managers. This should not be done on the basis of preparing an encyclopedia on shipping freights and then coming in as an argus and saying: ‘We found out everything about it.’ Senator Cavanagh rejoiced at having referred a petition to one of the standing committees. He said it is the first petition in parliamentary history which has had the recognition of being referred to a committee. This matter is referred to in paragraph 46 of the President’s report on Committees of the Australian Senate. The resolution was carried on 3rd November 1970. On inquiring today I find that the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare has asked 3 departments to give some report on the subject of extra finance to overcome the increasing crime in Australia. More ridiculously, the absolute acme of absurdity appears at the top of the Senate notice paper from day to day. We are going to be asked by Senator Murphy to refer to one of these standing committees the introduction of a national superannuation scheme and the methods of financing and operating such a scheme. In England, that proposition was put to Lord Beveridge and about 20 other persons, ad expert in their field. His report was made during the war and therefore everybody worked much more energetically than ‘. they do today. Fancy referring to a Senate Standing Committee such a subject as whether or not a national superannuation scheme should be brought in and the methods of financing and operating it. No honourable senator who has any self respect, responsibility or capacity would undertake to finalise that inquiry as a member of ‘a committee for 10 years. If any member ‘of a committee made himself an academic expert and administrative expert for 2 years he might put in some report of his own notions. But we arc going to destroy standing committees unless we use them as a ready made, practical means of inquiring closely and more intimately into the subject which comes tip and- which is reported back to the Senate with the point of view of that committee within 2 or 3 weeks.

The proposal in relation to television is fascinating. In the Press Gallery are members of the medium which is charged with the privilege and the responsibility of reflecting the deliberations of Parliament. In my view Parliament does itself no credit in giving those privileges and not demanding and insisting upon an obligation from day to day that if Parliament is worth its pay its deliberations should bc reported fairly, accurately and adequately through every media represented in this chamber. Il should not be left to the law of libel. These are the principles that would guide my consideration of the introduction of this medium into a committee room. There is no more justification for innovating this fascinating medium - and 1 use the word ‘fascinating’ because of the flashing operations that go on - into a committee room than there is for innovating it into this Senate. I would sooner see the empty benches of the Senate projected to the nation from time to time. Without going into a debate on the participation of senators or on the content of speeches, that would be a healthy process. 1 do not oppose television coming into the chambers of parliament, but I do oppose its coming into the chambers of parliament or into the committee rooms unless each television organisation has firmly placed upon it the obligation that its presentation of the picture to the public will be accurate, fair, and adequate and that there shall be a proper sanction for default in that obligation. That is to say, that Parliament does not sit for the purpose of enabling glamour boys, or whatever they be called, to speak. This medium would be given the right to publicise the proceedings in this chamber only so that the country could know and make its opinion as to the performance of its representatives in this chamber. The law of libel has proved itself completely ineffective in enforcing a proper and balanced representation of Parliament by the public media. If Parliament is to be maintained as I think it is most important that it bc maintained in the esteem of the country, its communication with the country must always be fair, accurate and adequate. .

The last thing 1 wish to say arises out of remarks made by my colleague Senator Sir Magnus Cormack when he almost surprised me wilh the appropriation that he considered should be made to particular committees. When he mentioned the Australian appropriation I in my innocence thought that he was referring to the American appropriation, until he mentioned the American appropriation. Having been alerted by the American appropriation, the figure induces me to submit to the Senate this proposal: Whenever a motion is moved lo employ any Senate committee it should contain one paragraph specifying (he amount of our request for the appropriation. Then we will see whether if we should spend S20.000 on a committee and the product to be received by way of a report is worth it. In this country we have reached the stage where not a few people arc concerned about getting value for money. Many things in the way along, such as individual remuneration and so forth, need adjusting. 1 do not wish to engage in any discussion of that kind, but the total price of the product should be in front of us whenever we vote on a motion that will mean the employment of one of these committees.

I said that my previous remarks would conclude my speech, but when I said that 1 omitted to notice an observation made by Senator Devitt to which I wish to refer. He referred to that part of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s motion which says that the next 2 committees to be geared into action as operative standing committees shall be the Committee on Education, Science and Arts and the Committee on Social Environment. Senator Devitt said that he would rather see geared into action he Committee on Finance and Government Operations because, forsooth, he thinks that its function might go down to the stage of ensuring that the water supply in Bellerive, instituted by the Southern Regional Water Supply 15 years ago, would be sufficient to quell 3 fires that some arsonist has started in school buildings over the course of 3 months.

Senator Devitt:

– You should not joke about it. The matter is a very serious one.

Senator WRIGHT:

– 1 am being el lip.tically brief.

Senator Devitt:

– You should not be facetious. The matter is a very important one nationally.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I was not being at all facetious. I was just laughing at myself for summarising the point in this way. Matters of finance of that kind are always pertinent lo the whole of the Estimates debates. The Joint Committee on Public Accounts can examine matters of that kind. Also, the Senate deals with Bills relating to finance. Those are the matters that I wish to bring before the Senate simply for consideration because my preference is for the 2 committees mentioned in Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s motion as against that which is advocated by Senator Devitt.

Senator Webster:

– What are you advocating? Have you been specific in saying what you advocate?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I have been quite specific. I want at least 3 estimates committees instead of 2.

Senator Webster:

– When you spoke you said that you wanted all members of the Senate involved.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That was my original proposition.

Senator Devitt:

– Have you changed your mind?

Senator WRIGHT:

– 1 do not wish to take the time of other senators in an interjection exchange, but I made it quite clear that my first approach last year was for 5 estimates committees to sit simultaneously. I yielded, on a compromise as to practicability and convenience, to the proposal that there be three. The present motion is for two to sit simultaneously. I much prefer three. The desideratum is five. I object to the introduction of television unless on the basis of fair, accurate and adequate reporting.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– J do not wish to speak at great length on this matter. My main purpose in rising is to move an amendment that was to some extent foreshadowed in the remarks of my colleague Senator Byrne when he stated the viewpoint of the Australian Democratic Labor Party on this matter. The amendment has been circulated; I do not know that this is the time for scathing criticism or for wildly enthusiastic support for the committees in general. We have always supported a policy of gradualism in relation to committees, considering it to be much more reasonable to expect that if we move a little more slowly, if we establish them gradually and if we learn by the inevitable mistakes that will be made as we go along we will ultimately have much more successful and better committees doing the work of the nation than otherwise would be the case. lt is because we have adopted that attitude throughout the discussion that we now feel that some of those who are prepared to say that the estimates committees failed because in some respects they were dissatisfied and others who say that the estimates committees were a marvellous success because more attention was given to various aspects than previously are making hasty judgments. With something as new to the Senate as the estimates committees are, we believe that just a little more time and a little more experience are necessary before we can assess fully whether they are a success or a failure and precisely what is necessary to make them function as everybody in the Senate wants them to function.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for Senator Cavanagh who ‘ obviously had specific questions that he wished to raise on aspects of the Estimates which were tremendously important to him. This matter gets down to party difficulties. In our Party we may have the good fortune that being few, we do not expect to be able to be duly represented on all committees; indeed, it is physically difficult for us to be represented on all committees. Because we have complete confidence in each other, if there is a specific matter that we want raised in an estimates committee that we are unable to attend we go to one another and ensure that in our own interests, in the interests of the country and in the interests of getting a good debate on it the question that is uppermost in our minds is raised by one of our trusted colleagues. Of course, in that sense I can speak only for our Party.

We may have the aci vantage of being small in parliamentary representation. ]f Senator Cavanagh were here I would suggest to him personally that it might be a simple solution to the problem that he found with the estimates committees on this occasion for him to request a trusted colleague to ask for him the question that he most wanted to be asked in the estimates committees which, because of the pressure of work on himself, he was unable to attend. The important thing is not who asks the question of either the Minister or department concerned or who draws attention to what may be a fault in the Estimates or the Budget, but the fact that the question is asked. We offer to other parties the methods and techniques that we adopt, namely, of trusting each other and seeing that whatever matter we wish to have raised is raised where it should be raised.

Senator Gair:

– If Senator Cavanagh has not a mate in his own Party, I do not mind doing it for him.

Senator LITTLE:

– I would not like to say that about any honourable senator. I am offering that advice. Perhaps we are fortunate in our circumstances. There are not yet enough of us here to indulge in the luxury of (he disputation that goes on in larger parties. We may come to that problem in the future.

The propositions now before the Senate do fit in with the ideas that we have on the gradual implementation of the committee system. But we believe that it is a matter of priorities, lt is noi that all the questions are not important, lt is not that our proposition is more important than the one that wc suggest should be deleted. We believe that it has such a degree of urgency that it should be given priority at this stage, lt is for that reason that I move the following amendment to the motion now before the Senate:

In paragraph 2 id), leave out proposed subparagraph lii). insert:

The Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations this shall include finance for Slate*, statutory authorities and loc.il government):’.

The effect of that amendment would be to delete from the motion the section that refers to the Standing Committee on Social Environment and to replace it with our suggestion for the appointment of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations.

We support the proposition for the appointment of only 2 committees in view of al! the physical difficulties in regard to accommodation, the allocation of duties and the position of honourable senators. We also understand the position of Ministers. We believe thai if 2 committees are to be established the committee that we propose would be a heller one to establish because of the degree of urgency involved. In regard to the proposal for the reduction in the number of members that is necessary to form a committee from 8 to 6 and a reduction in the quorum from 4 to 3, wc believe that that is a practical step in view of the number of people in the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - ls the amendment seconded?

Senator McManus:

– I second the amendment.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I feel that we have lost track of some of the original ideas in setting up committees, if one can judge by the speeches we have heard this afternoon and this evening from Government senators and the amendment which has just been moved by Senator Little on behalf of the Australian Democratic Lahor Party. Thai amendment is getting right away from the real issue. I am sorry that Senator Wright has left the chamber. He has probably moved off to try to get his crumbling portfolio together. Wilh minor exceptions, his contribution was a tirade of political balderdash, double-think and double-talk, mostly aimed at the policies of his own Government in relation to committees, as enunciated in this chamber on previous occasions. I am not carried away by his rather hypocritical statement about fair and accurate discussion in this chamber. In that regard we only have to go back to June 1970 when that very Minister used all the forms of this chamber to suppress debate on very important Bills that were passed on the final evening of the autumn session.

A standing committee or a select committee - in fact any committee - must have teeth if il is to do a worthwhile job. lt seems to be the aim of the Government to establish committees without the machinery or the opportunity to really get down to the basis of the matter that ought to be probed on behalf of the Australian public. We know that the committees with which the committee system of the American Senate has made us familiar have the ability to do that and have the right to expose public scandals. But half of our select committees do not have the right to call into query the actions of a departmental officer or the activities of a Minister. Tn fact, I venture to suggest that were it not for the disarray in which the Government finds itself at the moment we probably would not have had this opportunity to discuss the setting up of committees.

Let us have a look at the committees that exist at the moment. From today’s notice paper, at page 2254, we see that currently we have 2 legislative and general purpose standing committees - one on health and welfare and the other on primary and secondary industry and trade. This is one point on which J will agree with what Senator Wright said, m relation to shipping freights, a particular problem arose at a particular time and there ought to have been an opportunity to discuss it in a hurry. My view of standing committees or select committees is that if a problem of great magnitude arises suddenly facilities ought to be made available for the relevant committee to fly to the trouble spot, if necessary, and investigate it on the spot. Facilities ought to be made available for technical advisers to travel with the committee. If that is done a decision is arrived at. within a matter of hours, if necessary, or within a matter of days or weeks at the most. I did say that with a few minor exceptions I thought the Minister’s speech was a lot of balderdash but it is true, as he said, that the thing is now 2 months old and everything has been lost. Committees should not be hamstrung in this way. One of the two committees that I have mentioned investigated this matter.

There are 5 committees which we still have to establish. The Australian Democratic Labor Party has come in with an amendment which, to my way of thinking, is merely a political manoeuvre and has not a great deal of merit. We have a number of select committees still sitting - the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, which is probably one of the longest sitting committees and covers one of the major trouble spots of this country today; the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, and the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack would know that somewhere along the line he, as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Committee, made a public statement that Minsec was not lo be investigated. For heaven’s sake, there was one of the greatest mining scandals that this country has ever seen and there was the chairman of the Committee making a public statement that the Committee would not look at it yet.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is not true.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I know that you have changed it since then. You have made another statement that you are investigating it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Older! Senator Keeffe, you must nol refer to the Committee.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Must not refer to which committee, Sir?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - You must not refer to evidence given to the Committee and statements made by the Committee.

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 contend that 1 have not broken any standing order because 1 am referring to public statements which have been made by the chairman of the Committee. Can J not make reference to that? I am ruled out of order on that loo?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - You must be careful in what you say.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will bc careful. I will refer to public statements that have been made on behalf of any committee. I will not say anything concerning a standing committee or a select committee which is not yet available to the public. I appreciate your advice, Mr Deputy President, but I claim that I have not yet broken any standing order.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Will the honourable senator indicate when I made that statement?

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the honourable senator’s memory is not clear enough for him to know when he made a public statement and if he is not aware of the political consequences when he makes a public statement, then I suggest that he should resign as chairman of the Committee and as a member of the Committee. Maybe he will not get the portfolio he expects to get in this new organisation because the more he opens his mouth the deeper in trouble he gets.

The estimates committees are another kettle of fish altogether. I agree with many of. the things that were said by my colleague, Senator Cavanagh. earlier this evening.I agree, too, with some of his statements in regard to televising the proceedings of committees. While I do not think that it should be postponed indefinitely,I believe that a lot of technical aspects have to be looked at first. Part of the failure of the estimates committees lies in the fact that 5 ofthem are operating. It is true that I resigned from 2 of them in protest becauseI thought they were unworkable. We did not have facilities in the House for the committees to work properly, there was insufficient space for them to be properly covered by the Press and there was insufficient space for the Government’s advisers. It will be recalled, as Senator Cavanagh said, that some Ministers arrived with 12 or 14 advisers. I would not care if they arrived with 25 advisers but there should be facilities for them to operate properly. Those facilities were not available. The advisers came in with great files and had nowhere to put them except under the table or outside the door.

Senator Young:

– Senator Keeffe would know that only because he was outside the door,too.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I know that Senator Young was outside the door as well. That was just one of the incidental things that happened. Unless facilities, both technical and in relation to space, are available the committees cannot operate effectively There is a first class opportunity here for the Governmentto suppress debate. With 5 committees sitting, on many occasions 2 or more sitting simultaneously, it is not possible for someone interested in a number of departments, as a member of the committee or as one of those who can ask questions after the members of a committee have asked their questions, to ask questions themselves. Let us look at Esti mates Committee A which covers the Department of Supply, the Parliament, Prime Ministers Department, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of External Affairs. Treasury and the Department of Defence. In debates on the Estimates I have always, ever sinceI have been in this chamber, directed remarks to 2 of those departments. On behalf of the Opposition I normally have led the debate on the estimates for the Department of Supply.

I am also interested in social services, including Aboriginal affairs. Estimates Committee B covers those 2 subjects as well as the Department of Housing, the Department of Immigration, the Department of Health and the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. If Estimates Committee A and Estimates Committee B are meeting at the same time and there are 2 subjects on which I want to ask pertinent questions I am precluded from doing so becauseI cannot move from one committee room to the other. Let me go even further. Estimates Committee C covers the Department of Works, Tourist Activities, the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, the Department of Labour and National Service, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of External Territories. In debates on the Budget and the Estimates I have always spoken on matters relating to our external territories. So there are 3 committees tied up, at least so far as I am concerned. Estimates Committee D covers the Department of National Development, the Department of the Interior and others. I normally direct remarks to matters related to those 2 departments. Estimates Committee E covers the Repatriation Department, another subject on which usually I speak.

The only way in which the system can operate effectively is either to close up some of the subjects and reduce the number of committees or have meetings in rotation so that if an honourable senator wants to participate in all of the committees or in those committees in which he is interested he will have the opportunity to do so. When we came to debate the Estimates in this chamber we were told that we should have been at the committee meetings to ask questions, so the Minister fobbed us off. He brushed us off and would not give us any information. In other words, the information was suppressed. Despite all the democratic processes that are supposed to be available to us, we had to squeeze into a limited period our search for information which should have been available to the Parliament and to the people outside who want to know what we arc doing with their money. That is what debates on the Estimates are about - to find out What the Government is doing with the taxpayers money.

Other points are pertinent to the establishment of committees. Apart from the committees that 1 have mentioned we have a number of joint statutory committees and a number of standing committees. At present there are 4 joint committees, namely, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint Committee on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. We know that the findings of the latter Committee have been treated with contempt by the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton), as I think he is now. Anyway, he is the former Prime Minister. These are things we cannot possibly overlook. In the plans for the new and permanent Parliament House, which wit be attached to the old and semi-permanent Parliament House, there is no provision in any of the planning for staff to operate with any senator There are the usual little pigeonholes which will be just about crowded out if a senator and perhaps a constituent are in them. lt is obvious that lor the next 10 years - this Government probably- has pious hopes of staying in office for that length of time - the Government has made no plans for research assistants or for extra secretarial assistance. In other words, although the Government pays lip service to the principle of the establishment of committees it has no intention of making them operate effectively. There are minor exceptions. Some Government members of committees are able to get a degree of minor assistance because they have access to staff, but that does not apply to members of the Opposition who are required to sit on select committees or standing committees.

Technical advisers to every committee of the Parliament are overworked. The big problem is that there are not enough of them in the first place. If standing committees or select committees were operating in the correct way a number of things that have now become big scandals so far as the Parliament is concerned would not have happened. When the first questions about Jetair Australia Ltd were asked by Opposition members in this chamber early in February - I think it was on the first or second day of the session - we were told that full statements would be made and so on. We now find that the credibility of Ministers is in grave doubt not only in the House of Representatives, where the blame was pushed, but right here in this chamber. For instance, there are .questions which were put on the notice paper after 1 9th February and yet we receive a reply today in these terms:

The formal documentation needed to complete the transaction-

That is in relation lo Jetair - was finalised on 19lh February 1971-

Yet the Government is still fobbing us off with stupid answers and.’ if I may say, dishonest answers - when an Order was issued to Jetair Australia Ltd for the supply of 6 DCS aircraft and spares.

I am shocked at the senior Ministers who have come here and told us deliberate untruths about this scandal. A lot more will be heard about this. I do not propose to enlarge on it tonight. Ministers and other people-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! The honourable senator must not impute improper motives to any other honourable senator.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If I said that some people have their hands in this thing up to the elbow without saying they are members of the Senate - I was not talking about members of the Senate; I was talking about the Ministers in the portfolios they hold.

Senator Cotton:

– Could we just have it clear from Senator Keeffe whether he intends to impute dishonesty to any member of the Senate? Is that what he is saying? I would just like to have it clear.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Senator Keeffe has said he has not imputed an improper motive to a member of the Senate.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– ls he withdrawing what he said?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I have not offended against the Standing Orders or any member of the Senate. The Acting Deputy President is running this show, not the honourable senator. There is another point which will be raised in relation to this transaction with Jetair, but 1 will nol enlarge upon it here tonight, lt will be the subject of a major debate in this Parliament too soon for a lot of people on the Government side of the chamber. The point I am endeavouring to make is that if there is a suspicion of scandal or improper motive or anything else, before it becomes a public scandal it ought to be referred to a standing committee or a select committee for proper investigation. These committees ought to have teeth to be able to carry out these investigations, and to call for people and papers and do all the things they can to carry out that investigation.

Senator Young:

– You had your chance in the estimates committees and did not lake advantage of it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If I were Senator Young 1 would go very quietly on this. Treasury Regulation 52 under the Audit Act provides that invitation of public tenders may be dispensed with where the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, or an officer authorised by him in writing for the purpose, certifies that invitation of, tenders would be impracticable or inexpedient. The regulation does not impose any limitation on the value of contracts for which public tenders may be dispensed with. So if Senator Young in his exalted position in some portfolio he is going to get in the never-never decided to extend the Fill contract by another 24 planes and he decided, by his good offices, to encourage the Government to use Treasury Regulation 52, there would be nothing to prevent him from spending $10Om of the taxpayers’ money to look after his friends and make sure that the contract was carried out. The Government will not expose to public tender the deal I am referring to; it will not expose it to public view. It will be done under the lap. f am saying that this ought not to happen. Every time anything of this nature is subject to any sort of scrutiny at all, it ought to be exposed so that the public can have a look at it.

I am not happy about standing committees or select committees sitting in camera. 1 think the Press and the public ought always to have the right to be present if they want to. If we have nothing to hide why should we have to meet in secret? The inference, of course, is that we have something to hide.

Some months ago I asked - I think the dogs were barking about this in the corridors of Parliament House - whether there were people in Vietnam engaged in extensive black marketing and what have you. At that time we could have referred the matter to an appropriate committee and we would have been better off. But today we have the case of a soldier making a statement that a person he knew in Vietnam made thousands of dollars by buying and selling 10 fridges, 15 television sets, about 30 fans and stacks of other profitable items. He said that another soldier he knew stole an Australian Army 5 ton super-charged diesel truck - you cannot take that away in your haversack - and sold it on the black market. He thinks that the profit made on that one deal alone amounted to about $25,000. The soldier who made this statement is a former national serviceman who. served 12 months in Vietnam.

If we had an investigation of the activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation even the senators on the Government side of the chamber would be ashamed of what they saw in their files. No doubt if these committees are ever given the teeth that they ought to have there will be some of the best bush fires ever seen in the bush capital in history, as files will be burnt everywhere because o£ these under the counter negotiations which are carried on.

I support what the Leader of the Opposition has already said in relation to the establishment of these committees; for heaven’s sake give them the facilities they need to operate properly, give them the staff they will need to operate effectively, and give them the travel facilities they need. This will be a small expenditure of public money compared with some of the things that can happen. The deal on the Fill aircraft alone would not have been carried out if it had been exposed to public view in its early stages. The sum of $150m to$200m which we are going to lose on this deal would have kept standing committees, adequately staffed and with proper facilities, going in this Parliament for the next 15 to 20 years. I make that plea. I oppose the amendment moved by Senator Little, the representative of the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:
Victoria

– Iclaim to have been misrepresented by Senator Keeffe. I ask for leave to make a statement.

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

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKSenator Keeffe made an accusation that as the Chairman-

Senator Keeffe:

– I did not make an accusation: I made a statement.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– The honourable senator made a statement which lakes the form of an accusation that as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and ExchangeI was recreant to my duty in that I made a public statement saying that the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange would not. investigate the Minsec affair, if I may express it that way. As I recollect it, the first news of the Minsec crash appeared on 4th February when I was at sea. Upon my return from sea on 8th February I was contacted by the Secretary of the Committee. .I dictated to him over the telephone a statement which was subsequently read hack to me. The statement was issued and most of the reputable newspapers of Australia printed it in full. I ask for leaveto read the statement that was published.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is leave granted? There being no objection. leave is granted.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– It is in these terms:

The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack said today that the Committee would he examining the activities of Mineral Securities Limited, its subsidiaries and those connected with it. The Committee has already requested the Chairman of the Sydney Slock Exchangeto keep it informed of all developments and has been in daily contact with the Exchange. However, he said it should not be assumed that the Committee’s intention was formed only last week as a result of the events which then occurred. It has been obvious that the Committee’s, terms of reference would lead it to examine the methods and financing of the large corporate traders in the secutities markets. In previous statements the Committee has outlined a programme indicating that it would look at such particular activities.

I wishto emphasise, however,’ Sir Magnus said,that while the Committeeis fully aware of the importance of this matter, its function is only to look at specific events as examples of what may occur, for the purpose of deciding whether to recommend legislation. The Committee does not have an executive function. It will not investigate, for example, for the same purposes as an investigator appointed under the Companies Act. It is not its functionto formulate a detailed report on the activities of particular companies’. I went on to say: . . the Committee would be examining the matter mentioned in the coming months inthe normal course of its work. It should not be assumedthat all evidence would be received in public hearing. The Committee is concerned to conduct its deliberations in a way that would avoid any adverse impact on current market conditions.

The Committee reassembled as soon as the Senate reassembled and examined the Minsec matter. I was authorised by the Committee on 18th February to issue the following Press statement:

The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, said in Canberra today that, following meetings of the Committee, it had been agreed thatthe Committee would proceed forthwithto investigate those activities of the Minsec group which falls within its terms of reference.

Those are the only public statements I have issued. I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Keeffe andI should be grateful if he would indicate any change of attitude.

Senator Keeffe:

– What Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has just read out is what I said in a condensed form. I feel that I have no need at all to alter my words.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– With the introduction of the system of estimates committees during the last Budget session all honourable senators were very keen to see how they would operate and how successful they would be. I think I can speak for all honourable senators, with the exception of 3, in saying that we were very pleased with the way in which the estimates committees operated. We had an opportunity to work effectively as committees and to research in depth with not just the appropriate Minister but the officers of the appropriate departments.

A lot more information was obtained in this way than would have been obtained by the committee of the whole in the Senate. 1 think the reports which were finally prepared by the estimates committees indicate very clearly that the system of Estimates committees was very effective and worth while. The effectiveness of these committees went beyond the actual verbal results. The committees functioned effectively because they operated purely as Senate committees and not as political areas of debate.

I had the pleasure of serving on Estimates Committee A. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) was Deputy Chairman of Estimates Committee A and on occasions he chaired its meetings. The members of this committee did nol regard their duties as being purely political: they approached them as members of the Senate who were working as effectively as they could within the whole committee system of the Senate. I was very surprised tonight to hear the remarks of both Senator Keeffe and Senator Cavanagh on the establishment of estimates committees. I am nol going to spend too much time on this aspect because I want to discuss in the short amount of time I have at my disposal the system of standing committees in the Senate.

I was very disappointed with the comments made by Senator Cavanagh and Senator Keeffe. Some of their comments were not entirely correct, lt must be agreed that they were disappointed at being unable to get into a meeting of an estimates committee on the first day of its sitting, but if they are fair they will admit that the Chairman of this committee apologised to them about a complete misunderstanding which occurred. Both honourable senators knew that they were welcome to attend and they had an opportunity to attend any meeting of an Estimates committee they wished to attend: but to my knowledge on no occasion did either honourable senator do so. As a member of Estimates Committee A, I not only attended every one of its meetings but also was what might be termed a visitor and had the opportunity of asking questions when 1 felt so disposed at meetings of other estimates committees. I refute the statements which have been made tonight by Senator Keeffe and Senator Cavanagh.

All honourable senators had an opportunity to participate in any meeting of an Estimates committee. 1 admit that problems were experienced. One of the problems was the lack of suitable accommodation. 1 appreciate that the Hansard staff were put under quite a deal of stress because of the extra load they had to carry during this period. I. must thank the President of the Senate, who attended many of the meetings of the estimates committees, as well as the Hansard staff for the co-operation which was extended to the estimates .committees. I believe that this year we should try the system of having only 2 estimates committees sitting simultaneously. This will give honourable senators far more opportunity to move around between estimates committees and participate in their operations. I do support this suggestion . which has been put forward by the President. I hope that when the estimates committees are again in operation in the next Budget session or during consideration of the supplementary appropriations those honourable senators who claim to have been refused admittance lo a meeting of an estimates committee will seek clarification on whether they are entitled to attend these meetings and will come along and see for themselves what happens at them. 1 turn now to the new system of standing committees which have been established. Two are in operation at present and a proposal has been put forward for the setting up of at least another two. The leader of the Opposition has proposed that another 5 standing committees be set up, which would mean that there would be 7 standing committees in operation. I am a great supporter of the .committee system. This is perhaps one of the reasons why I am a supporter at this stage of setting up only another 2 standing committees. I believe that if these committees arc to function effectively it will be necessary to back them up, which would mean that there would have to be a good complement of research workers to assist these standing committees. I understand that the standing committees are to operate on a short term basis. I understand that, although they are to be set up on a continuing basis, they will be expected to come up very quickly with a report to the Senate. The standing committees will not be able to do this if they have to do a lot of research work themselves. This is one of the reasons why I feel that we should adopt the concept of gradualism. I hope that all of these committees will be set up eventually, but 1 think that we would be rushing things too much at this stage if we set up all of them now. Therefore, I will support the setting up of only 2 of them in the immediate future.

Three committee systems are in operation at present in the Senate. Firstly, there are select or ad hoc committees; secondly, there are estimates committees; and thirdly there are standing or continuing committees. One of the problems that are being experienced at present is the workload which is being placed upon honourable senators. All honourable senators are willing to work on these committees, but it is physically and politically impossible for honourable senators to sit continuously on committees. An honourable senators responsibility does not begin and end with the sittings of the Senate in Canberra. During weeks when the Senate is in recess an honourable senator is expected to be in Canberra or somewhere else doing committee work. He has also a responsibility to the people of his own State. An honourable senator must share his responsibility between his duties in Canberra and his functions in his State. This is another reason why 1 believe that a close look must be had at the standing committee system. We must make sure that honourable senators are able to apply themselves to the whole political area and not just to the concept of their responsibilities in Canberra itself. I know that a large number of the honourable senators in this chamber have exactly the same ideas as myself on this matter.

I also want to point out that committees of the Senate should not be expected to sit every Friday or during every week when the Senate is in recess. I hope that as time goes on some consideration will be given to giving up perhaps the Thursday afternoon of a sitting week or some other time during a sitting week to enable standing commitees to meet. If they are to be continuing commitees they will become part of the Senate system. I am not saying that a part of every sitting week should be given over to these committees, but it could be once every fortnight or something like that. This would make a great difference. If these commitees are to continue operating as they have operated so far it could mean that some honourable senators would not be able to go home to their own State but would have to sit on a standing commitee during the whole of a recess week and then return to the Senate on the following Monday. If this were to happen it would mean that these honourable senators would not be carrying out their parliamentary duties in the manner in which the people in their own States would expect them to carry them out. I hope that serious consideration will be given to devoting part of the Senate sessional time to the work of standing committees when they are all appointed. 1 am not saying that it should be done now; I believe this is something we should look at later on. I have endeavoured to be brief because I know we want to finish this debate tonight. I support the idea of setting up two more standing commitees at this stage but I hope that only 2 estimates commitees will sit simultaneously during the next Budget session.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have read with a great deal of interest the report by the President of the Senate entitled ‘Committees of the Australian Senate’ I congratulate the President and the officers of the Senate upon the compilation of the report, not so much for what is stated in it but for what it sets out to do. The general principles behind it seek to make the Senate a really effective arm of the Parliament - a much more effective arm than it has been to date. Although I might disagree with some of the contents of the report, as a general principle I think the proposals set out in it are a step forward in these days when ‘Big Brother’ seems to loom so heavily over our heads.

I know the hour is getting late and that it is desired that votes be taken on this very important subject tonight. Therefore I will cut my remarks to the bare minimum. At the outset I point out how important it is, in the interests of the Australian people, that there be an effective watch dog over the Executive and the bureaucracy. Frankly, I think the Executive has ignored its responsibilities to the Parliament for far too long. How often do we find Ministers through their Press secretaries releasing

Press statements day in and day out, when the Parliament is not sitting? Matters dealt with in those statements are not presented to the Parliament in the form of a ministerial statement and therefore they are not the subject of debate. When Parliament adjourns for the winter recess we find that statement after statement is issued by Ministers but when Parliament reassembles for the Budget session we find that those statements, although important at the time, have become old news. Therefore I believe the Senate has a very important responsibility to fulfil in order to preserve the parliamentary system of government and parliamentary democracy in Australia. 1 looked at the answer given in another place last week to a question asked by my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). 1 refer to question No. 539 which appears at page 762 of the House of Representatives Hansard report. The question was as follows:

What is the number of existing Boards and Committees which have been established -

Under Parliamentary authority, and

By the Government.

What are the (a) names, (b) salaries and (c) terms of office of the Members of these Boards and Committees.

If one counts the number of boards and committees set up by, firstly, parliamentary authority and, secondly, the Government, one finds that within the Public Service and on the periphery of the Public Service there are well over 300. That is a staggering number of committees to be advising Ministers and the Public Service. In comparison, let us think of the scant number of committees that it is suggested should be set up to advise the Parliament in the interests of the Australian people. Frankly, I think that much more consideration could well be given to the establishment of more committees in this Parliament. As I said, as much as 1 would like to elaborate on a number of points the hour is late.

By way of constructive criticism 1 want to refer to several events concerning the present committee system and to suggest several things that might make the system more workable. Frankly, in my opinion, because of the way in which the Senate estimates committees operated last year I do not think the system is satisfactory. I think much more could be done to improve the system, bearing in mind the paramount importance of the responsibility placed on members of this Parliament by the Australian people. I would like to see the Senate estimates committees work efficiently. Certainly the inadequacy of facilities and the lack of time available did not enable proper consideration by the estimates committees of a great number of matters that should have received their attention.

I was a member of 2 estimates committees and it was virtually impossible to keep up with both of them when they were sitting at the same time. I remember that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was the Chairman of Estimates Committee A. At one stage there was an exchange between the honourable senator and myself. I was under the impression that he was trying to get the Estimates through expeditiously and I think he was under the impression that I was delving more deeply than necessary into some subjects. The . only way I can see of overcoming this sort of problem is to refer to a future standing committee of the Parliament certain estimates that are not dealt with satisfactorily. : For example I refer to the estimates for the Department of the Army. These were dealt wilh by Estimates Committee E. Some of my colleagues were members pf: that Committee. Senator Cavanagh, Senator Keeffe, Senator Poyser and I were not members of it. The point is that the Auditor-General caustically criticised certain administrative matters within the Department of the Army in his annual report. When the report of Estimates Committee E was presented in the Senate, which was sitting as a Committee of the Whole, we sought to raise those matters but again, ostensibly because of shortage of lime, the gag was moved by the Government. We were hot able to raise what we then considered to be very important matters. If a similar’ situation occurs again I suggest that matters of that nature be referred to a standing committee.

Let us consider now the Department of Defence. It was dealt with by Estimates Committee A, which sat during October. I and my colleagues on that Committee asked a number of questions. I asked questions about the overall , situation of the committee of inquiry into Service detention arrangements and details of expenditure incurred by the Department of Defence on advertising for recruits for the Royal Australian Navy, the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force. At that time the departmental officers who were advising the Minister were unable to provide answers to certain questions that had been asked. They agreed to consider the questions and to provide the information subsequently. It is true that the information did come along subsequently. It arrived on 23rd February, nearly 5 months after the Senate Estimates Committee had been sitting, and it came along by way of a letter and not as a statement to the Parliament. Therefore, unless such a document is incorporated in Hansard now, the record will be incomplete and unsatisfactory. I hope that any future reply which is given subsequent to the examination that takes place by the Senate Estimates Committee will be tendered to the Parliament so that each and every member of the Senate and any member of the public who wants to read it will have it available for his consideration.

I propose to deal briefly with standing commit tecs. F have had some experience of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. T congratulate Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood for the manner in which she has gone about her duties ‘as Chairman of that Committee. The Committee is engaged in a very long and detailed inquiry into the problems of handicapped people throughout Australia, and in conducting that inquiry I believe that evidence must be considered expeditiously and reports by the Committee lo the Senate must be tendered quickly. I suggest that a first report from a committee need not be in complete detail. For instance, a committee might be assigned a particular course of investigation and find during that investigation that certain action should be taken forthwith by a Government department. It might consider that until that event takes place it is no use proceeding further with the inquiry. Therefore, I suggest that there should be provision for the Committee to make an interim report. If necessary a number of interim reports could be presented by a standing committee lo the Parliament to ensure that quick and .effective action is taken by the Public Service to deal with problems which, in the eyes of members of the committee, manifest themselves.

My friend Senator Keeffe has referred already to the problem of accommodation. This subject is dealt with by the President at paragraph 73 of his report ‘Committees of the Australian Senate’ where he states:

Even wilh the new extensions to Parliament House, it is probable that the Senate Committee secretariat will continue to be mainly located away from Parliament House.

In the next paragraph he states:

The arrangement is not ideal but, with cooperation from all concerned, it will work.

It is true that probably it will work, but 1 suggest that until there is adequate accommodation, adequate facilities and sufficient expert staff we will be working with our backs to the wall.

Senator Cant:

– They need their own domestic staff also.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I agree with Senator Cant that there should be sufficient domestic staff to handle adequately the needs and requirements of members of the committee in achieving the purpose for which the committee has been set up. I could deal with a number of other matters. Senator Wright dealt with the proposed introduction of television cameras and suggested that if this medium is to be admitted to committee proceedings there should be rules relating to the adequacy and objectivity of reporting. Basically I would agree thai there should be adequacy and objectivity of reporting of any nature, whether it is by television, radio or newspapers. However, I do not think it practicable to say to the person responsible for televising the committee proceedings that he shall report all or nothing at all.

Senator Wright:

– ‘Adequate’ does not mean ‘all’..

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would hope that ‘adequate’ does not mean ‘all’. Adopting the Minister’s interpretation, I suggest that we would certainly want to lay down very strict guidelines for the manner in which these people conduct themselves. A committee of members of this Senate and of the media to be involved could be set up to negotiate the manner in which the proceedings of these committees should be televised. I have in mind a committee similar to the Joint Statutory Committee on the broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, which deals with the broadcasting of the proceedings of this Parliament.

There will be technical difficulties in this regard and these will have to be ironed out. but 1 believe that the difficulties will nol be insurmountable and that, generally speaking, it will be in the interests of this Parliament to have these Committee proceedings televised, but only by the national television stations. I think it would be very wrong to allow the televising of proceedings of Parliament or of a committee of Parliament by any commercial instrumentality. I support the proposal that has been put forward on the notice paper because I believe that, the Committee system is in the interests of the Parliament and the Australian people and that it should be encouraged to ensure the preservation of parliamentary democracy in this nation.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - I move:

  1. After the words ‘Australian Senate’ (first appearing) insert ‘, the report be adopted and’.

  2. Leave out paragraph (2.), insert the following new paragraph: (2.) In relation to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, the Standing - Committee System be varied as follows:

    1. That (with the exception of those Committees already established, namely, the Standing Committees on Health and Welfare and Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade) each Standing Committee consist of six (6) Senators, three to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Parly or by any minority group or groups or independent or independents in the manner referred to in paragraphs (4.) and (5.) of the Resolution of the Senate dated 19th August 1970;
    2. That the Committees lo be next fully established be -
    3. the Standing Committee on Education and Science and the Arts;
    1. the Standing Committee on Social Environment (this shall include Housing, Transport, Communications and provision of other facilities); and

    2. the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations (this shall include finance for States, statutory authorities and Local Government).

    3. The reference in paragraph (8.) of the Resolution of 11th June 1970 to news media is deemed to include the Press, radio and television.’

The intention of this amendment is, firstly, to insert after the words ‘Australian Senate’ the words, ‘the report be adopted and’. Then the intention is to leave the whole of paragraph 1 of the original motion as it is. We seek to change paragraph 2 so that it will read:

In relation to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, the Standing Committee System be varied as follows:

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– In other words the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to take out paragraph 2 of my motion?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. We wish to take out the sort of philosophy that the Leader of the Government was proposing, the notion being to leave it to the Senate to do whatever it thinks fit in the future. We propose also the deletion of the philosophy contained in paragraph 2 (e) of the original motion, which states:

That, unless otherwise ordered, mailers referred to . . .

Our contention is that the Senate should do what it thinks fit. Paragraph 2 (a) of the motion moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson is written into (he first sentence of my paragraph 2. The substance of paragraph 2 (b) of the motion of the Leader of the Government remains. It ;s shown in my paragraph 2 (a). However, we seek to insert the following words: . . (with the exception of (hose Committees already established, namely, the Standing Committees on Health and Welfare and Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade) . . .

In other words, we do not wish to disrupt the 2 committees that have been set up. This may be done at some future time. The next part of our amendment seeks to delete the paragraph proposing that the quorum of standing committees be 4. We have already resolved that the quorum be 3 for a standing committee of 8. If we are to reduce the membership of committees to 6, it is not wise to upgrade the quorum to 4.

Senator Byrne:

– You are not proposing a reduction in the membership of all committees to 6. Under the terms of this amendment there will be 2 committees with a membership of 8 and 2 committees with a membership of 6.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is right. The 2 committees that have a membership of 8 will be left as they are. No doubt in the future they will be brought into line with the general principle we are establishing, that these committees should have a membership of 6.

Senator Byrne:

– Are you suggesting a uniform quorum of 4 irrespective of the number of members on a committee?

Senator MURPHY:

– No. 1 am suggesting a uniform quorum of 3.

Senator Byrne:

– Are you suggesting a quorum of three even for a committee which has 8 members?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. That is what it is now. 1 think that (d) may be the only really contentious matter. The philosophy may or may not be contentious. 1 am bowing to the inevitable and trying to do the best 1 can. 1 think that all the committees should be set up but I am suggesting that if that cannot be done - and recognising that it cannot - there should be the two that the Government suggests and the one suggested by the Democratic Labor Party. I would eliminate (c) because of suggestions that there may be some problems. This is a non-contentious area but we will want to set up some rules dealing with the televising and’ broadcasting of proceedings. I have been convinced by the discussion here that it would be better not to include (c) but to leave it in line with what the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) will suggest about the adoption of some rules. In any event, that can be tidied up. 1 suggest that we go through these matters seriatim because the Senate is entitled to a view on each of them. I do not think that some of them will really be contentious. The one most likely to be contentious is the main matter, the selection of the committees. There may be a difference of opinion on the philosophy. I. think we should decide on each occasion what we are to do but I commend to the Senate that what I am proposing would be a reasonable basis on which now to proceed.

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

(10.12) - I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) that it is desirable (o deal with the matters seriatim. However, 1 have some reservations about some of his proposals. I do not propose to canvass them at length. I would prefer to have the 2 proposals as I have put them, rather than Senator Little’s proposed amendment on the one hand, or Senator Murphy’s proposed amendment on the other hand. We can deal with them as they come along. We will know our minds when we come to the vote. With the leave of the Senate I am proposing to add words to the existing paragraph (f). I move:

I am told that there are questions of privilege and matters which need to be dealt with subsequently. I do not wish to muddy the waters by trying to deal with those matters while we have this motion before us. In other words, we need some rules in relation to the televising or broadcasting of proceedings; otherwise the companies would not conform. They need protection, and equally the Senate must have protection. But that is another matter. 1 do not think that the philosophy is a bad thing lo include, but I am not prepared to go to the barricades on that point. ( suggest that we deal seriatim with the motion in my name. Senator Murphy has proposed that at the end of paragraph 1 the words be added: ‘the report be adopted and.’ I have no objection to that.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The Democratic Labor Party lias no objection to the proposed amendment.

Senator Devitt:

– For the purpose of clarification I would like to ask Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson what he has in mind. [ am not sure that T understand clearly what he has in mind.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) (10.14) - We are about to take my motion, which is on the business paper, paragraph by paragraph. When we come to Senator Little’s proposed amendment, we will substitute that and examine it. As we go through the paragraphs progressively we will deal with the amendments proposed by Senator Murphy. I hope that at the end of the discussion we will carry on the voices a composite resolution.

Senator Devitt:

– Are we to take paragraph I (a) and so on?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Yes, we will lake them as they come.

The PRESIDENT:

– We will deal wilh Senator Murphy’s proposed amendment to paragraph 1 - that the words ‘the report be adopted and’ be added.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Murphy:

– Then we would adopt the rest of paragraph 1 - (a), (b) and (c).

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– The morion is that sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 stand as printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

Thai the words in paragraph 2 ‘believing that there should be a clear recognition of the different roles to be performed by Standing Committees and Select Committees, and affirming the need for the continuing role of each’ be left out.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

In paragraph (2.)(b) after ihe word Thai’ insert the following words: ‘(wilh the exception of those committees already established, namely, the Standing Committees on Health and Welfare and Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade)’.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) (10.16) - The substance of this motion is to leave the 2 existing committees with a membership of 8 and not to reduce them to 6. It is axiomatic that after 1st July 1971 when new senators take their places in the Senate all these committees will have to be reappointed. There is some validity in the argument that until that time the 2 committees already in existence wilh 8 senators should be left. I do not have any great emotion about this issue. On that understanding I am prepared to leave the matter until 1st July when it will have to be re-examined and an attempt made to have some uniformity.

Senator Murphy:

– I would agree wilh that.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– 1 draw attention to a slight drafting difficulty. 1 am not quite sure that paragraph (2) can be left out on the amendment moved by Senator Murphy. Paragraph (2) reads:

In relation to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, ihe Standing Committee System be varied as follows -

My understanding of what is proposed is to delete the words after ‘Senate’. If we did that the matter would not How in any sense at all. We would have to take out the words ., relation to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees’ and insert the words ‘The Standing Committee system be varied as follows’.

Senator Murphy:

– The way it will read is ‘In relation to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees the Senate resolves that the Standing Committee system - ‘.

Senator BYRNE:

– You would have to put in the words ‘the Senate resolves’.

Senator Murphy:

– We have done that. The words ‘believing that there should be a clear recognition of the different roles to be performed by Standing Committees and Select Committees, and affirming the need for the continuing role of each,’ will be deleted. It does read correctly.

Senator BYRNE:

– Do 1 lake it that paragraph (2) (e) will be deleted in terms of Senator Murphy’s amendment?

Senator Murphy:

– I think that will follow.

Senator BYRNE:

– I am not sure of what Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has in mind in the terms in which clause (e) has been drafted. Clause (e) reads:

That, unless otherwise ordered, matters referred to Standing Committees should relate to subjects which can bc dealt with expeditiously.

The Democratic Labor Party has a point of view on this.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– You are a bit ahead of us.

Senator Murphy:

– We are not dealing with that clause.

Senator BYRNE:

– The point is that it may not be dealt with at all.

Senator Murphy:

– We will come to it. The proposition is that the words ‘with the exception of those Committees already established’ be inserted after the word That’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposes by paragraph (2) (c) of his motion that the quorum of a standing committee be 4. I move:

That paragraph (2) (c) be left out.

If that proposition is agreed to the quorum would be left at 3 as is already provided.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I have no objection to that proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) (10.20) - We come to the matter of contention. I have moved a motion for the appointment of 2 committees as set out in paragraph (2) (d), of the motion. Senator Little has moved an amendment which reads:

In paragraph 2 (d), leave out proposed subparagraph (ii), insert:

The Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations (this shall include finance for States, statutory authorities and local government);’.

This amendment deletes the Standing Committee on Social Environment. That will be the first vote to be taken.

Senator Byrne:

– It is only a matter of putting that amendment to a vote now.

Senator Murphy:

– That is that the words Standing Committee on Social Environment be deleted from the motion with a view to inserting the amendment moved by Senator Little?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONYes, that is the motion.

Question put:

That the words proposedto be left out (Senator Little’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 5

NOES: 50

Majority . . 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The next matter to be dealt with under the same item is the proposal I put forward for the establishment of 3 committees, the two proposed by the Government and the one proposed by the Democratic Labour Party. I move:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Leader of the Government) (10.28) -I have indicated opposition to 3 committees. To be consistentI believe that two isthe adequate number and, therefore, I at any rate will vote against Senator Murphy’s amendment.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The attitude of the Democratic Labor Party has been made quite clear and it will vote against the additional committee and vote forthe 2 committees.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Murphy’s) be agreedto.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Debate interrupted.

page 536

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 536

QUESTION

COMMITTEES OF THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE

Debate resumed.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Committees to be next fully established be -

the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts; and

the Standing Committee on Social Environment;

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) (10.33)-I move:

Senator Murphy’s amendment suggests that the words in (e) be deleted. They are words, but they are words which I would like to have there. They were put with intent and I would like to have them there. 1 would vote accordingly.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I raised this matter earlier, but it was thought more appropriate that I raise it at this stage. Firstly I wondered why Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s motion was expressed in terms which meant that the committees should have referred to them subjects which can be dealt with expeditiously. Does that mean subjects that come within a limited range of examination or which can be dealt with by a committee which has not before it already a great number of matters for investigation? Precisely what is meant by ‘expeditiously’? If it is the first, it is in consonance with the altitude of the Democratic Labor Party that standing committees are not the appropriate bodies for references of a major character which will require intensive investigation, involving the examination of many witnesses over a lengthy period of lime. Our attitude is well known. It has been staled and re-stated. For that reason, in view of the interpretation placed upon those words by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, I would be disposed, and the Democratic Labor Party would be disposed to support the continued inclusion of this proposition in the resolution if it is meant that the types of subjects for reference should be within the limited scope so that they may be capable of ready examination and of rather rapid report. I should be pleased if Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson would clarify that for me.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

-by leave The words are not to be regarded as having the precision that a lawyer may accord them but rather as guidelines of intention and desirability. These words, as was said by way of aside by Senator Murphy, may well be contentious at a later time, but the clear intention of the resolution is that we should deal with submissions reasonably expeditiously. The Senate will have to make a judgement in relation to the subject matter and the capacity to deal with them expeditiously. The words mean no more than that. It is not possibleto spell out with complete precision the terms of a resolution that we might have.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I am concerned about this and the Senate will recall that I spoke on this matter on the first occasion it was debated and expressed my views on the subject of obtaining reports fairly quickly from committees.I am concerned that the President may be asked to rule in terms of whether a matter that is presented by a senator is a matter that would be treated expeditiously or otherwise. That is why I have some concern about this resolution staying in its hard form.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I should like to support Senator Poyser’s remarks, but I point out that nothing can be presented to a committee except by resolution of the Senate. The Senate would discuss the pros and cons when the resolution was introduced. It may be that someone, seeking to block a reference to a select committee, could argue whether it would be expeditious to submit such matter to a committee. I have criticised the submission to standing committees of questions that may necessitate the committee travelling and of conducting examinations over a long period before making a proper report.I do not for a moment suggest that such matters should not go to a committee but I do suggest that they should not be inquired into by the committee. If the Senate decides that a question should be investigated by a standing committee and that committee intimated that the subject matter would necessitate considerable researchwork it should report back to the Senate that in its opinion the subject should be a matter for consideration by a select committee. I can see the possibility of the President having to rule on some questions, but I see the added possibility of a senator who wishes to have a matter referred to a standing committee having to get around this wording. At present, nothing can go before a committee unless, in the opinion of the Senate, it is a proper matter for reference to a committee.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I believe it is vitally important that this provision be retained in the resolution, particularly as we have removed the philosophy embraced in the words:

  1. . believing that there should be a clear recognition of the different roles to be performed by standing committees and select committees and affirming the need for the continuing role of each . . .

The deletion of those words in my opinion underlines the real necessity for the retention of an indication of what standing committees were originally intended to do. This was to provide committees to which certain matters could be referred for quick action, determination and report to the Senate. So we have the 2 provinces. One form of committee can attend expeditiously to a small term of reference. More important matters can be referred to select commit tees.I feel that the principle embodied in this paragraph is vitally important to the success of the whole committee system.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - May I suggest to the Senate that really, whether these words are added or not, they are clearly non-operative. The relevant paragraph states ‘unless otherwise ordered’. So, the Senate would make up its mind every time such a matter was before it irrespective of what this paragraph stales. The paragraph reads in part that ‘matters referred to Standing Committees should relate’; it does not say that they ‘must relate’. The paragraph refers to ‘subjects which can be dealt with expeditiously’: it does not say ‘subjects which will be dealt with expeditiously’. I imagine that this paragraph really will not prevent anybody from doing anything but will be productive of a great deal of debate and confusion. I think that these words would be better left out. But I do not think it matters very much whether they remain or not.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, would you like to clarify the matter?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) - by leave - I think that we have had enough discussion.I move:

That paragraph 2 (e) stand as printed.

Quest ion resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) (10.42) -I wish to move for the addition of certain words to paragraph 2 (f). That paragraph reads:

That the Senate authorises the televising of public hearings of Standing and Select Committees, atthe discretion of each such Committee.

I move:

This is a protective clause. I think that all honourable senators recognise the need for it to be added.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the report, as a whole, be adopted.

page 538

ADJOURNMENT

Social Services - Importation of Firearms - Protection of Australian Civilian Employees in Vietnam

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

(10.43) - Mr President, I move:

Thatthe Senate do now adjourn.

I wish to speak to my motion because I have been informed that in a debate which took place in another place today my name was taken in vain by at least one honourable member who suggested that, because of an answer that I gave at question time today to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy),I was not aware of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on the increase in pensions. I wish to make it abundantly clear - and Hansard will demonstrate this fact - that I did not say anything of the sort. I wish to make it abundantly clear also that I was a member of Cabinet when the decision was taken.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr President, I speak during the adjournment debate this evening to raise a matter which is concerning members of the Firearm Traders Association of New South Wales. It relates to the safety of firearms imported into Australia. So much are the members of this Association concerned about the matter that they have gone to the expense of inserting advertisements in some of the metropolitan daily newspapers that circulate throughout Australia. I have before me an advertisement inserted in the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ on 25th January last, and another advertisement inserted in the Melbourne ‘Age’ on Thursday. 18th February. I will not read both these advertisements. I will read the advertisement in the Melbourne ‘Age’ on Thursday, 18th February. It is headed: Warning’ and states:

The Minister for Customs. Mr D. L. Chipp, now insiststhat all firearms imported into Australia conformto a dangerous and obviously wrong regulation which results in most firearm’s being less safe than the manufacturers desire and, in many cases, quite dangerous.

The Customs Department incorrectly assumes that gun makers in all countries usethe same materials for trigger mechanisms andby insisting on the same hardness factor for all. ensures that most are wrongly hardened.

Government Proof Houses and the world’ s leading manufacturers have expressed strongly their disagreement with this Customs Department regulation, which they consider is dangerous and which is unparallelled anywhere else in the world.

The public is warned to take the greatest care with firearms and advised inthe event of resulting accidents, to seek legal opinion with a view to obtaining damages from the Customs Department.

In the opinion of senior counsel the legality of the regulation is ‘open toserious question’ and if bureaucratic stupidity continues the regulation will be challenged in the courts.

The advertisement is signed by Mr Kevin J. Loy. Hon. Secretary of the Firearms Traders Association of New South Wales. The Association’s solicitorsw rote to the Minister for Customs and Excise on 30th November last seeking details of a declaration of the Minister that certain imported firearms failed to conform to standards of safety set out in a pamphlet issued with the imprimatur of the Commonwealth Police Force. The letter was formally acknowledged by the Minister’s private secretary on 2nd December. There was further correspondence from the solicitors to the Minister urging him to expedite his reply and finally some 3 months later on 16th February 1971.The Minister wrote to the Association’s solicitors and said, amongst other things:

The document at present in force which sets out my opinion in respectto the application of Item 18 of the Second Schedule to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations in respectto firearms is dated 25th November 1970. This document which perpetuates and consolidates a number of opinions expressed by myself or by previous Ministers of Customs and Excise over a period of years is contained in a departmental file held by the Department of Customs and Excise in Canberra.

For your information I enclose a copy of this document-

Which was enclosed - and also a copy of a Press statement I have just issued on the subject of safely standards.

I completely reject your assertion thatthe delay in replying to your letter is an attempt to obstruct your clients in the pursuit of their legal rights. Your letter was for a time mislaid and, more recently, as appears fromthe enclosed Press statement active consideration has been given to matters which mighthave had a bearing on the legal procedures your clients arc apparently con- templating.

That letter was received bythe solicitors for the Firearms Traders Association on 17th February, the day after it was written. On that same day an officer from the Minister’s office rangthe solicitors and said: ‘We have made reference in the Minister’s letter to a Press statement

Adjournment having been issued and a copy of the Press statement having been enclosed, but we now find that there has been no Press statement made and therefore any reference to such a Press statement should be deleted’. Frankly, this situation is not satisfactory when we are dealing with the standard of rifles and firearms being brought into this country.

The Association has been in touch with the Minister concerning the tests that are carried out by the Commonwealth Police Force, on behalf of the Department of Customs and Excise, on firearms imported into Australia. Obviously, from the correspondence that has been supplied to me, the Association is constantly running up against a brick wall. There is confusion, to say the least, in the situation as laid down by the police officers and the situation which the Firearms Traders Association say should be enforced. For instance, I have with me a pamphlet, which is published by the Commonwealth Police Force, entitled ‘Imported Firearms - Safety Standards and Tests’. I am assured by the Association that the tests which are laid down to be carried out by the police force are in fact in some instances not being adhered to. The Association referred me to item 3 (c) of the safety standards and tests as set out in the pamphlet which refers to the slipping hammer tests, lt states:

These apply to shotguns, rifles and revolvers having exposed hammers or cocking devices. The firearm will be loaded wilh test blanks and the hammer(s) or cocking device moved back towards the cocked position. Prior to the scar engaging wilh the bent, the hammer(s) or cocking device will be allowed to slip from the thumb and/or fingers and travel forward under pressure of the spring. No pressure will be applied to the trigger during this lest.

In the foregoing series of tests, if the cartridge is discharged or is severely denied, the firearm will be rejected for import.

The Firearms Traders Association say that there is only one possible interpretation of this test and the method to be used in applying the test. Then under the heading Safety Testing of Firearms’ the pamphlet to which I have referred states:

The methods and the tools used in the tests are described hereunder.

I am advised that the Deputy Commissioner of Police claims that his testing officers are trained to allow the hammer to slip from the thumb when it is between the

539

half-cocked and full-cocked positions and, this being so, it is not in conformity with the slipping hammer test which has been laid down by the Police Department itself. Therefore, the tests being carried out by the Police Commissioner on certain rifles - not on all rifles - is a void test and is totally unacceptable to the Firearms Traders Association. The Association pointed out that the slipping hammer test, as laid down, clearly states that the hammer will be allowed to slip from the thumb prior to the sear engaging with Ihe beni, lt pointed out that there is no mention in the test, as laid down, that ihe hammer will be released between the halfcocked and full-cocked positions, and it says (hat this is rightly so because such a test is meaningless and serves only to check the effectiveness of the half-cocked position.

The Firearms Traders Association asserts that all Winchester 94 rifles clearly and undoubtedly fail the slipping hammer test and as such should be declared to be prohibited imports, but that to date these rides arc being allowed into this country despite the fact that they do not conform with the standards laid down and sci out in writing by the police authorities. If standards are laid down, then I suggest to the Minister that they must be adhered to in all cases, lt is not right or just that the standards should be applied in some cases and not in others. As I have said, it is alleged ‘ that certain rifles have been allowed into Australia which, on the standards laid down by the Minister, should not have been allowed in if the test had been carried out in conformity wilh the standards prescribed by the police officers themselves. I urge the Minister to investigate this matter closely to ensure that there is no departure whatsoever from the prescribed tests and to take, action which will protect those who, for whatever bc ihe reason, use firearms in Australia. I urge the Minister to call together his departmental experts, whoever those experts might be - I understand that the Minister for this purpose relies on the knowledge of Commonwealth Police officers - and representatives of the Firearms Traders Association to ensure that real, practical and effective guidelines are laid down for the proper protection of Australian citizens. 15 March 1971 Adjournment

The fact that the Association has gone to considerable expense to insert warning notices in newspapers surely is some indication of the genuineness of the case it presents and 1 urge the Minister to consider it very closely.

Senator MULVIHILL (New South Wales) fi 0.56) - I rise tonight at the behest of the New South Wales Branch of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia to further its campaign for adequate Commonwealth Government protection for civilian employees in South Vietnam. This story commenced in the spring of last year when Australian General Electric (Vietnam) Co. had a dispute with a number of ils employees over wage rates. The substance of Ihe matter is that some electricians from this firm went to South Vietnam and initially they received a certain wage scale. Others went there from the eastern States. Because of the inflation that existed in Saigon they received a higher rate of pay than the electricians who went up earlier. This was personified in the case of Mr Robert Rudd of 18 Abbotsford Road, Abbotsford. New South Wales. When they approached their employer he argued that things were tough wim him and that was all there was to it. At. that point of time 1 wrote to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) and lo the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and the present Prime Minister (Mr Mc Mahon).

The gist of my complaint was that after talking to both the ETU and Mr Rudd I was under the impression that the employer, after negotiations with the United States Navy, had been able lo get a 100 per cent increase on his original tender price. Because of the time it would take to substantiate that fact, I intend simply to incorporate in Hansard 2 letters. The first is a letter from Senator Edward Kennedy which was in reply to a letter I wrote to the Chairman of the then United States Senate Committee dealing with Vietnam. The second is a letter written to Senator Kennedy by Mr Frank Sanders, the Assistant Secretary of the United States Navy, which confirms that the initial tender of the Australian employer of $72,000 was increased to Si 46,000. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate those 2 documents in Hansard.

UN1TF.D STATUS SENATE

Committee on

Labor ami Public Welfare Washington. D.C. 20510 30 January 1971

Honorable .1. A. Mulvihill Senator Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T.. Australia Dear Senator Mulvihill:

Thank you so much for writing to me. I regret the delay in. forwarding a substantive reply to you. I have just received an answer from the Department of the Navy on your request.

I am enclosing that answer for your information. If you feel I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact mc again.

I enjoyed very much hearing from you. With best regards.

Sincerely,

EDWARD M. KENNEDY

Enclosure

Department of the Navy Office of the Secretary Washington. D.C. 20350 22 January 1971

Honorable Edward M. Kennedy United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Kennedy:

This is in further reply to your inquiry concerning Australian Senator J. A. Mulvihills letter io you of November 12. 1970 regarding a pay dispute between the Australian General Electric (Vietnam) Company and ils Saigon manager. Mr Robert Rudd. under Contract N63I85-68-C-00I6. Erection of Gas Turbine Unit and Associated Facilities, Republic of Vietnam.

Senator Mulvihill indicates in his letter that Mr Rudd advised him that this firm received the sum of S 142,000 above its basic contract price to meet inflationary trends in Vietnam and asks why, in view of this, Mr Rudd was denied a wage adjustment. The facts of the matter are as follows:

The basic contact was negotiated by the Officer in Charge of Construction, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Republic of Vietnam and Australian General Electric for a lump sum price of 572.054 with work to be started December 4. 1967 and completed by March 15, 1968. The contract was ultimately completed on November 30, 1968. The delay in completion was due to causes for which the Government was solely responsible.

The contractor presented a claim in the total amount of $372,472.50 on the basis of the above causes of action. A full hearing was held on this matter on February 10-13, 1970, before the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contract Award and Review Board in Washington. D.C, at which time the contractor substantiated the merit of his claim in principle.

The contractor’s claim had previously been audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which found that the contractor could support a claim in excess of the basic contract price of $72,054. After extensive negotiations with the contractor, settlement of the claim was reached in the amount of $146,750 over and above the basic contract price with full extension of the contract time to the actual completion date. No part of the sum paid to the contractor in settlement of his claim represented any allowance for inflationary trends in Vietnam, and there would have been no contractual basis for consideration of such costs inasmuch as the basic contract is a fixed-price contract with no escalation provisions for increase in labor or materials.

With regard to Mr Rudd’s claim for additional salary, this appears to be a matter between this supervisory employee and his employer. Inasmuch as the Navy’s privity of contract is limited to the Australian General Electric (Vietnam) Company, there is no basis for the Navy to demand that the contractor settle Mr Rudd’s claim. It is noted, however, that this matter was brought to the attention of the managing director of the Australian General Electric Company by our office in Vietnam.

Sincerely yours,

FRANK SANDERS

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Logistics)

The gist of my complaint was that if an Australian employer is able to get a substantial increase in his contract price I think it is the bounden duty of the Australian Government to lean upon him to see that the employee who has been exploited receives wage justice. I wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs last November. I was assured that the Australian Embassy in Saigon was looking into the matter. That was in November, but it is now March. I think it is time something was done. I am prompted to go a little further by Senator Cavanagh because on a number of occasions he has spoken about our arbitration system and the role of the State to see that at least a semblance of a fair go is given. If the Electrical Trades Union decided to ban its members from going to South Vietnam, it would be subject to all the vilification that has at times been applied to the Seamens’ Union of Australia or, for that matter, the Waterside Workers’ Federation. This is a classic case of an employer not being able to claim that he has inadequate resources to meet this rather small wage adjustement

I am sure that when the Minister peruses this letter from Senator Kennedy and the other one from the Assistant Secretary of the United States Navy he will agree with the view I expressed in my original letter to Senator Kennedy that the Australian employer was actually a free rider at the expense of the United States taxpayer. That may have been an unusual attitude to take but I have long held certain views, which Senator Keeffe referred to earlier today, about the gross black marketeering going on in sectors of the South Vietnamese community. The remedy is quite simple. If I had been in the place of our Minister for Foreign Affairs I would have given an order that the employer be forbidden to operate outside Australia and he would soon have come to heel. This is the way one operates. You do not just sit there and say: ‘We will leave it to his good sense’. You issue directives. It is the function of any Minister to do this.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Gorton will fix that up when he goes to South Vietnam.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I know that Senator Cavanagh means well but Mr Gorton will be visiting Vietnam on a matter of defence. The matter I am raising is one for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. However, I think the interjection is a sensible one and I know that it will be recorded by Hansard. I feel sure that Senator Cotton will take up this matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is the Prime Minister at the moment - Senator Cavanagh is getting me a bit dazzled because I am not too sure how I should refer to this gentleman.

In conclusion I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, no matter who he may be, and the Minister for Defence to make a joint approach on this matter. I leave it in the hands of Senator Cotton.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales · LP

– The Senate may be assured, particularly Senator McClelland and Senator Mulvihill, that the relevant Hansard will be sent to the appropriate Ministers together with any comments which I can gather.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.2 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 March 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710315_senate_27_s47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant