Senate
30 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 591

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– by leave - The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has presented in another place a statement setting out details of his new Ministry. On behalf of the Prime Minister I present that statement to the Senate. Honourable senators will understand that whenI use the first person singular personal pronoun it refers to the Prime Minister. The statement reads:

Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. William McMahon.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, the Hon. J. D. Anthony.

Minister for Defence, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Gorton.

Minister for Primary Industry, the Hon. Jan Sinclair.

Minister for Supply and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator the Hon. Sir Kenneth Anderson.

Minister for National Development and Leader of the House, the Hon. R. W. C. Swartz, M.B.E., E.D.

Treasurer, the Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.

Attorney-General, The Hon. N. H. Bowen, Q.C

Minister for Education and Science, the Hon. David Fairbairn, D.F.C.

Postmaster-General and Vice-President of the Executive Council, the Hon. Sir Alan Hulme, K.B.E.

Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. L. H. E. Bury.

Minister for Shipping and Transport, the Hon. P. J. Nixon.

Minister for Labour and National Service, the Hon. Phillip Lynch.

Minister for External Territories, the Hon. C. E. Barnes,

Minister for Immigration, the Hon. A. J. Forbes, M.C.

Minister for Social Services and Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. W. C. Wentworth.

Minister for Works and, under the

Minister for Trade, Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities, Senator the Hon. R. C. Wright.

Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator the Hon. Robert Cotton.

Minister for Customs and Excise, the Hon. D. L. Chipp.

Minister for Air, Senator the Hon. Tom Drake-Brockman, D.F.C.

Minister for the Army, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, the Hon. Andrew Peacock.

Minister for Repatriation, the Hon. R. McN. Holten.

Minister for Health, Senator the Hon. I. J. Greenwood.

Minister for the Navy, the Hon. M. G. Mackay.

Minister for the Interior, the Hon. Ralph J. Hunt.

Minister for Housing, the Hon. K. M. K. Cairns.

The first 13 Ministers named will comprise the Cabinet. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson remains the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Hon. R. W. C. Swartz has been appointed Leader of the House. The out-going Minister for Labour and National Service, Mr Snedden, will for the time being retain control of industrial relations policy.

I foreshadow that a proposal will be put before Parliament to increase the number of Ministers from 26 to 27. Providing Parliament has passed, and assent has been given to, the necessary amendments to the Ministers of State Act, I shall recommend to His Excellency the appointment of an additional Minister who will administer the Department of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. In the meantime the PostmasterGeneral will administer the Department.

In the Senate, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson will bemy representative and will also represent the portfolios of Defence and Treasury. He will also answer questions on matters for which the Department of the Vice-President of the Executive Council is responsible. The other representational arrangements in that chamber will be: Senator Wright, the portfolios of Foreign Affairs, Education and Science, Labour and National Service, Housing and External Territories; Senator Cotton, the portfolios of Trade and Industry, National Development, Shipping and Transport, Customs and

Excise and Interior; Senator DrakeBrockman, the portfolios of Primary Industry, Army, Repatriation and Navy; Senator Greenwood, the portfolios of AttorneyGeneral, Postmaster-General, Immigration and Social Services, including Aboriginal Affairs.

Ministers in the Senate will be represented in the House as follows: The Minister for Supply by Mr Gorton; the Minister for Works by Mr Chipp; the Minister for Civil Aviation by Mr Swartz; the Minister for Air by Mr Holten and the Minister for Health by Dr Forbes.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - Leaving politics aside, the Australian Labor Party would like to congratulate the new Ministers who have been appointed to the Ministry; in particular, the new Minister in this chamber, Senator Greenwood, who is now the Minister for Health. My Party has also noted the announcement which was made elsewhere about the future of the former Minister for Housing, Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. My colleagues and I are pleased that she is going to do something which apparently she wants to do.

Information has been given about not only what is being done in relation to the Ministry but also what is proposed to be done if certain legislation is passed. All I can say is that it is pleasing to note that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has indicated that these steps are conditional upon the Parliament agreeing to his proposal for the appointment of an additional Minister. The Prime Minister has extraordinary optimism if the rumours that the 27th position has been offered to about 30 people are true. The Australian Labor Party may be able to relieve him of the difficult task of having to meet that obligation. My Party hopes that the new Minister for Health will do well in his job. All I would say in conclusion is that there is a clear necessity for the Minister for Health to deal with this sick Government.

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

– by leave - On behalf of my colleagues in the Australian Democratic Labor Party and on my own behalf I desire to congratulate sincerely the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who have been elevated to the exalted and onerous position of members of the Ministry.

Senator Cant:

– Do you have any condolences for the ones who had been promised positions?

Senator GAIR:

– There is an old saying that the higher one goes up the further one has to fall. I think that has happened to some people. The fact remains, as I was saying when 1 was interrupted, that the position of Minister of the Crown, particularly in the Commonwealth Parliament, is not an easy one; indeed, it is an onerous one. This position calls for great industry and also close application to and knowledge of the problems of the country.

Senator Poyser:

– There is no continuity of employment.

Senator GAIR:

– It is a good thing that people who come into this House get, in most cases, 6 years continuity of employment under the present electoral system because some of those honourable senators who are claptrapping now would not last 12 months on their performances.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are lucky that you are still here.

Senator GAIR:

– I suppose 1 have been lucky in many ways. However, I am in the position of being able to say that I am probably the longest serving parliamentarian in Australia today, having been first elected to a parliament on 11th June 1932. 1 am still going strong, too. 1 am like Johnny Walker in that I am still going strong and will continue to do so. I have a record of which anyone . would have every good reason to be proud. I was pointing out before I was interrupted that the task of a Minister of the Crown is one which calls for application, assiduity and devotion. I have been asked , by members of the Press media and others to comment on the appointments to the new Ministry and my reply has been that. under the system that obtains when a coalition government is in power it is the. province and the responsibility of the leader qf the coalition government to select his team. He has done that. My only hope, and I think the hope of all Australians who believe that this country merits good government, is that the Government and the. Ministry chosen will prove to be in the interests of Australia and the people who are privileged to live here.

Before I conclude, I would like to refer to Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin who has served in the Senate for many years and has occupied a position in the Ministry for quite a long time, with credit to herself. We in Queensland have been very proud of her performance and we are sorry that she is leaving Australia, temporarily anyway. I take the opportunity to wish her a very pleasant and successful term of office as Australia’s representative in New Zealand.

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

– by leave - On behalf of Government senators, I join in the expressions of good will to both Senator Greenwood and Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. Senator Dame Annabelle will be a very worthy representative of Australia when she goes to New Zealand, and 1 am sure that Senator Greenwood will be a very worthy representative in the Ministry.

page 593

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange silting during the sidings of the Senate this week.

page 593

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I give notice that on the nest day of sitting 1 shall move:

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1965-1969 to cover resale price maintenance.

page 593

QUESTION

SYDNEY AIRPORT

Senator MURPHY:

– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Senate when he received the report on the future of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and the provision of a second airport for the city? Does he agree that this matter affects very greatly the lives of many thousands of citizens of that city? Will he tells us when he intends to present that report and to make a full statement to the Senate about the future of Sydney airport and the question of a second airport?

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

– Very late in September last a draft of the report was shown to me in passing. I did not have a chance to read it. It finally came as a concluded document in about mid-October. It was then given to the Department of Civil Aviation as the Department which would have to carry this work right through to completion and do a detailed study. This the Department did. That detailed study took a long rime and was not completed until some time early in January. I then went through it myself and 1 also went out by myself to inspect a number of proposed places where it was thought, the second airport might be located, lt was then very clear - in due course I think honourable senators will understand why - that consultation with the State Government was quite essential. Those honourable senators who have studied this matter - and many people have - will have noted some earlier comments 1 made about the area of cost in relation to the Tullamarine Airport. Sydney’s second airport, which will be essential in due course, will COSt far more than Tullamarine ever did. I. repeat that it was very clear that the State Government had to be consulted.

Senator Fitzgerald:

– You are going into a lot of detail.

Senator COTTON:

– This might take a little while. Senator Fitzgerald has expressed some interest, and I would like to answer the question fully. The State Government had to be consulted in the fullest possible sense. I was in the process of getting ready to do thai when it announced its State election. I thought that it would be proper for mc to wait until that was concluded. Once that was concluded 1 had my work in train. We had one or two problems of our own here. Therefore, I was not able to consult the Stale Government, in the fullest sense of the word, until last week. At the Premier’s request I had firstly a discussion with his nominated deputy for this purpose, Mr Willis. I had a very detailed talk with the Premier yesterday. I am now in the process of putting the whole thing together with a view to it being submitted to both governments.

The tabling of the report in due course is part of a general question as to what one should do about tabling reports in an overall sense. 1 express only my own view in relation to this. In due course one would want to be able to do this if it were possible, but there are some considerations that make the tabling of the report a little more difficult than one might perhaps at first imagine. The problem that one has in relation to this is that there is speculation and that that speculation, if allowed to run unchecked, could have a detrimental effect on people and on land values. Therefore I have been extraordinarily careful in what I have said. But the Senate has my assurance that there will be consultation on the matter, which is very involved. If the scheme is put into operation great expenditure will be involved. As and when I can, I will see that the honourable senator has all the information that 1 can give him.

page 594

QUESTION

MARGARINE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that certain manufacturing interests in New South Wales are attempting to publicise a suggestion that there exists a shortage in quota allocations of some brands of margarine? Will the Minister consider having an investigation made into these allegations and will he have the facts, when ascertained, made available to the Senate? Can the Minister confirm that a strike of workers in one plant has caused an interruption to production and perhaps some shortage in supply? Will the Minister also take into account the fact that during the last few years some manufacturers of margarine in New South Wales intentionally created an artificial shortage of their product so as to influence the deliberations of a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council?

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

– I am aware of the position about which the honourable senator spoke, but I have not the full details of what has taken place. I will draw the matter to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry and see what information I can obtain for the honourable senator.

page 594

QUESTION

STOCKS AND SHARES

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

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it would be possible for Senator Sir Magnus Cormack to make an interim report or statement in regard to the rather iniquitous and almost criminal actions of the Sydney Stock Exchange in relation to short selling. Secondly, has the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange any power to compel the Sydney Stock Exchange to alter its habits? In other words, where does the public stand with regard to misdealings and misadventures on the Stock Exchange? Does the Senate Select Committee have- the power to correct any such situation?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI shall deal firstly with the first part of the honourable senator’s question.- As I recall the position, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange has indicated on a number of occasions - certainly publicly, and I have an idea that maybe he has done so in this place - that it is the hope of (he Committee to present at least an interim report during the present session: ‘ .

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

– In June.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– That is right, in June.

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

– But :that will be too late.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– This is the information which I can give to the honourable senator, and I give it in good faith. The second part of the honourable senator’s question raised legal matters which I think it would be very inappropriate for me to attempt to canvass at question time. I ask him to. put his question on notice so that F can have the matter referred.

page 594

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– Has . the attention of the Minister representing, the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to recent Press reports indicating that 3 Toronto scientists have discovered a method of making bricks out of wheat and that they could build an average, sized house from 20 bushels of wheat . or ‘ approximately 1,600 loaves of bread? If this is correct and if we are unable to. market our full wheat production or supply hunger ridden countries would this not be a means of using our surplus production and, at the same time, reducing the cost of housing since the cost of this process is said to be less than one-third the cost of other materials? Will the Minister have inquiries made to ascertain whether despite any patent royalties some benefits could be secured under this process for Australian farmers and Australian home owners?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Many suggestions are put forward from time to time as to what can be done with wheat. Some of them have a lot of substance while others are just catchcrys. One recent suggestion of which I am thinking is that the surplus production of wheat should be turned into grain alcohol. We all know that grain alcohol can be made from wheat but whether it is an economic proposition is another thing. Senator Hannan has suggested that this matter of making bricks might be looked into. I put the suggestion before the Senate that in all these matters a quantity of wheat must be available for a particular project,- year in and year out, irrespective of the other markets around the world and home consumption. Another matter which I think should be taken into consideration is the price which has to be paid for wheat. The farmer must receive a reasonable cost of production for his grain. Whether this is an economic proposition or not 1 do not know but I shall make inquiries for the honourable senator and Jet him have what information I can obtain.

page 595

QUESTION

POLLUTION

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Health seen a report that tests carried out by the Melbourne scientific instrument firm of Varian Techtron Pty Ltd have shown that samples of canned tuna sold in Australia have shown a mercury content of up to 100 times the World Health Organisation recommended maximum level? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that these products are periodically tested and that the importation and sale of canned seafoods which constitute a danger to health are prohibited?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

– I have not seen the report to which the honourable senator has referred. I am aware that in recent months there has been a considerable amount of controversy about steps which have been taken in the United States of America to restrict the importation of various canned foods which have contents which could. make them adulterated. However, food legislation and the policing of food adulteration requirements are matters for the States in this country. Nevertheless, I shall endeavour to ascertain the source of the information to which the honourable senator has referred. I shall endeavour to inform myself further when 1 have read the report.

page 595

QUESTION

OIL

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. As the price for Australian indigenous crude oil was set in relation to the 196S import parity price of SI. 89 per barrel for a 5 year period and as today’s import price is $2.31 per barrel, an increase of 42 cents per barrel, and in view of the anticipated increase in import parity prices to $2.65 per barrel by 1975, an increase of some 76 cents per barrel, is it not a fact that Government policy in relation to the setting of the price for indigenous crude oil has saved the Australian motorist and other users of petroleum products many millions of dollars?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– For some time I have had some information on this matter. I think honourable senators will recall that in 1968 - I am not sure which month - the Government negotiated a price for Australian produced crude oil which was based on import parity. I think it was done in or about September of 1968. Recently, large increases have been announced in the price of overseas crudes. When compared to prices at which indigenous crude oil is available these new prices show increases per barrel of the order mentioned by the honourable senator. In view of these increases Australia is fortunate that it has available to the refiners and marketers of petroleum products a source of crude oil which now supplies 50 per cent and which will shortly supply 70 per cent of our crude oil requirements at a price which is considerably lower than that of most overseas crudes. This is most important because of the very large import savings that have resulted and will continue to result from the supply of crude oil from our own fields. At peak production this import saving would amount to about $325m a year. It is also important to note that, because of Government policy that stabilised the price of indigenous crude oil, the Australian market has been insulated to a marked extent from the effects of the recent steep rises in the cost of overseas crude oil. If the rises in overseas crude oil prices were to be reflected in the price paid for indigenous crude oil, the added cost of crude oil today would be about $50m a year and, at peak production rates, with a price disparity of 76c a barrel, could rise to Si 00m a year.

page 596

QUESTION

DC3 AIRCRAFT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– Does the Minister for Supply intend to call tenders for the ferrying of the DC3s recently purchased from the Jetair company to South East Asia? If not, who is to conduct the ferrying operation? If tenders have been called, has a contract been awarded and to whom has it been awarded? Will the Minister table a copy of the agreement?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I will need to obtain precise information for the honourable senator. I may be able to obtain it later in the afternoon. I would not like to give any answer on the state of the procedures in relation to the ferrying of the aircraft at the present time, without reference to the Department.

page 596

QUESTION

OMEGA NAVIGATIONAL FACILITY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Commonwealth Government accepted the establishment of an Omega installation on Australian territory and has Tasmania been chosen as the likely site for such an installation? Is not the Omega network associated with the use of nuclear weapons, especially submarine missile carriers, which would draw nuclear retaliation on its sites? Has the New Zealand Government refused to allow an Omega station to be installed on its territory? Would the installation of an Omega station in Tasmania constitute that State as a nuclear target?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I think the question should be directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The Senate will be aware of the statement made by the Prime Minister of this country on 22nd March. It was stated then that this Omega system is a general purpose, worldwide navigation system that can be used by ships and aircraft of any type fitted with the appropriate equipment, but the system is not sufficiently accurate for use either in close coastal waters or by ballistic missile submarines. The statement went on to say that the station proposed for South Pacific waters was one of the 8 stations proposed for the world network and that the control of it would be in the hands of an international body constituted by the countries in which the various stations were located. I am aware that there have been subsequent disputes initiated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place, and I can inform the Senate that I expect that a further statement will be made on behalf of the Government this week.

page 596

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that Government cutbacks and/or the effects of Government policies have resulted in a substantial decline in passenger travel on the Australian domestic airlines and in some cases have meant a reduction of staff? Does - the Minister expect this decline to continue, with corresponding reductions in flights and/or standards of services? If so, what action can be taken to correct this situation? Also, is the current squeeze likely :,.to affect the announced orders by both airlines for additional Boeing 727-200’ jets for delivery between 1972 and 1974? .

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It is a fact that both the domestic airline business- and the international airline business are affected by market growth. It is also a fact that within Australia there has been a marked slowing down in airline traffic growth in the last 3 months. This is attributed to various causes, one of which is said to be the Government’s setting out to try -to save expenditure as far as it possibly could. This could well be part of the reason. Part of the reason also is likely to.be the fact that the rural economy is hot having a very easy time.

The equipment programme for any airline is based upon the market situation. If the market situation tends to flatten, the airlines are much less in need of new equipment than they would be normally. It is true also that the Australian aviation business has shown marked fluctuations in its growth patterns . through time, but despite all of this the general, line of growth continues steadily upwards. I have no later figures on this but I do know that the domestic situation has slowed down and I am informed that the international situation has slowed down, as well. This has delayed some of the training programmes, as one would “expect it to do. Perhaps this will cause the airlines to be less anxious to get new aircraft very quickly. I do not know that. This is completely in a state of flux at present. There were some indications last weekend that growth was returning in the domestic area.

Senator Devitt:

– Yet, one airline has sacked 28 young trainee hostesses.

Senator COTTON:

– When a government sets out to try to save public money by introducing economies, this must have an effect on government expenditure. The consequences of a government being highly responsible in an economic sense cannot be avoided.

page 597

QUESTION

WINE

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. What action is proposed by the Government following the claim by spokesmen for the wine industry that sales of South Australian flagon and bulk wines have fallen by thousands of gallons, thereby creating a crisis in the industry, as a result of the imposition of excise duty on wine in the 1970 Budget?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I have not any information that I can give to the honourable senator other than to say that the Department of Primary Industry is watching the situation very closely. However. I will direct the Minister’s attention to the question and see what information I can obtain for the honourable senator.

page 597

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Health give a firm assurance to the Senate that in his discussions with the hospital benefits funds on their role in the face of rising hospital costs he will take steps lo ensure that the massive financial resources of the funds, which amount at present to $83m, are unlocked promptly lo provide higher benefits before subscribers to the funds are confronted with an increase in subscriptions as occurred in the case of subscribers to the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia which, like its counterpart the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, has acquired massive cash reserves?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am sure that Senator Mulvihill will be aware of the comprehensive statement made by my predecessor in the House of Representatives on 4th March last year in which he said that where excessive reserves had been accumulated by any organisation those reserves would be used to provide either lower contribution rates or higher benefits, as the need arose, without additional contributions being required. I am confident that the organisations will bear that in mind when they fix any new benefit tables. As the honourable senator is aware, the National Health Act gives power to the Minister for Health to approve, and thereby to determine, the rates of benefits and contributions. As to the other part of the honourable senator’s question which relates to increased contributions, 1 think that before that question can be answered it is necessary to determine the extent to which hospital charges may be increased. I understand that it is likely that there will be some increase in hospital charges. Therefore it is probable that there will be some increase, though one hopes not a great increase, in the contributions which will have to be made.

page 597

QUESTION

RATIONALISATION OF AIRLINE SERVICES

Senator POYSER:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Will the cutting of Trans Australia Airlines schedules give a decided advantage to Ansett Airlines of Australia on certain routes, including the Melbourne to Canberra service? Has TAA Flight 496, which normally leaves Melbourne for Canberra at approximately 7.15 on most evenings, been permanently cancelled? ls Ansett Airlines now the sole company operating a flight at approximately this time to Canberra from Melbourne? ls it also a fact that Ansett Airlines Flight 396 left Melbourne last night with a near capacity load and that more than 50 per cent of the passengers would normally have travelled with TAA? Does this mean that rationalisation of flights on economic grounds will be carried out to the advantage of Ansett Airlines?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– My understanding is that, in a situation in which the market tends to slow down a little, both the Australian National Airlines Commission, which operates Trans Australia Airlines, and Ansett Airlines of Australia operate in conjunction on a basis which, I imagine, gives to each a fair share of the market and enables the best use to be made of equipment when it is not all being totally used. I imagine that the airline companies would still be doing that and I do not see why they should not do so. As to the other inquiry about flights 496 and 396, I shall have to seek information for the honourable senator from the operators concerned.

page 598

QUESTION

PEARS

Senator WEBSTER:

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry recall questions in the Senate regarding assistance to growers of pears in the Goulburn Valley of Victoria? Has the Government made any statement regarding the possibility of assistance being provided to growers in that industry? Did the Minister previously indicate to the Senate that the Commonwealth was awaiting advice on the situation from the Victorian Government and also that the Commonwealth awaited an application from the Victorian Government for financial assistance to enable it to assist the growers? Has the Commonwealth received that advice and has it received a request from the Victorian Government for financial assistance? Will the Commonwealth make public its attitude to these problems which exist in Victoria?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I well recall questions asked by the honourable senator with regard to pears. At the time I told him that a case was being prepared by the industry to forward to the State Government and that the State Government was preparing a case to forward to the Commonwealth. I think on one occasion I went so far as to say that the Commonwealth had received a case for financial assistance from the State. Other than that I have no information. However, I shall check for the honourable senator and if I can obtain some further information I shall give it to him.

page 598

QUESTION

OWNERSHIP OF TELEVISION COMPANIES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

–

My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is the Minister aware that the last annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shows at page 138 that a company known as Elwood Pty Ltd holds 154,000 shares in Riverina Television Ltd? Is the Minister aware that the paid up capital of Elwood Pty Ltd is a mere $4, represented by 2 shares which are owned by two residents of Wollongong in New South Wales? ls the Minister aware that the shares held by Elwood Pty Ltd in Riverina Television Ltd are worth about $170,000? Does the Minister know that Elwood Pty Ltd, prior to the acquisition of the holdings in Riverina Television Ltd, was a subsidiary of John Fairfax Ltd? Will the Minister order an investigation to determine who provided to Elwood Pty Ltd the funds necessary, and on what terms, for the purchase of the Riverina Television Ltd shares and, in particular, whether any person or company has any option to purchase the 2 shares in Elwood Pty Ltd? Will the Minister also order a complete and thorough investigation into the number of television stations that newspaper companies control, either directly or indirectly, within the meaning of the Broadcasting and Television Act, both as a result of their own shareholdings and shareholdings that they have been able to acquire by subterfuge?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator will be aware that he asked me those questions in a representative capacity. I am not aware of the facts he mentioned; nor have I the power to institute the investigations for which he asked. I ask the honourable senator to put his questions on notice so they can receive the attention of the Postmaster-General.

page 598

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator FITZGERALD:

– M y question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of statements made in recent days by the Treasurer and the exTreasurer about the possibility of increased taxation, can the Minister state what action is contemplated? Is there any intention on the part of the Government to introduce legislation to increase taxation before the Parliament goes into recess at the end of April?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator has drawn some conclusions from statements reported to have been made by certain Ministers. Obviously his question relates to policy and we do not answer such questions at question time. If I were the honourable senator I would sleep easily.

page 599

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the South Vietnamese invasion of Laos is now recognised as a disaster, with almost half the invading army listed as killed, wounded or missing, will the Government look hard at the reality of the Indo-China war and withdraw all our troops now?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 expect to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister at a later hour this afternoon. In view of that I think the question should stand down or be placed on the notice paper.

page 599

QUESTION

SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Australia is a party to a secret agreement between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada for co-operation in military research and development? ls the agreement known as the Technical Co-operation Programme? Who signed the agreement on behalf of Australia? Does the agreement provide that the parties may establish their own security forces in another country which is party to the agreement for the purpose of its own security? If so, may a foreign security force take action in another country which is a party to the agreement without reference to the laws or procedure of the country concerned? Are persons from another country employed in Australia under the Technical Co-operation Programme extended the privileges and immunities of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, which is Act No. 50 of 1963?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I think the honourable senator will recognise that the complexity and importance of the matter make it quite appropriate for his questions to be answered only upon notice.

page 599

QUESTION

HEART DISEASE

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the Minister for Health whether he will make a statement to the Senate, not now but at some convenient time, indicating the nature of heart disease as a public health problem in Australia, the number of persons affected by it and those likely to die from it, and the economic consequences to Australia of it? 1 ask also whether he will make a statement to the Senate indicating the attitude of the National Health and Medical Research Council and of the Commonwealth Department of Health as to whether poly-unsaturated margarine should be freely available to those who wish to have it as an alternative to buller for health reasons?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Together with Senator Murphy I appreciate the importance and significance of the matters he has raised. 1 am not in a position to say that I will make a statement on them, but I certainly shall give consideration not only to those matters but also to the advisability of making a statement along the lines he indicated.

page 599

QUESTION

FAULTY CAR BRAKING SYSTEMS

Senator WILLESEE:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport seen a report of a recent survey by the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia of 600 new cars, still under warranty, of which number 216 were found to have potentially dangerous faults in their braking systems? Does the Minister propose to take any action to ensure that new cars sold to the public are of an acceptable standard of roadworthiness?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have not seen the report referred to by the honourable senator but I share his concern if the report is correct. 1 shall direct his question to the responsible Minister and ask for a reply.

page 599

QUESTION

KINDERGARTENS

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– In directing my question to the Minister for Health I refer to the answer he gave a few minutes ago to the Leader of the Opposition about making a statement on heart disease. As a Victorian, the Minister is aware of the plight of kindergartens in our State and I wonder whether he would also make a statement on that matter which is causing a great deal of trouble and worry, particularly amongst young mothers in Victoria.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that 1 would certainly consider the matters he raised and also whether a statement should be made. At this very early stage in a ministerial career I would hesitate to embark upon making statements about kindergar-, tens because I have an early sense that kindergartens and matters related thereto may not be properly within the purview of the Department of Health.

page 600

QUESTION

CIGARETTE SMOKING

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

– I address my question to the Minister for Health. I remind him that on 18th February I asked the then Minister for Health a question concerning the banning of cigarette advertising on television and was given the stock reply of the tobacco industry. In referring to the then Minister for Health perhaps 1 should have referred to the Department of Health, because I addressed my question to the Minister who was then representing the then Minister for Health, f ask: Was the then Minister unaware that British, United States and Canadian reports have all stressed the need to ban cigarette advertising on television? Is the Minister aware that the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council has advocated the cessation of such advertising? Why would the former Minister for Health prefer to accept the twaddle of the tobacco industry rather than advice from his own National Health and Medical Research Council?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am not aware of the detailed nature of the reply which the honourable senator received from my predecessor. However, I am quite sure that my predecessor would have been aware that cigarette advertising on television has been banned in the United States since the beginning of this year, in the United Kingdom for the last 5 years, and is also banned in Canada. I am equally sure that he would have been aware of the opinion expressed by the National Health and Medical Research Council, I think in 1 969. I believe it is unfair of the honourable senator to suggest that my predecessor would merely give the stock reply of the tobacco interests. The honourable senator will be aware that a variety of factors determine whether the banning of cigarette advertising on television achieves the purposes of those who advocate the ban. For example, although cigarette advertising on television has been banned in the United Kingdom for 5 years it is not clear that there has been in that country any decrease in the consumption of cigarettes, because the tobacco industry has been able to exploit alternative methods of advertis ing to offset the ban on television advertising. I mention those matters simply to give an indication of the fact that there is a complex of questions which have to be considered. I assure the honourable senator that, insofar as the question he directed to me is concerned, I will be making an intensive study of it.

page 600

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, is supplementary to 2 questions which have been asked this afternoon by my colleagues. ls the Minister aware that both major Australian airlines are now facing severe financial strains as a result of the economic measures introduced recently by this Government? Is he also aware that many charter and commuter companies are in the hands of receivers or are in the process of being declared bankrupt as a result of the same economic restrictions? Will the Minister inform the Parliament whether he is prepared to take the necessary steps to abolish the parallel take-off and landing system and replace it with a rationalised system whereby both major airlines will be able to operate to the benefit of passengers the new reduced number of flights? Will he also undertake an investigation of the reasons for the failure of these charter and commuter companies and assist where possible small airway concerns to maintain the services which are relied on very heavily at present by people in country areas?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I wrote down fairly quickly what I. thought were the 4 points raised by the honourable senator in his question. The honourable senator said that the major airlines were in financial trouble. That is not my information. 1 have not been told that by them. The fact that their business has decreased has placed upon them the necessity of making some economies in their own operations. However, this does not indicate financial troubles and I think the honourable senator’s conclusion is unwarranted at the moment. It is not true that a lot of the charter companies are in the hands of liquidators or are bankrupt, but it is true that some of them are and for a variety of reasons.

The question of parallel scheduling was very properly raised by the honourable senator. He and the Senate may like to know that I have begun a round of discussions with both domestic operators over a wide area of their responsibility. I have had discussions with them about the problem of parallel scheduling, which has its worst effect at the end of the system - Tasmania, Cairns, north to New Guinea and into Western Australia - in an attempt to improve the situation. The first of such discussions has taken place and there will be many more of them. I am trying to get some improvement in this direction. The problem of small charter operators maintaining a profitable business is one of which I am very conscious and about which I am very concerned. I have to do the best I can in a situation in which one of the problems has been the fact that there has not been a very large demand for their services for a variety of reasons which are outside my control.

page 601

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. By way of preface I refer to an earlier request by me for a statement by the Prime Minister on the full effects on Australians entering the United Kingdom of the British Immigration Bill. I ask: Has the Australian High Commissioner in London had discussions with the British Home Secretary on the proposal that Commonwealth migrants will have to register with the British police?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– ( understand that a statement on the British Immigration Bill has been prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister but that it has not yet been submitted to the Prime Minister for his consideration. This is quite understandable in view of recent circumstances. However, it will be attended to as quickly as possible. Turning to the nub of the honourable senators question, I wish to advise that Australia’s High Commissioner in London has had discussions with the British Home Secretary on the British Immigration Bill and these discussions have included discussions on the particular matter referred to by Senator Mulvihill. Our views have been noted. Quite obviously they were expressed. Of course, what the British Government decides to do in regard to persons entering the United Kingdom is a matter for it.

page 601

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. I ask: Is it a fact that a person who is called up for national service under the National Service Act is, upon discharge, entitled to rehabilitation services while a person who voluntarily joins the Army for a 3-year period is not entitled to such services upon discharge, despite having served in a theatre of war? If so, why is the volunteer disadvantaged?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I think I should seek an answer from the Minister for Repatriation. I suggest that the honourable senator should put the. question on notice.

page 601

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether a date has been set for the transfer of domestic flying operations from the Essendon Airport to the Tullamarine jet port in Victoria? Is the Minister able to tell the. Senate concisely the purpose to which the Essendon Airport will be put when domestic flying services are transferred from Essendon to Tullamarine? ‘ ‘

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am very conscious of the interest the honourable senator has in the Tullamarine and Essendon airports. He and Senator Kennelly were good enough to go out with me ohe afternoon to look at these facilities. The present proposal is that domestic operations will move from Essendon to Tullamarine on 20th June this year. The future of Essendon Airport is still under consideration. Details still have to be worked out. In accordance with the undertaking I have already given to the honourable senator, as soon as I have any positive information I will see that he and Senator Kennelly gets it.

page 601

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the Minister for Health .aware that this month Australia will ,-be celebrating the second anniversary of the presentation of the Nimmo Committee report and the first anniversary of the promise of the former “Minister for Health to establish a national1 health insurance commission? Will the Minister give consideration to the composition and functions of the proposed health insurance commission as referred to by the former Minister for Health in a ministerial statement in March 1 970 and in answer to a question on notice in another place last October? What are the prospects of the Government’s marking either anniversary by introducing legislation for the establishment of a national health insurance commission which, as recent events indicate, is more urgently required now than ever before?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– J can assure the honourable senator that I will give consideration to those matters which he has specified. The balance of the honourable senator’s question related to the prospect of legislation being introduced. As the honourable senator will be well aware, that is essentially a matter of Government policy.

page 602

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Will the Minister ask the Postmaster-General to inquire urgently whether a responsible and experienced Australian Broadcasting Commission journalist in Sydney was dismissed on Monday, 22nd March . of this year, for writing a news story about discrimination against an Aboriginal woman by the Australian Mutual Provident Society in relation to insurance premiums, and whether it is true that neither the AMP Society nor the woman concerned have denied the story despite the fact that the controller of news, Mr Fraser, specially sent out another reporter in an attempt to get her to refute the story. Will the Minister also inquire whether it is true that the same journalist’s position had been in jeopardy because of revelations he made in relation to immigration which had greatly embarassed the Government and the Department of Immigration? Without naming the journalist, I ask the Minister whether he will ask the Postmaster-General to inquire into these matters in order to ascertain the truth. 1 also ask whether a statement on these matters could be made in this place.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think it is proper for me to convey to the PostmasterGeneral the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in this place, together with his request that the PostmasterGeneral inquire into these matters. I do not think I can take the matter any further than to convey that request to the Postmaster-General .

page 602

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry a question. Has the Board of the Australian Industry Development Corporation appointed an auditor. If so, who has been appointed?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am sure that I do not know whether the Australian Industry Development Corporation has appointed an auditor and, if it has, who he is. This would be, I imagine, a matter entirely for its own judgment. I do not know to what extent it is responsible for funds or for producing balance sheets and profit and loss accounts or whether it is in any way under legislation that calls for it to have an auditor. Nonetheless, I shall look into this matter and ask the responsible Minister to let me have information for the honourable senator.

page 602

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator MURPHY:

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation indicate to the Senate the nature of the dispute between Qantas Airways Ltd and its captains and officers over the training programme for the Boeing 747 aircraft? Can he tell the Senate whether reports that the captains in particular are asking for salaries in excess of those paid to Cabinet Ministers are correct? Can he tell us the position about the claims being made for superannuation and whether there is any substance in the suggestion in newspaper reports that claims are being made for superannuation payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars for persons who are now entering the service and who complete the normal course of their careers?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– In the case of Qantas Airways Ltd and its technical air crews, which is really the matter about which Senator Murphy has asked a long question, I, as Minister try to be available to both sides to hear anything they have to say about any difference between them. I, with the Department, do what I can to resolve such differences. Accordingly, for some time I have had discussions with the representative of the Qantas board about the financial impact of superannuation and salaries and the escalation of these on the full scope of its business. The board is responsible for the management of that concern. My responsibility is to ensure that some financial limits are set on what is done in this regard because all of us have a responsibility to the people of Australia for the economic viability of that concern. Those are my comments in relation to that area.

The pilots - the technical air crews - in company with various other people have been to see me and the Department.I have put to them that there is a very great responsibility upon them to ensure that the Boeing 747 training programme begins as soon as possible because Qantas is in competition with other operators who are flying Boeing 747 aircraft. Beyond thatI would not want to comment except to say that I will let the honourable senator have details in writing. I know that he, with his industrial experience, will understand that the path of the person trying to achieve harmony in these matters is much easier to tread if he does not have too much to say himself.

page 603

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Air. Is it a fact that several F111 aircraft will be visiting this country shortly in conjunction with the celebrations of the fiftieth anniversary of the Royal Australian Air Force? Is it a fact that these F111 aircraft will not be visiting all States? What is the reason for this? Will the Minister reconsider the decision so that the aircraft may visit all States and, in particular, Victoria, so that people in that State may view them?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I think that last week in answer to a question I said that at the invitation of the Royal Australian Air Force the United States Air Force had agreed to be represented at the 50th anniversary celebrations of the RAAF. The United States Air Force asked whether it could send 4 F111 A aircraft to the celebrations. It said that the aircraft would be here for only a short period. The period during which they will be here covers the Richmond air display and the air display at Fairbairn. The F111 aircraft will be at those 2 displays. The West Australian air display was held last Sunday so the aircraft will not go there. The remaining displays will be held after the visit of the aircraft.

page 603

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that there are several DC3 aircraft in India which are and were available for sale, at a price which is only a fractionof the sum paid by the Government to Jetair Australia Ltd for other DC3 aircraft? Was any attempt made to obtain the ‘overseas aid’ aircraft from that source and thus avoid expensive ferrying costs? If not, why not?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am not aware of DC3 aircraft being available in India. I would have thought that there would be countries other than India where they would be available too.I thinkI need to direct the second part of the honourable senator’s question, to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

page 603

QUESTION

RURAL LAND

(Question No. 638)

Senator POYSER:

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

What is the total area of rural land owned or leased by foreign companies. of investors in Australia.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

Officers of my Department have been in contact with the various Commonwealth and State authorities concerned with land administration and with the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. It was ascertained that no precise statistics of land owned or leased by foreign companies or investors are kept by these authorities, either at the Commonwealth or the State level. Estimates of the extent to which foreign companies lease or own land in Australia would be extremely difficult to make and would probably be misleading, in part at least, because of the difficulty of defining ‘foreign companies or investors’. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to provide the information that the honourable senator seeks.

page 604

QUESTION

HIGH COURT

(Question No. 824)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

When is it envisaged that the High Court of Australia will be establishing its headquarters in Canberra.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

No date has yet been fixed for the transfer of the principal seat of the High Court to Canberra. The attention of the honourable senator is drawn to a statement made by Senator Cotton on 13th May 1970 (see Hansard, page 1395) concerning the siting of the High Court building in Canberra and the timing of its construction.

page 604

QUESTION

BANANAS

(Question No. 828)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that in recent times there has been an outbreak of beetle borer in bananas in the Brunswick District on the north coast of New South Wales andthat because of the low returns being paid to banana growers they are finding it difficult financiallyto afford the cost of dieldrin, an insecticide used to keep the beetle borer in check.
  2. Will the Minister ask his departmental officers to confer with the Banana Growers’ Federation and the growers themselves to see if anything at all can be done to reduce the cost of dieldrin to the growers in viewofthe economic difficulties which this important primary industry has been undergoing in recent years.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. I have had my Department seek information from the New South Wales Department of Agriculture as a matter of this kind comes primarily within the jurisdiction of the State authorities. I am informed that the outbreak of beetle borers in banana plantations in the Brunswick District on the north coast of New South Wales is believedto be due to the development of a strain of borers resistantto the recommended insecticides, aldrin and dieldrin. In all other districts those materials are giving effective control at the recommended rates of application, which are quite economical. The resistant strain is not controlled by any rate of application of these chemicals. Entomologists of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture recommend that where resistant strains occur, treatment with aldrin and dieldrin should be discontinued, and that control should be maintained through sanitation measures, that is, through the clearing of plantations of all old and fallen plant material capable of harbouring the borer. 1 am informed that research is continuing in an endeavour to find alternative means of chemical control.
  2. It is apparent from the answer to (1), that a reduction in the cost of dieldrin would not meet the problem in the Brunswick district.

page 604

QUESTION

WOOL

(Question No. 830)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How much wool has (a) been purchased to date by the Australian Wool Commission and (b) is still held by the Commission.
  2. What is the total amount outlaid by the Commission on the purchase of the wool.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. and (2) For commercial reasons it is the policy of the Australian Wool Commission not to release information on the matters raised by the honourable senator.

page 604

QUESTION

WOOL INDUSTRY

(Question No. 832)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Did the Minister advisethe United Farmers and Woolgrowers’ Association that woolgrowers who seemed to be precluded from the Federal Government’s emergency aid scheme but who had suffered loss through drought and low prices should apply to the Department for assistance.
  2. How many applications have been received to date for assistance under the scheme.
  3. How many applications were approved, and how many were rejected.
  4. How many applicants of those approved received the maximum assistance of $1,500 and how many received partial assistance.
  5. How many applicationswere approved on the basis that the particular circumstances of the individual grower had indicated a particularly adverse effect on eligibilityfor assistance, in accordance with the Minister’s statement on 19 August 1970.
  6. How much has beenexpended to date under the scheme.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. More than 40.000 applications have been received. These included duplicates and cases where more than one member of a family unit submitted separate applications. After matching and consolidation the number of applications requiring a determination was some 34,000.
  3. The number of approvals and rejections will not be known until all applications have been processed. To date 15,087 applicants have received grants and 10,936 were not eligible foi a payment.
  4. As of 26 February 7,023 applicants had received the maximum grant of $1,500 and 3,064 grants of a lesser amount had been made.
  5. Statistics have not been kept of the number of cases where the granting of assistance, or the amount of assistance paid, has depended on special circumstances.
  6. The total amount paid out up to 26th February 1971 was 515,560,720. While it is not possible yet to assess the total final expenditure, it would appear from these figures that the amount will be within the upper limit of $30 million set in the Budget for repayment of grants under the Scheme.

page 605

EDUCATION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Pursuant to Section 9 of the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Act 1968, I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the year ended 30th June 1970 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.

page 605

EDUCATION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Pursuant to Section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1969, I present a statement containing particulars of the guarantees that have been given under this Act during the year ended 30th June 1970 and payments made under any guarantee given under this Act.

page 605

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the International Labour Conference FiftySecond Session - 1968.

page 605

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Senator COTTON:
LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the financial and statistical bulletin of the Commonwealth Railways operations for the year ended 30th June 1970. The annual report on the Commonwealth Railways operations was tabled on 17th. February 1971.

page 605

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Pursuant to Section 30 of the Honey Industry

Act 1962-1966 I present the 7th annual report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s report on those statements. The interim report of the Board was presented to the Senate on 1st September 1970.

page 605

REPORTS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee I present the one hundred and twenty-fifth and one hundred and twentysixth reports of the Committee and with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate my remarks on those reports in Hansard.

The One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Report relates to an index of the first to the one hundred and fourteenth reports of the Committee and encompasses the work of your first 7 Committees’ up to September 1969. By 1958, the numerous inquiries directed to your Committee from time to time by members of the Parliament, by departments and by other organisations and persons both in Australia and overseas, as well as the requirements of the office of the Committee and the members themselves, had demonstrated the need for ready means of reference to the reports of your Committee and the topics discussed. To meet that situation your third Committee decided in 1957 to have an index prepared and to present it to the Parliament in a form similar to that in which our ordinary reports have been published. The first such report, being the Thirty-eighth Report, was tabled in the ‘ Parliament in May 1958.

The need for this type of report has continued over the years both in response to growing inquiries regarding our work and as a consequence of the expansion of our work. This need has been recognised by successive Committees and index reports have been presented to the Parliament in 1959, 1962, 1965 and 1967.

In the case of the One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Report, your eighth Committee has included for the first time, a list of those reports presented since April 1970 but some of which, due .to normal printing delays, are not yet available for inclusion in the report in complete indexed form.

The One Hundred and Twenty-sixth Report relates to the Treasury Minute on the Committee’s One Hundred and Seventh Report concerning subscriber trunk dialling facilities.

In examining the Treasury Minute your Committee has given particular attention to the report of an Interdepartmental Committee established to examine the problems associated with the control of STD telephone facilities within the Commonwealth Public Service. A copy of the report of that Committee was tendered to us as an annexure to the Treasury Minute.

From our examination of the report we are disappointed to find that departments were generally unable to provide adequate reasons for increased expenditure on metered calls. We were further disappointed that the Interdepartmental Committee has concluded that it is impossible for it to reach any firm opinion on the extent to which the increased expenditure represented wasteful or unauthorised use of the facility.

However, we note in connection with multi-occupancy buildings, the Interdepartmental Committee’s view that a policy of separate metering should be adopted to enable departments to exercise proper financial control, and that the additional cost of separate meters and additional exchange lines would be fully justified. Your Committee agrees with this recommendation and hopes that separate metering facilities will be installed in those buildings with minimum delay. Your Committee also trusts that the added financial control accorded departments following the introduction of such facilities will assist them in the preparation of estimates of expenditure and will also assist in the provision of adequate reasons for future variations in their telephone costs.

We note that at the request of the Interdepartmental Committee the Public Service Board conducted an investigation in 1969 of the relative cost of obtaining information by means of memoranda, Telex facilities and STD because of the lapse of time since that examination and with consequent rises in costs, a re-examination of the original investigation was made by the Public Service Board in July 1970 for the Interdepartmental Committee. In view of the evident need to reassess the relative costs of these forms of communication within such a short period of time, your Committee believes that, for the guidance of departments, the Public Service Board should make regular .assessments to take account of future variations, in costs.

In examining the model instructions on the use of telephones -prepared by the Interdepartmental Committee and circulated with its report to all permanent heads we have noted that the circular provides for private telephone calls to be made only with the prior approval of the supervisor. This we support. We are disturbed, however, by the statement included in these model instructions that disciplinary action may be taken against any staff member found making, private calls without approval. Your Committee believes that where a staff member , is found to be making private calls without approval, disciplinary action should be . taken and the model instructions be’ amended accordingly.

We would also observe that from its nature, the report of the Interdepartmental Committee suggests that the Committee has issued a final report and thai no further work on its part is contemplated. In view of the proposals for greater control of telephone facilities put forward by that Committee and the fact that the installation of separate metering facilities in multi-occupancy buildings is expected to enable the departments concerned to exercise proper financial control, your Committee believes that the ‘ Interdepartmental Committee should continue in existence and should undertake periodic follow-up surveys of the matters within its terms of reference.

Your Public Accounts Committee intends to maintain a close and continuing interest in this important ‘ area of financial administration within the Commonwealth Public Service.

I commend the reports to honourable senators.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 606

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– On behalf, of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I bring up the

Committee^ report on proposals for variation of the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory as gazetted in 1925. This is the 47th series of variations. 1 ask for leave to make a short statement on the report.

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

Senator MARRIOTT:

– The report which I have tabled is the first of its kind though the matter with which it deals is one to which my Committee has given consideration on a number of previous occasions. As honourable senators will be aware, the resolution on the appointment of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory requites it to examine and report on ali proposals for modifications or variations of the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19th November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the Committee by the Minister for the Interior. For a variety of reasons the Committee has not reported to the Parliament before but considers it proper to do so in the case of the current proposals known as the 47th series of variations and on all future occasions.

The proposals for variations are fully explained to the Committee in private session by officers of the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Interior, and following examination of those officers and inspection where necessary of the sites of the proposed variations, the Committee satisfies itself on the desirability and practicability of the variations before recommending their adoption. These matters are not considered lightly nor are members of the Committee easily satisfied as to the worth of proposals. Much evidence is taken and the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Interior go to considerable trouble to satisfy the penetrating examination of the proposals made by the members of my Committee. In short, this is not a rubber stamp procedure. The Senate is assured that where proposed variations are recommended they have been well considered.

There is a requirement for the proposed variations to lie on the table in both the Senate and the House of Representatives for a period of 6 sitting days. This procedure follows consideration by members of my Committee. There is therefore, and there always has been, the opportunity for honourable senators to satisfy themselves on the merits of the proposals. The tabling of this report does not affect in any way the procedure referred to, and the proposals will lie on the table in the customary fashion at some point after . this report has been tabled.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 607

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 600)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. ls it a fact that some Aboriginal stockmen employed at Wave Hill station are working in excess of 84 hours over a 7 day. working week, and that they are frequently required to commence their day’s work at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.
  2. Is it also a fact that segregation is ,/gal being practised, that white stockmen and Aboriginal stockmen are now compelled to eat at different tables, and the latter are being supplied with food below the required standard.
  3. What are the details of the actual wage rates being paid to Aboriginal stockmen at Wave Hill.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The. Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following information to supplement the answer given to the honourable senator’s question set out in Hansard of 14th October 1970:

  1. 1 am informed that an inspection carried out by an Arbitration Inspector] nt the property concerned has revealed that the employees referred to by the honourable ‘ senator are not covered by any Federal award. The Inspector formed the view that some . overtime would be worked during the mustering season by the employees referred to by the honourable senator but it was not possible for the amount of that overtime to be discerned since relevant records are not kept nor does the industry award require that they be kept.
  2. In the opinion of the Inspector, food supplied to the Aboriginals concerned was within the requirements of the industry award.
  3. The Inspector found that’ all Aboriginals wilh the exception of 6 persons were being paid rates fixed by the award in respect of work carried on by them. Under-payments to the 6 have been rectified.

page 608

QUESTION

BAUXITE

(Question No. 746)

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. What royalties (expressed in Australian currency) are paid in Jamaica per ton for (a) bauxite exported raw, (b) bauxite processed into alumina within Jamaica.
  2. What royalties are paid at Weipa per ton for (a) bauxite exported raw, (b) bauxite processed into alumina within Queensland.
  3. What royalties are expected to be paid per ton of bauxite to be mined by Tipperary Land and Exploration Co. Pty Ltd and Associated Companies south of Weipa.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. (a) I have been advised that the royalty payable on bauxite exported from Jamaica, comprising a fixed rate plus a variable rate, is calculated as follows:

    1. Fixed Rate-

Where the tonnage mined in any calendar year:

  1. does not exceed one million tons the fixed rate is approximately 21.5 Australian cents per dry long ton.
  2. exceeds one million tons but does not exceed two million tons the fixed rate is approximately 16.1 Australian cents per dry long ton on the entire tonnage.

  3. exceeds two million tons the fixed rate is approximately 16.1 Australian cents per dry long ton on two million tons and approximately 10.7 Australian cents per dry long ton on the tonnage in excess of two million tons.

    1. Variable Rate-

The variable rate of royalty is in addition to the fixed rate and varies with the price of aluminium metal. When the price of aluminum, as quoted by the ‘American Metal Market’ is US25 cents per pound, the variable rate is the same as the fixed rate. The rate varies in direct proportion to the rise or fall in the price of metal. Thus if the quoted price of aluminium is US29 cents per pound, the variable half of the royalty would be adjusted by29/25.

  1. The royalty in respect of bauxite which is processed into alumina within Jamaica is as follows:

    1. on the first million tons mined in any calendar year the rate is approximately 26.8 Australian cents per dry long ton.
    2. on the second million tons mined in any calendar year the rate is approximately 21.5 Australian cents per dry long ton.
    3. on the amount mined in excess of two million tons in any calendar year the rate is approximately 16.1 Australian cents per dry long ton.

My advice from Jamaica is that these royalties were negotiated in 1957 between the Government and the companies concerned and are to remain unchanged until 1982 (they are based on sterling and the above Australian rates have been reached using a conversion ratio of $A1 = £Stg 0.466).

  1. The royalty to be paid on bauxite mined at Weipa as contained in the Commonwealth Aluminium Pty Ltd Agreement Act 1957 of the Queensland Parliament, is:

    1. on bauxite exported - 10 cents per ton.
    2. on bauxite processed to alumina in Queensland or Tasmania - 5 cents per ton.

  2. It is understood that no Agreement has been drawn up in respect of bauxite deposits held by the Tipperary Land and Exploration Co. Pty Ltd and Associated companies. The negotiation of an Agreement is a matter between the company and the Queensland State Government and because of this it is not possible to make any estimates of the royalty likely to be payable should an Agreement eventuate.

page 608

QUESTION

OIL SEARCH

(Question No. 788)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. What has been the average amount of petroleum search subsidy paid per on-shore exploratory well each year since the introduction of the subsidy for (a) Australia, and (b) Queensland.
  2. What has been the average cost per exploratory well on which subsidy has been paid each year for (a) Australia, and (b) Queensland.
  3. What has been (a) the cost, and (b) the amount of subsidy for each off-shore exploratory well drilled in Australia.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

page 609

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE

(Question No. 845)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Furtherto the answers by the Prime Minister to Question No. 679 in the House of Representatives on 18th August 1970to a question on notice submitted by Mr Crean, M.P.:

    1. What is the outcome of ‘some attention at Department level’, mentioned in part 2 of the reply, and can section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution be relied upon by the Government in order to pass in the Commonwealth Parliament laws for the rationalisation of and the rendering uniform the conflicting State laws in the field of motor car third party insurance.
    2. With regard to the Prime Minister’s reply to part 4, ashe is prepared to concede the Motor Car Third Party Insurance Acts of the 6 States (and the Ordinances therein of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory) are ‘by no means identical’, will the Prime Minister consider the time has come for the Commonwealth to intervene in this area.
    3. As it is clear from the answersto parts 6 and 7 that the deliberations of the Australian Transport Advisory Council have been at a standstill since as long ago as February 1969, will the Commonwealth itself promptly examine the merits of adopting a concept other than ‘negligence’ as the norm for compensating road acci dent victims and for the financial relief of dependants of those killed,
    4. In regard to the answer to part 9, is the Prime Minister aware that Saskatchewan, one of the central Provinces of Canada, has satisfactorily operated with ‘Absolute Liability’ (or, ‘the assumption of negligence’) as the norm for compensating victims of the Road Toll since 1946 in substitution of ‘negligence’.

  2. In any future inquiry sponsored this time by the Prime Minister, will an assurance be given that evidence will be sought from spokesmen for road victims, the spinal clinic hospitals and such, apart from insurance companies, motoring bodies and law institutes.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

This question is identical, in all major respects, with Question No. 1657 on the House of Representatives Notice Paper to which the then Prime Minister provided an answer on 16th February 1971. I would refer the honourable senator to page 74 of Hansard (House of Representatives) of that date.

page 609

QUESTION

DEATHS OF DR BOGLE AND MRS CHANDLER

(Question No. 850)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

Did the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation assist an Australian citizen and a central European diplomat to leave Australia within 24 hours of the discovery of the bodies of the late Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler at Lane Cove, New South Wales, on New Year’s Day 1963; if so, would a description of this man resemble the description, given in evidence at the subsequent inquest, of a man seen running from Lane Cove.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

No.

page 609

QUESTION

MRS DALTON

(Question No. 852)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Was the sergeant on duty at Government House, Canberra; notified by Mrs Dalton of the imminent danger to the life of a senior politician 7½ hours before a shot was fired in Sydney at Mr Arthur Calwell, the then Leader of the Opposition.
  2. Following the incident did the AttorneyGeneral instruct a Sydney police sergeant to make an investigation.
  3. Was the particular sergeant the New South Wales representative of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
  4. Was the sergeant concerned a member in 1943 of a Nazi Party operating in Australia.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. and (4) See (2) above.

page 610

QUESTION

DEATH OF DR CONLON

(Question No. 853)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Was a Sydney police sergeant detailed to investigate the sudden death of a Dr Alfred Conlon in 1961.
  2. Was this investigation terminated on instructions from the then Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police and, if so, why.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Investigations by the New South Wales Police Force are not within my administration.
  2. The Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police Force gave no instructions in this matter.

page 610

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

(Question No. 854)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Did Mrs Dalton on5th October 1966 before a number of witnesses including an attendant at Parliament House put on a written record that an attempt upon the safety of Parliament House could be expected in about a month’s time.
  2. Was a person apprehended in November 1966 on the front steps of Parliament House with a sawn-off shot gun in a brief case.
  3. Was it the intention of this person to cover the escape of an accomplice who intended to enter Parliament House by way of the unguarded back kitchen door and proceed to the front door placing explosives as he went through the building.
  4. Was this plan unsuccessful because the latter individual was arrested on the previous day in Sydney and detained.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Not to my knowledge.
  2. No.
  3. and (4) See (2) above.

page 610

QUESTION

ARMY MACHINE GUNS

(Question No. 855)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Were a large number of machine guns stolen from Ingleburn Army Camp; if so, were fourteen of the guns found later at a gymnasium conducted by a Hungarian.
  2. Was this man arrested and charged.
  3. Was it agreed with the prosecutor that a charge of theft would not be preferred against the individual in return for the suppression of evidence that he was the holder of a forged invitationto attend a New Year’s Party at Government House, Canberra.
  4. Had this man also been invited to Canberra by Citizen Military Forces Army ‘Officers.
  5. Was the accommodationof a former Sydney entertainer and a friend of the Hungarian businessman searched by police in an attempt to find the forged invitation to the Government House Party. (6)Is it a fact that the stolen machine guns had not been entered on the Army Quartermaster’s manuscript and as a result any disappearance of such guns would not have to be accounted for.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

No automatic weapons have recently been reported stolen from camps in the Ingleburn area and nothing is known of the alleged recovery of fourteen such weapons from a Hungarian gymnasium proprietor.

Serial numbers of all weapons issued and received are recorded by units on the relevant copies of the indent vouchers and unit weapons registers. Any loss of weapons in transit would be immediately evident to the unit on whose charge the weapons were at that time.

In the absence of more specific details and dates no further information can be provided.

page 610

QUESTION

MRS DALTON

(Question No. 856)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Was the Canberra home of Mrs Dalton raided and searched by Commonwealth Police in December 1967.
  2. Did the Commissioner of Police who authorised the raid inform the officers making the raid that the search was necessary as Mrs Dalton was expecting at any moment a serious attack upon a senior politician and the search was for further information. .
  3. Did Mrs Dalton on 17th December 1967 warn Commonwealth Police Headquarters of the imminent danger to a senior parliamentarian from subversive sources.
  4. Was Mrs Dalton on that occasion ordered from Police Headquarters by the Deputy Chief of Police.
  5. Did Mrs Dalton return 2 days later repeating her warning and producing certain photostat documents.
  6. Has there been any investigation as to whether this warning could have had any relationship to the disappearance of the then Prime Minister, Mr Holt,in December 1967.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to question (1).
  3. No.
  4. Mrs Dalton did not visit Commonwealth Police Headquarters in December 1967. She has never been ordered from the Headquarters.
  5. and (6) See answers to (3) and (4) above.

page 611

QUESTION

DEATH OF MR HAROLD HOLT

(Question No. 857)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Is it a fact that on the day following the termination of the official search for the body of the late Prime Minister, Mr Holt, at Portsea, Victoria, 4 shots were fired at a car carrying a consultant on Navy underwater medicine and a companion who were visiting the area to make a private investigation.
  2. Was the shooting reported to and investigated by the Police; if so, what were the results of the investigations.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. No so far as I am able to ascertain.
  2. See (1) above.

page 611

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

(Question No. 862)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. What is the normal method by which apples and pears are sold on the United Kingdom, European and Asian markets.
  2. Are exporters under the present system at liberty to determine their own contractual arrangements; if so, do these arrangements vary from State to State.
  3. What proportion of apples and pears is sold on the above three markets on contract and on consignment.
  4. Are there any specific differences in the types of contracts negotiated between Australian exporters of apples and pears and Asian buyers as compared with United Kingdom or European buyers.
  5. Are Australian exporters under any obligations to growers of apples and pears to divulge actual prices obtained on the Asian market.
  6. Does the Minister believe that the present system of remuneration to growers in relation to prices obtained by exporters is a fair and reasonable one.
  7. What changes are envisaged to any of the above with the introduction of the fruit stabilisation scheme.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. In the United Kingdom and European markets normal methods of disposal of apples and pears are by forward sale, sale afloat, free consignment, or on consignment against a guaranteed advance from an importer. In Asian markets, only forward sales are made.
  2. Contractual arrangements between exporters and growers are for negotiation between the parties and would vary from State to State according to differences in established practices. For example, in a State where traditionally a high proportion of fruit is sold forward, a common arrangement would be for the exporter to purchase fruit outright from the grower who would then have no further interest in its disposal. Other contracts might be for a seasonal run of varieties for which the exporter might arrange a guaranteed advance from an importer client.

Contractual arrangements between exporters and importers are also for negotiation between the parties, subject to any requirements that might be imposed by the Australian Apple and Pear Board.

  1. Approximately 60 per cent of apples and pears are forwarded on consignment or against a guaranteed advance to the United Kingdom and European markets. In Asian markets all shipments are sold forward under contract.
  2. Forward sale contracts for the United Kingdom and Europe differ from Asian contracts to the extent that the former would often cover a range of varieties of broader specifications probably shipped on more than one vessel.
  3. Minimum prices for apples and pears sold forward to all markets are set by the Australian Apple and Pear Board and are published widely to the industry. There is no specific obligation on exporters to divulge actual prices obtained and this would be entirely a matter for the individual grower and exporter under a private enterprise system of trading.
  4. With the element of competition between exporters it is believed that returns to growers, in relation to prices received by exporters, are generally reasonable.
  5. The industry’s proposalsto the Government in relation to the stabilisation plan laid emphasis on the retention of the existing private enterprise system of export marketing as regulated by the Australian Apple and Pear Board.

page 611

QUESTION

MEAT

(Question No. 885)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Has the Minister taken any action to meet the request by a deputation consisting of the Federal President and the Secretary of the Meat Employees’ Union on 20th October 1970 towards (a) uniformity of the Departmental regulations relating to veterinary inspectors in the meat industry, and (b) trade union representation on the Australia Meat Board and the Meat Advisory Committee.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Officers of my Department appreciate the problems associated with the uniform interpretation and application of regulations and instructions. In an endeavour to ensure a better understanding by industry of required standards and to achieve more complete uniformity of inspection procedures, my Department has prepared a comprehensive Manual of Meat Inspection Procedures. Copies of this manual have been made available to meatworks managements and to departmental veterinary officers and meat inspectors. In addition, staff training, particularly training at supervisory levels, has been intensified as a further means of ensuring that uniformity of inspection procedures is maintained.
  2. No change has been made in the decisions conveyed in writing to the Meat Employees’ Union concerning Trade Union representation on The Australian Meat Board and the Meat Industry Advisory Committee.

page 612

QUESTION

OIL AND PETROL

(Question No. 890)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. How many service stations are there in Australia.
  2. What is the estimated amount of engine oil drained annually from motor vehicles in. Australia.
  3. How much of this used engine oil is rerefined each year.
  4. What is the estimated amount of used engine oil disposed of as waste.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The Petroleum Information Bureau (Australia) in its publication ‘Oil and Australia, 1970’, publishes a figure of 19,736 reseller outlets operative as at 30th June 1970. (An operative site is stated to include all types, from major service stations to single pumps).
  2. , (3) and (4) This information, as far as is known, is not available.

page 612

QUESTION

COAL

(Question No. 891)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. What are the total estimated coking coal reserves in leases held by Central Queensland Coal Associates.
  2. How much of these reserves can be extracted by open cut mining methods.
  3. What is the total amount of coking coal that Central Queensland Coal Associates may be permitted to export under the terms of its agreement with the Queensland Government.
  4. Was the Commonwealth Government aware of the size of the open cut reserves before the agreement with the Queensland Government was signed.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Details of coking coal reserves in leases held by Central Queensland Coal Associates have not been released either by the company or by the Queensland Government.
  2. This is covered by Clause5 (1) of the Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement Act 1968, which states-

For so long as the Companies comply with the provisions of this Agreement, they may mine from the lands in the Special Coal Mining Leases and export from the State up to one hundred and fifty (150) million tons of coking coal, and an additional quantity of up to one hundred and fifty (150)million tons provided that such additional quantity does not exceed thirty per centum (30%) of the recoverable reserves of coking coal in the Franchise Lands.

The Companies may not mine from the Special Coal Mining Leases and export more than such quantity of coal or mine from the said lands coal for any other purpose unless so authorised by the Governor in Council by Order in Council published in the Commonwealth Gazette.

The Governor in Council by Order in Council may, on application by the companies from time to time, dispense with the requirements to establish such reserves and may, taking into account the energy reservesof the State, permit the Companies to mine from Special Coal Mining Leases under the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement for the purpose of exporting from the State such further quantities of coking coal in addition to the said quantities under this Subclause.

Provided that the Parliament of the State may disallow any such Order in Council within a period of fourteen (14) sitting days but any such disallowance shall not prejudice the rights of the Companies under this Sub-clause.’

  1. The Commonwealth Government had no official knowledge of coking coal reserves in leases held by Central Queensland Coal Associates before the agreement between the company and the Queensland Government was completed on 28th January 1969.

page 612

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 892)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Do teachers in the Commonwealth teaching service who are posted to the Northern Territory and employed from 1st January often not receive their first pay cheque until March; if so, will the Minister take steps to have this delay eliminated, so as to alleviate the severe hardship and embarrassment caused by this lengthy delay in payment.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

No. This is the first year in which the Commonwealth has provided its own teachers in Northern Territory community schools. Those teachers will be transferred to the Commonwealth Teaching Service as soon as the necessary legislation has been enacted.

Commonwealth employed teachers in community schools were required to commence duty on 4tb February 1971. Their first pay day was 11th February 1971. and 1 am assured that a salary cheque was sent to all those teachers by that dure.

Teachers recruited from a State service were informed that in order to preserve continuity their Commonwealth appointments would commence on the duy following the completion of their State service. However, in order to qualify for payment of salary from a date earlier than 4th February they were required to produce evidence of resignation from a State service and a statement showing the date to which they had been paid by the Stale Education Department.

page 613

QUESTION

DEATHS OF DR BOGLE AND MRS CHANDLER

(Question No. 895)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Was the subject of Dr Bogle’s death a matter for discussion at a specially convened meeting of the Federal Cabinet in March 1963; if so, was this meeting held before an inquest was held into the deaths of Dr Bogie and Mrs Chandler.
  2. Was the case further discussed later in 1963 by the then Attorney-General, several leading members of the Federal Government and a leading member of the Judiciary.
  3. Was a directive given by the Federal Government to all State police forces that the interest of national security could best be served by the police not discovering who was responsible for Dr Bogle’s death.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. My inquiries indicate that no such discussion took place.
  2. 1 am not aware of what discussion, if any, the then Attorney-General had in 1963.
  3. No.

page 613

QUESTION

ROADS

(Question No. 90 J)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. Is 1.2 per cent of the Commonwealth Aid Roads grant designated for planning and research.
  2. How much has each State spent on this category and for what purpose.
  3. On what dates was approval given by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads for each project.
  4. Has each State matched the additional expenditure required by the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement.
  5. How much has each State spent of its grant under the Act on property acquisition for freeway construction since 1st July 1969.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969 the total principal grant is $ 1,200m of which $18m i.e. 1.5 per cent is to be expended on road planning and research.
  2. Statements of expenditure by States during the year 1969-70 the first year of the operation of the Act, have not been submitted to date. Amounts allocated for planning and research are as follows:
  1. Planning and research programmes are approved bythe Minister, not by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads. The Minister approved programmes on the following dates:
  1. Statements of expenditure by a State from its own resources are submitted to the Treasurer.
  2. The supplementary statements of expenditure, when received, will show expenditure on acquisition of property for the categories of roads named in the legislation i.e. urban arterial, rural arterial and rural roads other than arterial.

page 614

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 905)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. Is there a serious shortage of teachers in Canberra schools.
  2. Why is it that despite the fact that many qualified persons are offering themselves for employment none are being employed
  3. Is the austerity campaign being extended to this area; if so, how is it justified.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Many qualified persons have applied for appointment as teachers in Australian Capital Territory schools and have been placed. However, in primary schools and in some subject areas of high schools there is a waiting list for appointment. These persons will be offered placement as vacancies occur.
  3. No.

page 614

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 914)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What is the name of the operator of the catering and bar facilities at Sydney International Airport
  2. What are the terms and conditions of operation of these facilities.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. I understand the question to refer to the International Terminal at Sydney Airport The food and liquor concession in that terminal is operated by Olims Travellers’ Services Limited, a subsidiary of Olims Consolidated Ltd, Sydney.
  2. The concession is operated in accordance with the detailed terms and conditions of a lease and authority granted under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act. The concession period is 10 years from May 1969, with a 5 year option. The concession fee is composed of a fixed rental and a percentage of the gross turnover of the business, the amounts concerned having been offered under public tender. Olims Consolidated Limited was the highest tenderer.

page 614

QUESTION

CANADIAN TEACHERS

(Question No. 923)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Did the Minister, in a Press statement issued on 22nd December 1970 state that he thought it likely that Australia would be able to attract Canadian teachers.
  2. How many Canadians are teaching in Australian schools
  3. How many Canadians have come to Australia this year expressly to teach here.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Yes, following a visit to Canada where the previous Minister gained the impression that there was no longer a shortage of teachers.
  2. and (3) Information on the number of Canadians teaching in Australian schools and on the number of Canadians who have come to Australia this year expressly to teach have not been collected in the course of my Department’s activities. The various State education departments may be able to provide this information.

page 614

QUESTION

WINE

(Question No. 927)

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Do the latest quarterly figures released by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, which show an ominous drastic slump insales of South Australian wines, amounting to 40,000 gallons.
  2. Will consideration be given to the lifting of the excise impost so as to restore the wine making industry to its pre-budget level of prosperity, and preserve this valuable industry from the fate suffered by other rural industries.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. The figures released by the Deputy Commonwealth Statistician and Government Statist in South Australia on 12th February1971 show that wholesale sales of wine in South. Australia for the

December Quarter 1970 totalled 1,244.300 gallons. This showed an increase of 11,700 gallons over the September Quarter 1970 of 1,232,600 gallons. Sales for the September Quarter 1969 and December Quarter 1969 were 1,150,000 gallons and 1,236,90 gallons respectively.

  1. The figures given in answrr to question1 would indicate that there has been no recession in total sales in South Australia.

page 615

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 929)

Senator GEORGES:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister for Civil Avition, upon notice:

  1. When can a report be expected on the inquiry into the recent collision at Mascot Airport between the Canadian Pacific Airlines aircraft and a Trans-Australia Airlines aircraft.
  2. Why is there a delay in the presentation of the report.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) When the Honourable Senator asked the same question of me without notice on the 9th March,I said at that time that an investigation of the accident was being carried out by the Air Safety Investigation Branch of my Department and that extraordinary care must be taken to investigate every facet of such an accident. The investigating officers are carrying out their duties with as much haste as the complexities of such an occurrence will permit. It is not possible to predict when a report on their investigation will be available and in this case a great deal of information must be sought overseas from the operator of the DC8 aircraft, from the Department of Transport in Canada and from aircraft manufacturers.I can assure the Honourable Senator that there will be no avoidable delay in the finalisation of this report.

page 615

QUESTION

CAPTAIN COOK MEMORIAL AND LIGHTHOUSE

(Question No. 943)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. What have been the operational results of the laser light established at Point Danger.
  2. Does the Department intend to install this type of equipment in other lights on the Australian coast; if so, what is the anticipated capital cost involved.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The laser light has not yet been installed at Point Danger. The official ceremony to open the Captain Cook Memorial and Lighthouse on Point Danger is arranged for 18th April. The laser light will be placed in operation on that day.
  2. The Department regards this installation, the first of its kind in the world, as experimental and intends to use it to evaluate the suitability of this type of equipment for use elsewhere.

page 615

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

(Question No. 932)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What is the exact nature of the brief that will be taken to South Vietnam by the Minister for Defence.
  2. Will the Minister travel to South Vietnam by commercial flight or by the Royal Australian Air Force ferry service or will he have the use of an aircraft of the RAAF VIP flight.
  3. How many advisers will travel with the Minister and will a member of the Prime Minister’s staff be included in the party.
  4. Will the Minister visit any other country during his absence from Australia.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. The honourable senator can scarcely expect an answer to this question.
  2. By commercial flight.
  3. See Press statement issued on 14th March.
  4. No, except in transit.

page 615

QUESTION

DEFENCE

(Question No. 843)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Has the Minister examined the possibility of allowing a section of Garden Island in Western Australia to be retained as a pleasure resort; if so, when will he be in a position to make an announcement.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI referred this question to my colleague the Minister for Defence who has provided the following information:

The question of public access to Garden Island, Western Australia, both during construction and ultimate operation of the Naval Support Facility has been thoroughly examined.In developing a policy on the matter regard has been taken of requests received from private individuals and organisations concerning leases for holiday cottages, establishment of memorials, allocation of space for public recreation areas and matters relating to conservation.

It has been decided that once the Facility is in operation general public access to Garden Island is not considered practicable having in mind safety, security and the need to safeguard the limited vegetation and the natural environment. Lessees of land are being permitted lo retain their leases consistent with the phased development of the project but, for the reasons stated eventually, all will be required to be vacated, either during construction or upon completion of the Facility.

page 616

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FIRE BOARD

My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 1 ask: Does the Minister see any wisdom in advising all Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities that there is in existence a Commonwealth Fire Board which has expertise in giving advice in relation to fire protection? Will the Minister advise the Senate which Commonwealth departments or statutory authorities have not used the services of the Commonwealth Fire Board?’

In reply 1 promised to ascertain details of those Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities who had made use of the services provided by the Commonwealth Fire Board. The Minister for Works has now supplied me with the following details which cover the last 12 to 15 months:

The following Departments and Statutory Authorities have made requests for advice and assistance lo the Commonwealth Fire Board: Air; Army: Navy; Defence; Supply; Commonwealth Hostels Ltd; Prime Minister’s; Public Service Board; Auditor-General’s Office; Shipping and Transport: Australian Shipbuilding Board; PostmasterGeneral’s; Interior; Health; Repatriation; Social Services; Foreign Affairs; Works; Australian Wool Board.

Departments and Statutory Authorities from which fire reports have been received by the Commonwealth Fire Board are: Air; Army; Civil Aviation; Customs and Excise; Defence; Education and Science; Foreign Affairs; External Territories; Health; Housing; Immigration; Interior; Labour and National Service; National Development; Navy; Postmaster-General’s: Primary Industry; Prime Minister’s; Australian Shipbuilding Board; Repatriation; Shipping and Transport; Social Services; Supply; Trade and Industry; Treasury; Works; Attorney-General’s; Bureau of Meteorology; Directorate Civil Defence; Bureau of Census and Statistics; Taxation; Australian Government Publishing Service; Commonwealth Hostels Ltd; Australian Broadcasting Commission; Commonwealth Police Force; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

Departments and Statutory Authorities receiving copies of Commonwealth Fire Board Circulars are: Air; Army; Auditor-General’s Office; Attorney-General’s; Australian Atomic Energy Commission; Australian Broadcasting Commission; Australian Broadcasting Control Board; Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority; Australian National University; Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority; Australian Wool Board; Bureau of Meteorology: Census and Statistics; Civil Aviation; Civil Defence Director ate; Commonwealth Hostels Ltd; Commonwealth Parliament; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; Housing; Interior; Immigration; Labour and National Service; National Capital Development Commission; National Development; National Library; Navy; Northern Territory Administration; Overseas Telecommunications Commission; Papua-New Guinea Administration; Postmaster-General’s; Primary Industry; Prime Minister’s; Public Service Board; Repatriation; Reserve Bank; Royal Australian Mint; Customs and Excise; Defence; External Territories; Foreign Affairs; Government Aircraft Factory; Government Publishing Service; Health; Snowy Mountains-Hydro-electric Authority; Shipping and Transport; Social Services; Superannuation Board; Supply; Taxation; Trade and Industry; Trans Australian Airlines; Treasury; Works.

page 616

CROWN OF THORNS STARFISH

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - The statement I am about to make was made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in the House of Representatives earlier today. When I use the first person personal pronoun it refers to the Prime Minister.

On 7th April 1970, the Government announced to the House the membership of a joint committee established by the Commonwealth and Queensland to investigate the problem of the crown of thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef. The committee comprised:

Commonwealth Nominees- Professor R. I. Walsh. O.B.E., Professor of Human Genetics at the University of New South Wales (Chairman); Professor W. G. H. Maxwell, Associate Professor of Geology at the University of Sydney, and Mr D. J. Tranter, Senior Research Scientist. Division of Fisheries and Oceanography, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

Queensland Nominees- Dr J. M. Harvey, Director-General of Primary Industries; Professor J. M. Thomson, Professor of Zoology at the Queensland University, and Mr C. L. Harris, of the Department of Primary Industries.

The announcement of the committee’s membership followed agreement reached on 29th January 1970 by both Governments that such a committee be established and that it should be financed on a SI for $1 basis by each Government. I am pleased to be able to tell the House (hat on last Thursday, 25th March, the chairman of the committee, Professor Walsh, reported to me on the results of the committee’s work. In view of the importance of the report and of the widespread interest which has been taken in iti progress, I arranged for Cabinet to consider the report today and for the report to be tabled so that honourable members will be able to inform themselves fully of its conclusions, and of the reasons underlying these conclusions.

Honourable members will be aware of the very deep concern which is felt by many about the possibility of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef by the crown of thorns starfish. This concern has been deepened for many by the belief that perhaps complete destruction of the Reef was inevitable unless early Government action was taken. Some have suggested that it may now be too late to save the Reef.

It is therefore pertinent to draw to honourable members’ attention, Sir, a reference in the committee’s report to articles in the Press and in semi-technical journals on the starfish as being either repetitive presentation of eye-catching speculations or exaggerations of the limited facts available (paragraph 2.8, page 13). Some of the confusion appears to have occurred because the available methods of estimating population densities of the starfish are rather crude. Extrapolations from these results are not reliable and are of doubtful value (paragraph 4.7, page 20). Also overlooked has been the fact that the published figures of the proportion of dead coral on reefs attacked by the starfish have included an estimated 10 to 50 per cent of corals killed by other means - such deaths being a normal state of affairs (paragraphs 4.17-4.19, page 21).

Analogies have been drawn between the action which had been taken on Guam and the situation in the Great Barrier Reef. On Guam, teams of divers were used to combat the starfish; some felt that a similar operation should be mounted on the Great Barrier Reef. Such suggestions overlooked the fact that Guam has a comparatively simple reef surrounding it, around which the starfish were said to move, limited on one side by the island beach and on the other by the sea proper, whereas the Great

Barrier Reef is of a size and a complexity which makes similar generalised action to that taken on Guam ineffective.

In the light of the wide differences of authoritative opinion as to the threat, if any, which the starfish poses to the Great Barrier Reef the Commonwealth considered it necessary to obtain more facts before any further action was taken to deal with the starfish beyond that already set in train by the Queensland Government and to which reference is made in the committee’s report. The Great Barrier Reef is perhaps the most complex eco-system known to man and many experts considered that it would have been irresponsible for generalised action to be taken before knowing the likely consequences of such action upon the chain of life which comprises the Reef as we know it.

Sir, as to the results of the committee’s investigations, the committee has found that the crown of thorns starfish does not constitute a threat to the Great Barrier Reef as a whole; there is no danger of substantial erosion of the physical structure of the reef; and there is no threat to the Queensland coastline or ports.- The entire living cover, or even a large proportion of the coral cover, of the Reef will not disappear as a result of the crown of thorns starfish. Whilst there has been extensive damage to coral because of the starfish, serious damage is limited. Re-colonisation and regeneration of coral have occurred on all reefs examined by the .committee. The committee has not been able to determine whether the high density of starfish in some areas is a unique or a. cyclical phenomenon but it appears more likely to be an episodic event which may have occurred previously.

The committee refers to . the. fact that the feeding by the crown of thorns on living coral constitutes, in the long term, part of the reef-building process, . whereby dead material is consolidated in orde,r to- provide the platform necessary for the Reef’s continued growth. Tourist activity has not declined as a result of the starfish damage. The committee cannot give the. reason for the population increase of crown of thorns starfish in some areas. It reports (that the hypothesis that local collection of triton shells has reduced predator pressure on the starfish has not been substantiated’ nor has the hypothesis that pesticides and other organic chemicals may have been causal. The committee believes that there is no need to attempt to reduce the population of the crown of thorns starfish throughout the whole of the Great Barrier Reef at the present time. It does not dispute that certain reefs or portions of reefs having social or commercial importance may be protected by manual destruction of accessible starfish.

The committee finds that present knowledge of reef ecology is inadequate to assess fully present and future problems concerning the crown of thorns starfish and related matters, lt therefore suggests a programme of research involving continued monitoring of starfish population; research into reef ecology, with particular attention to the biology of the starfish and corals; the experiments in local control of the starfish. To achieve this programme it recommends that a sum of money of the order of $90,000 to $120,000 be provided in the first year to allow such research and that the sum provided be increased progressively in each of the second and third years at which time there would be a review in the light of the operation of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

As 1 have already mentioned, Cabinet has considered the recommendations of the committee. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government agrees with the recommendations of the committee. I have been in touch with the Queensland Premier and we have agreed that $45,000 be allocated on a matching basis by each Government for research projects recommended in its first year by an advisory committee. The advisory committee would report to the Minister for Education and Science, who will act on behalf of both Governments. This amount will be increased by $10,000 by each Government in each of the second and third years. Each Government is prepared to increase its grant on a matching basis to the upper limits recommended by the report if the advisory committee finds in practice that it has sufficiently good research projects to warrant this. I shall announce the membership of the advisory committee as soon as possible.

Motion (by Senator O’Byrne) proposed:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

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

page 618

FUTURE OF AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I propose to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in relation to the future of Australian forces in Vietnam. When 1 use the first person singular personal pronoun honourable senators will understand that I am referring to the Prime Minister.

The Government has been reviewing the position of Australia’s military forces in Vietnam in order to determine what further withdrawal options are open to it, having regard to the security situation and the intentions of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam and of our other major allies. This review follows from the policy stated by the then Prime Minister in April 1970 when, in announcing the withdrawal of one Army battalion, he said that should the progress of pacification and Vietnamisation succeed as the President (of the United States) hopes and believes that it will, then at some stage during the 12 months period we will consider phasing additional troops into the planned withdrawal’.

During his recent visit to Vietnam, the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton) had valuable discussions with Vietnamese leaders and with the Commander of United States forces in Vietnam. These consultations have confirmed our assessment that steady improvement is being achieved in the security situation. Many factors have contributed to this improvement. The policy of Vietnamisation, that is, the development of the capability and effectiveness of South Vietnam’s armed forces, has produced a much stronger and more cohesive fighting force. The pacification programme has also achieved notable successes, and its contribution towards improved security in the rural areas has necessitated the enemy concentrating his effort against that programme. These developments, in combination with North Vietnam’s manpower problems, have seen a significant decline in enemy-initiated activity over the last 2 years.

An important consequence of these achievements has been that the South Vietnamese have been able to continue their operations in Cambodia against North Vietnamese regular forces. Additionally they were able to initiate and conduct the recent operations against the North Vietnamese supply lines in southern Laos. The effect of these operations so far has been to prevent the enemy mounting large-scale actions inside South Vietnam and thus they have given the South Vietnamese time for the further development of their forces and for strengthening the pacification programme. In a number of key areas within South Vietnam the North Vietnamese have for the present lost the military initiative. The enemy forces are thus being forced to a position of reacting to the South Vietnamese rather than being able to fight at a time and place of their own choosing.

Turning to the overall security of South Vietnam, it is undeniable that there has been satisfactory progress towards the objective of establishing the circumstances in which South Vietnam can determine its own future. There remain, of course, difficulties which should not be minimised. The North Vietnamese at the Parrs talks have remained intransigent. Nothing constructive has been offered by them towards a negotiated settlement. In Vietnam itself there has been some resurgence in Communist terrorism, political agitation, and attacks against lines of communication. These tactics by the Communists, using their remaining infrastructure in the country, will doubtless be employed against the Government and people for some time to come.

In its weighing up of the overall situation, the Government has decided that further reductions of the Australian forces in Vietnam are feasible and desirable. With the agreement of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam, and following consultations with United States military authorities in Saigon, some forces will now be withdrawn. These are; Selected combat and supporting forces of the Army task force, including the tank squadron, totalling about 650 men; Royal Australian Navy personnel, about 45 in number, serving with the United States Assault Helicopter Company; the RAN Clearance Diving Team - clearance of underwater explo sives - of 6 personnel; No. 2 Canberra Bomber Squadron involving 280 men: and some aircraft of the Caribou transport squadron and about 44 men..

The reductions are therefore to be spread over the 3 Services and will have the effect of reducing the total Australian personnel by about 1,000 men. The Australian forces then remaining in South Vietnam will comprise 6,000 men compared with a peak of 8,000 in the period 1968 to 1970. All these remaining forces, including the 2-battalion Task Force in Phuoc Tuy, will retain an effective operational capability. The tasks of . our forces will continue to change as the Vietnamese territorial forces accept increased operational responsibility.

The units and personnel involved in these reductions will be withdrawn gradually over a period of 4 to 6 months, commencing in May. This timetable will permit detailed adjustments to be made between the Australian, South Vietnamese, and United States military authorities in relation to the security requirements of the areas involved.

Events in South Vietnam, to which our own fighting men made such a . notable contribution, have made these withdrawals possible and they are entirely in accordance with the policy of the Government as announced in Parliament.-. It must be acknowledged that enemy forces in IndoChina still retain a considerable offensive capability, and there remains in South Vietnam a structure of Vietcong cadres and guerillas which has been long established and whose strength is very difficult to assess. No doubt the Government and forces of the Republic may from time to time suffer military setbacks, and the continuance of the war against aggression will be a heavy burden upon them. But perhaps more than ever before, the Government of the Republic acknowledges that getting on top of the internal threat to security and the development of progressive government in the provinces are tasks best performed by themselves once a sufficient degree of security from massive external attack has been established. Greater confidence now exists. The Vietnamese authorities have developed a variety of programmes which are becoming increasingly effective in bringing better administration in the countryside.

The Australian Government will continue to assist the Republic of Vietnam, though the character of our assistance will progressively change. For example, the new Jungle Warfare Training Centre at Nui Dat has just completed its first course. Australian economic and military aid in a variety of forms will continue. We will continue to build houses for members of the Territorial Forces and their families. Other forms of civil aid and civic action will be examined by the Government. As to the future of our forces in Vietnam, the Government will keep the matter under constant review, bearing in mind the security of our own forces and our obligations to the Government of the Republic of Vietnam.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - We of the Opposition are not satisfied with the statement which has been made. It is a statement on partial withdrawal of our troops from the war in Vietnam. The only statement which would satisfy us would be one which said that all the troops should come out and that they should all come out now, that the only thing we should have to do with that war tom country is lo aid it in overcoming the damage which we, along with others, have inflicted upon its people.

The Vietnam war, along with the recent invasion of Laos, has been a disaster. There has been no military victory and there could be no military victory. We got ourselves mixed up in the internal affairs of Vietnam. Together wilh the United States of America and the other countries which have been dragooned into this war, we are suffering the consequences of it. Our participation has been immoral, unjust and, I believe, illegal. It has been a participation of which the Australian people will bc ashamed forever. The President of the United States said last year - 1 read this in his official journal - that he was aware that the majority of the American people were against the war. I believe that the majority of the Australian people are against this war. I understand that the New Zealand Government has announced that all its troops will be brought out of that conflict. There will be no half measures. No less should be done by the Australian Government.

The statement read by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - he is not responsible for it - is a mixture of the double talk and excuses for our conduct which one would expect from the Government. It would be more honest of the Government if it said that it realised that a mistake has been made. Governments are not infallible; sometimes they make mistakes. Assuming the sincerity of the Government, it has long been apparent that this has been a costly error on our part. Our involvement has been not only shameful and degrading, but it has been extremely costly for this country. There has been a heavy cost in lives lost and in injuries from which our troops will suffer for a long time.

Economically this war has been costing Australia a great deal more than the Government is prepared to admit. One of the reasons for the economic difficulties we are in is the enormous cost of this war. During the last Budge; debate I produced in this chamber calculations made at my request by the Legislative Research Service in this Parliament which indicated that the cost of this war was between S400m and $500m a year. That cost was worked out according to sophisticated methods but one would admit that if the cost were worked out according to some rule of thumb calculations it would be about the same. We cannot afford to spend that amount of money. We are in the same position as the United States, which has found that it cannot afford to spend the S30,000m a year which it has been costing that country.

I am pleased to hear that this number of troops is to be withdrawn. However. I think it would serve the interests of Australia much better and T think the Government would stand better with the people of Australia if it were to say that all our troops should now come out instead of trying to drag the matter out in some kind of endeavour to save face. Face should not be saved at the cost to this country of enormous sums of money and, more importantly, at the cost of enormous suffering on the part of Australians. Australians will continue to be killed there and their families will continue to suffer; others will suffer injuries. This is all part of the damage inflicted on the Vietnamese people and this should not have been done. After all, what have these people done which requires us to be mixed up in their affairs, helping to ravage their country and inflicting this immense suffering on them?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– It has been indicated by some honourable senators that they would like to debate this matter. Accordingly, I- move

That the Senate take note of the statement.

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

Leave granted: debate adjourned.

page 621

QUESTION

COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - The President has received a letter from Senator Greenwood requesting his discharge from attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That Senator Greenwood bc discharged from attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– 1 know the tradition has been that a person should bc discharged from a committee if he requests his discharge. This may be a matter of course in the case of a Minister. There is an old tradition, probably going back to Roman times, that service on a committee is a matter of obligation and duty, it being a public office; that persons undertook responsibilities or responsibilities were imposed upon them and they had to carry out those responsibilities. It seems to me, from what appears in the interim report of the Committee and from what we cannot fail to understand from hearing of the operations of the Committee, that Senator Greenwood has done a very great service as its chairman. 1” feel that the Senate is indebted to him for his service on the Committee. I would not like to see the occasion go by without it being noted that he has performed extremely well. The Senate is reluctant to lose his services on the Committee.

It seems to me to be a pity that this change has to occur. I appreciate the considerations that apply - that committees need to be independent of the Government and a Minister may be put in a difficult position by serving on a committee - but there may be a difference between a person who is not a member of the Cabinet and a Cabinet member. I would not like to suggest that on this occasion there should be a departure from tradition but perhaps we should study whether the rule should be invariable, or the custom invariable, that a Minister should not sit on a committee. This is particularly relevant when a committee has done a great deal of work and has reached the stage almost of reporting. This change produces quite a difficult position.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We would not want a Minister serving on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

Senator MURPHY:

– Clearly, that is correct. One can see very strong reasons for not having a Minister on that Committee. I am considering now a select committee, in the deliberations of which Senator Greenwood has taken a great part over a long period, and also in the compilation of its report.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– i do not want to appear to be rude but I think I should point out that we are not dealing now with the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources. The motion 1 have moved relates only . to .the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. T will raise the other matter tomorrow.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - I mistook the motion. I thought it covered both Committees.

Senator MURPHY:

– I regret my error. My remarks have been directed primarily to the Senate Select Committee on Offshore Petroleum Resources and to the motion that the Senate should’ consider the position. I am not suggesting that Senator Greenwood should be obstructed .in his desire. Certainly in regard to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee A agree that it is most appropriate that he be discharged.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 621

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) nominating Senator Withers to be a member of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

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

(4.48) - I move:

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I think I should intervene at this stage to deal with the question of membership of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. This is a most important backbench committee and it is to be regretted thatall significant parties in this chamber are not represented on it. I was a member of the Committee years ago and whenI had occasion to break my political association I immediately resigned from the Committee because, of course, I was there as the nominee of one party. The members of the Committee are there as nominees of particular parties.

The Regulations and Ordinances Committee performs most significant and valuable work. As Senator Cavanagh implied by interjection, it is essentially a backbench committee which should not accommodate ministerial members. That is all the more reason why it may be condign to expand the membership of the Committee in numbers so that all parties and perhaps the independent senators could find representation on it. In the new Senate after 30th June we shall have 3 independent senators instead of one as at present, and the Australian Democratic Labor Party will have an additional senator, making in all 8 senators who will have no opportunity to serve on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee because it is constituted of Government and Opposition nominees.

The Senate could well consider this situation. Quite apart from members of the Democratic Labor Party there is an important role to be played in the Senate at the will of the electors by the independent senators who are to join us. I do not think they should be denied an opportunity to participate fully in the work of the Senate through its committees, and particularly the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

Senator Murphy:

– We want to involve you in other standing committees.

Senator BYRNE:

– No other party is involved to the same extent as our Party. We have been more than generous in the provision of the services of our members for committee work. As Senator Murphy knows, we have attempted furiously to be associated with the Standing Orders Committee. I understand that objection to our membership has been raised among the Opposition members. We fail to serve on that Committee not because of our disposition; we do not serve on it because we have not been permitted to do so by the Opposition. If Senate committees are to function effectively they must be as representative as possible of the composition of the Senate.I am making a plea not merely for the DLP but also for the independent senators who in increased numbers are to grace our chamber. If the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is effectively to be manned by backbenchers, the membership should be extended to embrace as far as possible all elements now comprising the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 622

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is it desired to rearrange the business of the Senate?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I ask in relation to notice of motion No. 1: Is it formal or informal?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - No. 2? Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - Not formal.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- No. 3? Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - Not formal, but I do not anticipate any difficulty with it later.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

It is intended, depending on how other matters proceed, to deal with Nos 2 and 3 and not with No.1. It is anticipated that No. 3 is virtually a formal matter, even if not altogether formal and that it would be dealt with.I will not say that it will be virtually formal;I will say only that it oughtto be.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 623

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Sugar Agreement Bill 197 1 .

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1971.

Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Bill 1971.

Broadcasting and Television Bill 1971.

Overseas Telecommunications Bill 1971.

New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation) Bill 1971.

page 623

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1971

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 623

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL 1971

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 623

LOAN (AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

(4.55) -I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligation under a guarantee of repayment of certain borrowings by the Australian Wheat Board from the Reserve Bank of Australia in respect of wheat from the 1969-70 pool. A similar loan, the repayment of which was completed earlierthis month, was made last year in respect of wheal from the 1968-69 crop.

Arrangements were made for the Board to borrow up to$398m from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank to assist in the marketing of the 1969-70 crop. The date for final repayment is 31st March 1971. approximately 12 months after the drawings were made, in order to comply with section 57 of the Reserve Bank Act, which requires that loans of the type made to the Board shall not be for more than 1 year. The Board will be unable to repay the borrowings in full by the due date because receipts from sales of wheat will be insufficient for the purpose. This will mean that the Commonwealth willbe liable under its guarantee for an amount currently expected to be in the vicinity of$1 90m, recoupment of which is estimated to take approximately 14 months. It is proposed that the Commonwealth lend to the Board sufficient funds to enable it to discharge its debt to the Bank. It is also proposed that the Board be required to use for repayment of the loan all net proceeds from export sales of wheat of the 1969-70 pool - after the date of the loan - as well as the Commonwealth’s stabilisation payment.

The Bill provides that the loan to the Board be at an interest rate of 5½ per cent per annum on the daily balances outstanding, with the actual timing of capital repayments and interest to be determined by the Treasurer. The interest rate is onehalf per cent higher than that charged on last year’s loan and reflects, in part, the increased cost of borrowing to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth financed last year’s loan to the Board by the issue to the Reserve Bank of treasury notes on which the average rate of interest at the time was about 5 per cent. The expectation is that the loan to the Board in respect of the 1969-70 pool will again be financed by the issue of treasury notes, on which the average rate of interest is currently 5.725 per cent. It should also be noted that, on its exports sales on credit terms, the Board quite rightly charges commercial rates of interest. The Government therefore proposes to charge the Wheat Hoard an interest rate higher than the 5 per cent charged last year. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the wheat industry, a rate of 5½ per cent is proposed.

The Bill authorises the Commonwealth to borrow up to $250m to make theloan to the Board. This exceeds the Board’s current estimate of the amount required under the guarantee but, as such estimates are subject to substantial variation, the amount specified in the Bill provides a margin in case the estimate proves too low. The Australian Loan Council has agreed to a special borrowing programme for this purpose for the Commonwealth in 1970-71. The terms of the borrowing will be subject to Loan Council approval. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 624

SALARIES BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

(5.0) - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is customary for national wage case decisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which are applied to the salaries of officers of the Second, Third and Fourth Divisions of the Commonwealth Public Service, to be applied also to the generality of stututory office-holders whose salaries are below those payable to Permanent Heads of Departments of State. This Bill provides for increases of 6 per cent in the salaries of the statutory office-holders shown in the first schedule to the Bill. Honourable senators will appreciate that the rate of increase of 6 per cent is identical with that granted by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its 1970 national wage case decision. This Bill is necessary because of the particular legislative provisions existing for the statutory offices referred to in the first schedule to the Bill. In the cases of various other comparable statutory office-holders, approval has been given for the 6 per cent increase to be applied, subject to compliance with the requirements of relevant legislation. The Bill provides that, as in the Commonwealth Public Service, the 6 per cent increase will apply from 14th January 1971. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 624

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act to provide for the appointment of a second judge under sub-section (1.) of section 7 of that Act. The need for the Bill arises out of the Government’s decision - which was announced to the . Senate on 19th May last - to establish a Law Reform Commission for the Australian Capital Territory. A draft of the ordinance to establish the Law Reform Commission was recently submitted to the Advisory Council of the Australian Capital Territory for comment, and it should be possible for the ordinance to be made in the near future.

In accordance with the statement to the Senate on 19th May last year, the draft ordinance provides for the Chairman to be a judge. As the Commission will have the task of reforming the law of the. Australian Capital Territory, it is desirable that the Chairman should be a judge of the Supreme Court of the Territory. The present Bill will enable the Chairman to hold such an appointment. The present position is that the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory consists of 1 Judge appointed under sub-section (1.) of section 7 of the Act and the additional judges appointed under sub-section (2.) of that section. An additional judge is required to be a judge of another Commonwealth court and it would not be satisfactory for this requirement to apply to the Chairman of the Commission. The Bill accordingly provides for the appointment of a second judge under sub-section (1.) of section 7 of the Act.

It ls expected that the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission will be engaged for the greater part of his time on the work of the Commission and that this work will take precedence over the normal judicial work of the court. However, it is thought that h will be desirable from many points of view, particularly in the early days of the Commission, for the Chairman to assist from time to time with the judicial work of the court, and this will be possible under the amendment provided for in this Bill. The work of the court has increased considerably in recent years and this has at times led to delays in the hearing of cases. The main proposal in the Bill is to be found in clause 4, which provides for the amendment of section 6 of the Act so that the Court will consist of not more than 2 judges appointed under sub-section (1.) of section 7 and the additional judges appointed under sub-section (2.). All the other amendments proposed in the Bill are merely consequential upon that provided in clause 4. They are necessary because the Act is at present framed upon the basis that only 1 judge can hold office under sub-section (1.) of section 7 of the Act. The Bill makes provision with respect to the relative seniority of the 2 judges holding office under the sub-section and provides for that seniority to apoly in several provisions that depend on seniority.

Senator Byrne:

– For how long is it likely that the Commission will operate?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It may be an indefinite period of operation. 1 cannot answer the honourable senator in terms of a definite period. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne)

Adjourned.

page 625

CRIMINOLOGY RESEARCH BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to establish facilities on a national level for the conduct of research into crime and for the training of persons engaged in the prevention and control of criminal behaviour. The introduction of the Bill follows extensive discussions between the Commonwealth and the States. I should like honourable senators to know that the former Attorney-General, when introducing the Bill in another place, paid public tribute to our ministerial colleagues in the State governments for the help and co-operation that has made possible the introduction of this Bill for the setting up of machinery on a truly national basis in the form of an Australian Institute of Criminology, a Criminology Research Council and a Criminology Research Fund.

The cost of crime to the nation is enormous. I speak not only of cost in terms of government expenditure, but of the tragic waste and loss of human resources, the unhappiness that is caused, the erosion of human character and the breakdown of families. People are the most precious resources of any civilised community. In this field, therefore, parliaments and governments should no longer confine themselves to law making and law enforcement. They must provide the facilities for the study of the causes and effects of crime and of means for its prevention. Good work has already been done in Australian universities and public interest in the problem has been stimulated by nongovernmental bodies such as the Australian Crime Prevention, Correction and AfterCare Council and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology. But the resources of government are needed if rea progress is to be made. Here the Commonwealth believes, and the States agree, that the Commonwealth has an Australia-wide co-ordinating role so that the problem can be tackled on a national basis and the available resources of men and money can be applied to the task in the most effective way. According to one estimate, the cost of crime in the United States of America during 1965 amounted to some SUS20,000m. The Rural Bank of New South Wales in a publication that received wide publicity in 1968 estimated that the immediate cost of crime in Australia - that is to say the loss suffered by individuals, as distinct from the economic loss suffered by the nation as a whole - could well exceed S350m a year. This is probably a conservative estimate.

There can be no gainsaying that the incidence of crime is rising in Australia. This is no unique experience. Many overseas countries, particularly those that are highly urbanised and industrialised, have even greater problems than we have here. It has become generally recognised that there is a casual connection between rising crime rates and a number of aspects of development such as urbanisation, industrialisation, population increase and technological change. There is by no means a complete understanding of all aspects of this connection. It is an ironical feature of the times in which we live, that increasing standards of affluence have not had a diminishing effect upon the incidence of crime. Once upon a time it was thought that much crime was the illegitimate offspring of poverty. So it was, and some crime still is. But now, perhaps, we are witnessing an increase in criminal activity because of rather than despite our .ela.tively affluent standards of living. Affluence itself, particularly if it is unevenly distributed, creates greater criminal opportunities. There are more goods to be stolen; the appetite for possession is made larger by the vision of glittering material temptations. We know that these problems exist but our research into them has not yet gone very deep.

Many related factors are involved - the greater complexity of life presented by modern society, the decline in social controls on behaviour, the absence in many highly urbanised societies of the supports and sanctions of a well understood traditional culture, the opportunities provided by urbanised societies for anonymity and freedom of action, and an increase in criminal activity with a lower risk of detection. In short, an element in the price of rising material standards in an industrial or post-industrial society is that the society becomes less firm-footed. I do not say any of this in any mood of depression or resignation; I say it because if we are to meet the challenges of the times, as I believe we can and will, we must have the vision to see why they have arisen and the honesty to admit that our way of life has a darker side. In the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries there are reports of alarming increases in the number of reported crimes in proportion to the population. Similar trends are discernible in Australia. Some estimates suggest that there has been an increase in Australia of the order of 100 per cent during the last 20 years in the numbers of crimes reported per 1000 of population. Moreover, reported crime is only the tip of the iceberg. There remains what is called the dark figure of crime that is unreported. Some estimates suggest that it would be almost 4 times the reported rate for some offences.

While statistics of crime increases are widely publicised it should not be assumed that the statistics presently available accurately outline or measure the problem. One of the big gaps in our resources both in Australia and overseas is the lack of basic information about the incidence and extent of crime. We do not know, for example, the extent to which statistics reflect increased police efficiency or improved crime reporting standards, bringing out into the light more of the dark figure than was previously known. We do not know the extent to which the figures reflect changing practices in the administration of justice. The recent population growth in the younger age categories has a close connection with the increase revealed in statistics. Nevertheless, if one makes all due allowances for defective statistics, there is in this country a trend of sufficient magnitude to give cause for real concern.

Clearly, the provision of facilities for research into crime is an urgent and pressing need. There is no deployment, on a nationally co-ordinated basis, of existing facilities in Australia for criminological research. As part of the Commonwealth’s consideration of the arrangements that might be made to deal with this problem, and in an endeavour to introduce some measure of co-ordination between the various State and Commonwealth agencies working in this area, a governmental seminar was held in Canberra in 1968 under the sponsorship of the Commonwealth. The seminar was attended by senior representatives of a number of professions - police, magistrates, probation and parole officers, child welfare officers, psychiatrists and other experts. The theme of the seminar was ‘The Control of Deviant Behaviour in Australia’. A number of mat- ters emerged from the discussions of the seminar. In the first place, the seminar demonstrated the value of inter-discipline discussion. Those attending obtained an enlarged understanding and appreciation of the work done by each other in the whole field of crime prevention and correction. Secondly, the seminar made a recommendation that there should be increased research into crime. They saw this as being achieved by the establishment of a national body, wilh the active participation of the States.

In October 1968, the Commonwealth proposed to the States a scheme involving the establishment, under Commonwealth legislation, of an Australian Institute of Criminology, a Criminology Research Council and a Criminology Research Fund. In May 1969, the Attorney-General, the honourable N. H. Bowen, Q.C, announced in Parliament that the States had agreed in principle with these proposals; and in November last year, the then AttorneyGeneral. Mr T. E. F. Hughes. Q.C, announced that agreement had been reached with the States on the details of the scheme. This Bill is the expression of the agreed scheme in legislative form. It is a worthwhile project.

The Criminology Research Council will consist of one representative of each State and one Commonwealth representative. The Council will administer the Criminology Research Fund. The Commonwealth will provide one half of this fund, and the balance will be provided in agreed proportions by the States. The primary task of the Criminology Research Council will be to assess needs in the field of criminology research, and to allocate moneys from the Fund to specific research projects in universities and governmental institutions, lt is envisaged that a substantial amount of research will be carried out on this basis. These arrangements will give effect to the view that there should be a maximum utilisation of existing resources in Australia where, both, in universities and in government departments, there are many experts whose services might be made available for specific projects. However, there will be some areas in which it would be more appropriate for research projects to be undertaken on a national basis at governmental level. These projects will be undertaken by the Australian Institute of Crimi nology. The Institute will also be responsible for conducting seminars and training courses designed to keep police, prison and parole officers and others up to date with modern techniques and developments in their respective callings. The Commonwealth will accept full financial responsibility for establishing and maintaining the Australian Institute of Criminology. However, because of the considerable interest of the States at the regional level, the States will be represented on a Board of Management of the Institute. The Board of Management will consist of a chairman and 5 other members. The Chairman and 2 members will be appointed by the Commonwealth and the 3 other members are to be appointed by the Criminology Research Council to represent the States. The Chairman will have a casting vote.

The Bill is divided into 5 parts. Part I deals with preliminary matters and definitions. Part II deals with the establishment of the Australian Institute of Criminology. The functions of the Institute are set out in clause 6 of Division I. In addition to the conduct of research and training, the Institute will advise the Criminology Research Council in relation to the needs for, and programmes of, criminological research and provide secretarial and administrative services for the Council. An important function of the institute will be to give advice in relation to statistical requirements and the compilation of statistics with respect to crime. The Institute will also perform incidental functions such as collating and analysing research and disseminating the results of research to the Commonwealth and State governments. Division 2 deals with the establishment of the Board of Management, and Division 3 deals with the appointment of the Director and the staff of the Institute. Provision is made for the appointment of an Acting Director. The finances of the Institute are provided for in Division 4. Part ITI of the Bill deals with the establishment of the Criminology Research Council and Part IV establishes the Criminology Research Fund. Clause 46 provides that there shall be paid into the Fund out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund an amount of $50,000. The Fund will also consist of moneys paid by the States to the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Fund. The Fund is to be applied only in the making of payments for such purposes of, or related to, criminological research as are determined by the Council, and in the discharge of any obligations or liabilities of the Council arising under the Act. Part V of the Bill deals with miscellaneous matters. The accounts and financial transactions of the Institute and of the Council are to be audited by the Auditor-General.

The establishment of facilities for research into crime is a need that is recognised at the international level. No country has devoted enough of its resources to the problem of crime prevention. Nevertheless, efforts to encourage research programmes and establish institutes of criminology have been made by many countries. Australia too must play her part. I believe that the Australian Institute of Criminology has an international role to play, particularly in the South East Asian area. There is a need to provide training facilities for persons from these countries engaged in crime prevention and correction. There is need for international collaboration and consultation in the formulation of policies and programmes for the fight against crime. There is also the opportunity, both for Australia and South East Asian countries with developing economies and changing social structures, to seek to learn from the mistakes made by other highly urbanised societies, and endeavour to minimise the increase in crime that so often flows from development. If such a result is to be achieved, firm and vigorous action must be taken now. This Bill will provide the necessary base for such action. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 628

CUSTOMS 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.

The Bill which I have just introduced proposes amendments to the Customs Act 1901-1968 which will allow certain provisions relating to the payment of customs duties and the granting of refunds of duty to be brought into line with current commercial practices. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the repeal of section 137 of the Customs Act 1901-1968 which requires that duties be paid in Australian currency. The original purpose of section 137 was to give authority to refuse to accept payment for duty when tendered in foreign currency. In the light of present legislation in relation to currency and coin which is legal tender in Australia such a safeguard is no longer necessary. In fact, the provision hampers the conduct of customs business by raising a legal barrier against the acceptance of bank or other ‘guaranteed’ cheques, or foreign currency even when known to be eminently stable and to present no repatriation difficulties.

Authority for the granting of refunds, rebates or remissions of duty in prescribed circumstances and subject to prescribed conditions and requirements is contained in existing sections 163, 164 and 164a of the Customs Act. The absence of authority in section 163 to permit the prescribing of selective requirements for particular goods or for particular classes of goods, gives rise to administrative difficulties as ‘commodity control’ procedures are progressively introduced by the Department of Customs and Excise. As honourable senators are aware, the ‘commodity control’ concept relies on selective and random checks of companies’ commercial documentation reinforced by physical checks. For example, it has been found desirable to adopt, in respect of the petroleum products industry, a system whereby final settlement of duties on certain petroleum products is effected on the basis of a monthly reconciliation of duty liability offset by refunds payable. In its present form section 163 of the Customs Act does not provide for such a practice.

To furnish authority for the adoption of progressive procedures and practices such as the example I have given, it is necessary to introduce into the refunds provisions of the Customs Act sufficient flexibility to allow requirements to be tailored to suit particular classes of goods and particular circumstances. Accordingly, it is proposed by the Bill now before the Senate to amend the Customs Act to provide, as well as a specific authority for the granting of refunds, rebates and remissions of duty, authority whereby the Customs regulations may prescribe differing conditions and requirements to apply to different goods or classes of goods. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

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

page 629

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

(5.25) - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Naval Defence Act to enable the Australian Sea Cadet Corps and the Naval Reserve Cadetsto be amalgamated into one body. This will bring the Navy into line with the Army and the Air Force, each of which operates a single cadet body. The Navy became associated with 2 bodies of cadets as a natural outcome of the different waysin which these 2 bodies began and developed. The Naval Reserve Cadets, the older and smaller of these 2 bodies, had its origin in the Defence Act of 1903. which authorised the establishment of bodies of Naval and Military Cadets. From 1909 to 1930 the Naval Reserve Cadets consisted of youths of 12 to 18 years of age who were required to render universal training under the Defence Act. With the discontinuance of universal training in 1930, the Naval Reserve Cadets reverted to a voluntary body and the minimum age was increased to 16 years. Priorto 1952, the units of the Naval Reserve Cadets which has always been wholly run by the Navy were attached to Naval Reserve training establishments. Since then 3 units have been formed at schools and in due course the practice of having units attached to Reserve establishments will be discontinued.

There are about 200 Naval Reserve Cadets, aged from 16 to 19 years, most of whom belong to the 3 units attached to schools. The minimum age will be reduced to 14 years under the amalgamation. The Australian Sea Cadet Corps, on the other hand, comprises some 1,950 cadets divided into 39 units. These have been raised by the Navy League of Australia. The Navy League is a world wide organisation and was founded in the United Kingdom in 1895. Its object, briefly, is education in matters pertaining to the Navy and Merchant Navy. Sea cadets - not to be confused with the sea scouts run by the Boy Scouts Association - had functioned in England from the middle of the 19th century, when seamen returning from the Crimean war had formeda Naval Lads Brigade atWhitstable in Kent. This unit and others became affiliated with the Navy League subsequent to its founding in 1895 and the title ‘Navy League Sea Cadet Corps’ was adopted. Branches of the Navy League were subsequently established in Australia, commencing with the South Australian Branch in 1914. The New South Wales Branch formed the first sea cadet units in 1921.

From the beginning, the Navy League Branches sought recognition by, and assistance from, the Naval Board on the lines of that accorded to United Kingdom units by the Admiralty. The Naval Board granted concessions from time to time such as the purchase of naval clothing and preselection of navy boats and other equipment declared for disposal. Full recognition by the Naval Board and the provision of financial assistance could not be provided, partly because the Navy League in Australia had no central organisation with which the Naval Board could deal, and partly because the Naval Board was pressed for sufficient money to keep the Naval Reserves operating and was in no position to provide finance for the Navy League Sea Cadets. At the end of the Second World War there were 8 companies of Navy League Sea Cadets in New South Wales and 4 in Victoria. There was also an unaffiliated unit of cadets on Snapper Island in Sydney Harbour. In all the number of instructors and cadets at that time is estimated at about 300. The question of providing Government assistance for the Navy League Sea Cadets was again raised in 1946. A central council of the Navy League branches was formed in order to make arrangements with the Naval Board, which accorded recognition in principle to the Navy League Sea Cadets in 1947 and provided some practical assistance. A Sea Cadet Council, comprising officers of the Naval Forces, representatives of the Navy League and a merchant shipping representative, was established by the Naval Board in 19S0 to advise the Board on matters relating to the Sea Cadets.

The title ‘Australian Sea Cadet Corps’ was adopted. The Naval Defence Act was suitably amended in 1952 and the Australian Sea Cadet Corps regulations were made in 1954. These provided a statutory basis for the role of the Naval Board in the administration of the Corps and the assistance provided by the Board, and also accorded statutory recognition to the Sea Cadet Council. Section 39 of the Naval Defence Act as amended in 1952 empowers the Naval Board to make arrangements with the Navy League of Australia for the instruction and equipment of the Australian Sea Cadet Corps. The aims of the Corps include imparting to the cadets a foundation of naval knowledge and discipline, developing character and good citizenship and the qualities of leadership and self-reliance, and encouraging cadets to continue some form of naval service after leaving school. The ages of cadets range from 14 to 18 years. The division of responsibility between the Naval Board and the Navy League is along the lines that the Naval Board is responsible for training, the provision of uniforms and equipment and of financial assistance under the Australia Sea Cadet Corps regulations. The Navy League on the other hand is concerned with the formation of units, the provision of accommodation and buildings for training, the financial administration of units and with the social and moral welfare of members.

Since being officially recognised by the Naval Board, the Australian Sea Cadet Corps has expanded significantly whilst the membership of the Navy League has steadily declined to such an extent that it is no longer able to fully discharge its responsibilities in all States. Because of this unsatisfactory position, the Navy League and the Sea Cadet Council have proposed that the Navy should assume complete responsibility for the Corps including, in particu lar, the provision of accommodation for units where necessary. The Naval Board concluded, following a detailed study of the matter, that a continuation of the existing arrangements would lead to a progressive deterioration in the efficiency and viability of certain units of the Corps. This would mean that the value of the Corps to the Navy would lessen. Some units are capable of representing the Navy with credit at public functions. It is true to say that, in small towns where there is a local unit of the Corps, the unit is regarded as the Navy. It is important therefore that the standard of all units reflects favourably upon the parent service. Many people, in fact, are unaware of the involvement of the Navy League and imagine that the Navy controls all aspects of the Corps. The Government has decided therefore that it would be in the best interests of the Cadets and of the Navy, if the Navy were to assume full control of the Corps. With the taking over of the Australian Sea Cadet Corps by the Navy, the perpetuation of 2 separate organisations would be inefficient and unnecessary, and members of the Australian Sea Cadet Corps could appropriately be enrolled in the Naval Reserve Cadets, which, as I have mentioned, is already fully controlled by the Navy.

Section 38 of the Naval Defence Act makes provision for the Naval Reserve Cadets. As it stands, it will not be suitable to meet all the requirements brought about by such an amalgamation of the 2 cadet organisations. It is necessary to amend the section so that the regulations may provide for officers and instructors - that is the persons who, respectively, supervise a particular unit and train the Cadets - and for certain payments to these persons, such as annual allowances and travelling allowances. These have not previously been requirements for the Naval Reserve Cadets who are at present trained by officers of the Citizen Naval Forces. Section 39 of the Act, which deals with the present dual arrangement with the Navy League, ceases to be required and is repealed by the Bill. Since the Naval Board is already responsible under the existing regulations for the provision of uniforms and equipment and the payment of annual allowances and travelling expenses, the proposal will not involve any increased expenditure on these matters. Expenditure will be involved in improving the accommodation arrangements for certain units. This will not be great and will be spread over a period of some years. The implementation of this programme will necessarily depend upon the recently announced policy of the Government to secure economy in Government expenditures.

In the meantime, the passing of this Bill will enable the Navy to proceed with the re-organisation of the administration of the various Cadet units. Although the assumption of full control by the Naval Board will remove authority from the Navy League, the Naval Board has advised the various Branches of the Board’s wish for them to retain an interest in the units in their areas. This they have agreed to do. The Services’ Cadet organisations provide valuable training for boys who are interested in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. Even where the boys do not ultimately join the Services, the activities instil discipline and develop qualities of leadership and self-reliance and a sense of responsibility - all of which contributes to making them good citizens. At this time I think it fitting to place on record the Government’s appreciation of the work of the Navy League in raising and maintaining the Australian Sea Cadet Corps. Although not a large body, the members of the League have supported the units to the extent of their limited financial capacity and have built some first class training centres. Their work with the cadets has been a valuable contribution to the youth of Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

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

page 631

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1969-70

Statement of Expenditure In Committee

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Committee approves the statement for the year 1969-70 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to Section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1969.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 5.37 to 8 p.m.

page 631

LOAN (AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 624), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the Goverment to borrow $250m to lend to the Australian Wheat Board in order that the Board can meet a commitment to the Reserve Bank for money that it had borrowed to pay wheal farmers for the 1969-70 wheat pool. I understand that the amount borrowed was in the vicinity of $389m. The Government is doing no more than playing its part as guarantor. That is not always a sound proposition, but if we are to sell our wheat, which is not as easy to do as it once was, the farmers have to be paid at least portion of the money to which they are entitled. Therefore, until it sells the wheat, the Board has to borrow money to enable the farmers to have at least their liquid assets.

The Australian Wheat Board had agreed to repay its loan by tomorrow, 3 1st March, with money that it would obtain from the sale of wheat and from money to which it is entitled from the Commonwealth stabilisation fund. The money in question was loaned to the Board at5½ per cent interest. That intrigues me a little. I am not opposed to this measure because we must do something to alleviate the position until such time as we are prepared to grapple with the whole question of rural production in this country. At present we are dealing with it only in a piece meal fashion. We give$1 00m to the wool growers and then the Government agrees to the Tariff Board’s reducing customs duty on synthetics. To me, that does not add up. On the one hand, the Government hands over $100m to try to save the wool growers and, on the other hand, it reduces the tariff on synthetics which are wool’s main competitor.

I doubt whether there is a rural industry in Australia which we are not subsidising in one way or another. Let us trace the history of this. I see my young friend allegedly a farmer and a very nice fellow

Senator Mulvihill:

– A future Chairman of Committees, do you think?

Senator KENNELLY:

– He is young and he will get his turn so long as he is faithful. We have to grapple with the situation in which our rural industries find themselves. We are paying subsidies amounting to $127m on butter, and are assisting the dried fruits industry and other industries. Everywhere one looks today there is a subsidy of some kind. If we are to keep people on the land in the economy that we practice today, this amounts to-

Senator Mulvihill:

– Subtle Socialism, do you think?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not know. 1 do not think that is the position, according to my reading. 1 only want to help the farmers over the stile but the stile is getting pretty steep. One of the most important things that this country needs today is a committee - select whomever you wish to comprise it but select the best brains that this nation can provide to tell us what is wrong.

Senator Webster:

– What kind of men would you suggest?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I would not suggest anything. That is a matter for decision by those who are in a position to make that decision. 1 am amazed that the Board has been able to borrow the money at 5i per cent interest. Last year when the Board borrowed money for this purpose the interest was 5 per cent. 1 ask myself this question: What does the normal young person pay in interest to the Commonwealth Bank if he can get money from the bank for a house? ls he not entitled to get the money he needs? Is he nol entitled to help? I want to help the wheat farmers but I also want to help my own people. I understand that those young people who can obtain a loan from the Commonwealth Bank for housing - they are hil by inflation just as much as anyone else in the community - are paying a much higher rate of interest. In my view it would be much better to give the Board an outright subsidy and charge the Board the current rate of trading interest. Thai would not affect the wheat grower one iota.

This Bill has become necessary because the Board has not been able to sell our wheat at a price which would permit it by 31st March, which is tomorrow, to repay the money that it has borrowed. We have heard in this chamber that we should not trade with this country or with that country, that we should not have anything to do with this country or with that country and that we should not acknowledge one nation in particular. Canada recognises mainland China and, according to reports, Canada this year has received an order for $70m worth of wheat. We are being foolish. We recognise the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Can anyone tell me that there is any ideological difference between Russian Communism and Peking Communism? We have to look at this matter very seriously.

One reads that Great Britain is striving to join the Common Market. If she is successful there must be an effect on our wheat sales to her. I cannot see the member countries of the Common Market allowing Britain to act in such a way that their secondary and primary industries will be affected. Suppose Britain were to say to the member nations of the Common Market: In the matter of primary products we have to look after the countries which are part and parcel of the Commonwealth’. I do not think they would do that. We will have tremendous difficulties in finding markets for our wheat, not only now but also in the future, if what we expect to happen does happen. In his second reading speech an this Bill the Minister for Supply (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) said that the Australian Wheat Board estimated that it would need Si 90m from the Reserve Bank, but he did not seem to agree with the Board’s estimate because he said that it was proposed to lend the Board $250m. That is a rather loose way of conducting a financial transaction.

It seems to me that the Board does not know where it is at the moment. I admit that it must have sufficient funds to cover its expected requirements, but when it asks for SI 90m and it actually needs $60m more than that one cannot have much respect for estimates made by the Board. Be that as it may, the Bill now before us is necessary. The Reserve Bank is very wisely governed by an Act which provides that money which it lends must be repaid within 1 year. The year ends tomorrow and, therefore, it is necessary for the Bill to go through tonight. No doubt on 1st April the Reserve Bank will receive its money.

Senator Toohey:

– On April Fool’s Day?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not know that we could say it is April Fool’s Day when the Bank is to be repaid money that it has lent. I do not think it is necessary to say more on that subject. One could go on at great length and speak about sales of wheat today, but I propose to refer to sales of wheat in days gone by. I do so because on 24th February this year my young Victorian friend, Senator Webster, asked the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in this place, a question which he thought would have some effect on the byelection for the division of Murray. I do not blame him for having thought that, but I believe that that was the main purpose of his question. At page 281 of Hansard for 24th February this report appeared:

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether his attention has been drawn to an article in a daily newspaper which, in referring to the new policies of the Australian Labor Party for rural industries, suggests that ‘Labor has in mind the efficient allocation of- resources within the rural sector by a plethora of controls, incentives and regulations.’ Will the Minister advise the Senate whether the unrestricted use of controls and regulation for all Australian industries is classic Socialist philosophy?

Then my friend - he is my friend - Senator Drake-Brockman replied. I should inform the Senate that I advised the Minister that I proposed to refer to this question and answer in speaking to this Bill. In reply to that question, in that nice kindly way of his, the Minister said:

I read the article referred to by the honourable senator. Having read it, my mind was taken back to 1947 when the Government of the day thought it knew what was best for the wheat industry. Being a wheat grower myself, I was vitally interested.

Then someone interjected and said:

A bankrupt wheat grower.

Senator Drake-Brockman continued:

Yes. 1 was made bankrupt by the Labor government of the day because wheat growers lost tens of thousands of dollars through a transaction between the Australian Labor Government and the New Zealand Government of that time.

I then raised a point of order and said that the Minister was stating as fact what he knew to be untrue, at which point you, Mr Deputy President, in that fair way that you have, said:

The Minister is replying to a question and he is responsible for his reply. The point of order is not upheld.

The Minister continued:

I am stating a fact. I was a wheat grower at the time and I know that I and others like me lost as much as 10s a bushel on a large tonnage of wheat sold to New Zealand at the time. We in this Government do not hold ourselves out as the experts that Ministers in previous governments have pretended to be.

He went on further with remarks that have no bearing on the point that I want to mention. Having some knowledge of what transpired under the Government of 1947, I went to some trouble to find out what were the facts. I invite honourable senators to consider the facts, and I remind them of another occasion in this place some few years ago when it became necessary to nail another political canard, on that occasion in relation to Manus Island. At that time, on every occasion that something was said about defence it was suggested by Government supporters that the Labor Party would not take over Manus Island on behalf of Australia. At that time, through the courtesy of the then Prime Minister, the late Harold Holt, Mr John Dedman, who had been a Minister in the Government at the time when Australia’s taking over Manus Island was contemplated, was given permission to go through the official files, as a result of which he wrote the story of Manus Island in a publication called ‘Outlook*. From that publication and from him I have obtained the facts. 1 propose to put on record the facts relating to wheat sales at that time. At the end of 1945 when the New Zealand Government approached the Australian Government to purchase its wheat supplies the export price of wheat was 9s 6d a bushel f.o.b. The New Zealand Government desired to obtain a firm price for 5 years covering its requirements. The Australian Government sold New Zealand wheat from the 1945-46 crop at 9s 6d a bushel f.o.b. and later entered into a contract for the succeeding 4 years at 5s 9d a bushel f.o.b.

Senator Prowse:

– Ah, ah!

Senator KENNELLY:

– Wait a minute. I am here to state the facts. A quantity of 4.5 million bushels annually was specified. Later New Zealand lifted the price from 5s 9d to 6s 3d, which was the home consumption price in Australia.

Senator Prowse:

– What was the world price over that period?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Wait a minute; I want to tell you the facts and I do not intend to be pot off. The Government of the day felt that it was desirable to retain the New Zealand market for Australian growers. It realised that ultimately the world market would recede and that a natural market like New Zealand would then be invaluable.

Senator Prowse:

– Did it recede?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am going on to tell you. 1 shall not hide anything. The problem of gauging future market prices, which might rise or fall greatly, was extremely difficult and. if attempted, would necessarily have to be a government responsibility rather than one for the industry. The opinion of experts in Australia and overseas at the time favoured the view that within a year or two prices would recede heavily.

Senator Prowse:

– And they did not?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Wait a moment. Do not be impetuous.

Senator Webster:

– Were these Labor experts? You did not tell us who they were.

Senator KENNELLY:

– T. shall tell you about some of your own friends when 1 get on a little further. The honourable senator knows the old saying about those who rush in. Later, failure of crops in overseas countries, not apparent at the time, resulted in an unprecedented rise in export prices.

A guide to opinion at the time is obtained from a statement made by Mr J. Thomson, the former general manager of the Australian Wheat Board, dated 3rd March 1947. Referring to discussions which he had with a senior official of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture relative to the proposed New Zealand deal, Mr Thomson said:

I drew up a table something like this: 1943-46. 9s 6d: 1946-47. 9s 6d; 1947-48, 7s; 1948-49. 5s: 1949-50. 4s.

According to Mr Thomson, this showed an average of 6s 4id for the years 1946 to 1950 inclusive. Mr Thomson, in his letter, added quite frankly:

The foregoing was my guess at what might be market prices and so far it has proved very much off the mark. The average was around 7s a bushel and I offered to put a proposal to the

Board that it should supply New Zealand for 5 years at 7s 3d a bushel f.o.b. Australian ports.

Of course it is easy for critics to be wise after the event. The unprecedented rise in wheat values however has confounded all prophets. It turned what could have been a good deal into one subjected to criticism and also much political propaganda.

It should be recognised, however, that the Government protected wheat growers against any loss resulting from a rising market by providing that the Treasury would make up to the pool any losses. Suggestions from some political quarters that originally the Government had no intention of carrying any losses are unfounded. This is confirmed by a statement in the letter referred to earlier by Mr Thomson who detailed information given him by a senior official of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. Mr Thomson said:

On my objecting lo farmers paying for reciprocity instead of the community he assured me that the intention was for the Government to make up the difference to growers subject lo any stabilisation arrangements that might be entered into.

Full compensation for price differences amounting to approximately £11 m was made to growers.

Let us go further. I will refer lo what was said by Sir Louis Bussau, who was a member of the Victorian Parliament for many years. He retired from the Parliament. When he came back from England, where for some time he had been AgentGeneral for Victoria, he became the chairman of the Wheat Board. This is what he wrote in the ‘Wheat Grower’:

Many allegations were made in the House about losses which the wheat growers were suffering due to the action of the Government.

As a matter of fact, the wheal growers have received export parity for all wheat shipped to New Zealand for the season 19-15-46, mainly 9» 11 1/2d bagged.

In regard to the long term contract with New Zealand, for obvious reasons the Board could not, and would not. make a long term agreement.

This was a matter between Government and Government. The Board was assured during the negotiating period that whatever price was fixed between the Governments the wheat grower would gel export parity.

The Government honoured that assurance.

Despite everything that has been said, maliciously or otherwise, the Beard has not been interfered with or overlooked by the Government in respect of any sales of wheat.

The Board up to dale has received export parity for all export sales made and delivered.

Are our so-called friends annoyed that the wheat grower has been protected and is receiving world parity?

As far as the wheat grower is concerned, what is all the noise about? Should not our so-called backers commend the Government for looking after the wheat growers’ interests?

The Government paid, and rightly so, subsidies . . . amounting to no less than £11,000,362. In addition, there were large subsidies on bags and super.

The wheat growers should know the absolute facts and should not be misled by attempts at misrepresentation. . . .

I thank the Senate for giving me the opportunity to have these facts recorded in Hansard. Everyone makes mistakes. The old adage is that it is human to err and divine to forgive.

The fact is that in this instance the growers received the export parity. Therefore I hope that during future election campaigns my young friend from Victoria will not go about asking political questions when he knows full well that the person he asks them of - I say this with respect - does not know the facts. I am not accusing Senator Drake-Brockman of wilfully misleading the Senate. All I would say is that one should ascertain the facts before answering questions.

Senator Webster:

– Who were the persons you quoted?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I quoted Mr Thomson, a former general manager of the Australian Wheat Board, and Sir Louis Bussau.

Senator Webster:

– They were the only two people you quoted?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes. Mr Thomson, as I said, was once the chairman of the Board. The honourable senator’s father would know Sir Louts Bussau who sat in the Victorian Parliament with him. I think he did, because we were both there together. At one time he was the member for the State division of Ouyen. Then he was in the Dunstan Ministry, and eventually was the chairman of the Wheat Board.

Senator Webster:

– I thought you may have included a few comments of your own.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No. I had some recollection of this. I am not going to say that governments do not make mistakes. I am not saying that the government in office from 1941 to 1949 did not make mistakes. It is easy to be wise after the event. However an obligation- is placed upon people who are not certain of their facts. This matter has been running around like a rabbit for a very long time.

Senator Webster:

– The basic objection is that a Socialist government took over and made the sales.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Do not say that this was done by a Socialist government, ls the honourable senator not going to give Mr Pollard any thanks for the wheat stabilisation scheme? I like the way in which the term ‘Socialist government’ runs off the honourable senator’s tongue. We are not afraid of that term, although the honourable senator may think he can score by using it. I shall not take any more of the time of the Senate, Mr Deputy President. I am conscious of the thanks that I owe to the Leader of the Government and his colleagues for not saying that I ought to keep to some clause in the Bill. I hope the Bill will have a speedy passage. I am certain this will be so as far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned, because we support it. I have made a speech which I hope my young friend from Victoria will read so that he may know some of the facts about wheat and what was done in the years under discussion.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– ft is not my intention to attempt to hold the attention of the Senate for very long, but I have now an opportunity to draw the attention of honourable senators to a course of action that has recently been taken by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. It is of some significance that it should be put before the Senate because this course of action originated in this chamber. Honourable senators will recall that the DLP moved in the Senate for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the rural industries. The motion was debated on a number of occasions and when it finally came to .a vote was defeated. In order to indicate that that motion was not merely an empty gesture by the Democratic Labor Party but was an expression of real concern and an attempt to help the rural sector 1 indicate to the Senate now the course of action we have subsequently pursued.

The relevance of that course to the Bill before the Senate is that this Bill highlights the recurring chronic and endemic situations in the rural industries. These continuing and recurring crises require urgent attention and all sorts of artificial props. Therefore they require recourse to the national Parliament for the provision of money from the revenue to support this or that area. All these things are absolutely necessary. The tragedy is that they are now inescapably associated with the conduct of the whole of the rural industries of Australia. For how long thi position can continue, for how long it can be permitted to go on in the interests of the nation and of those people who have committed their own lives and the lives of their families to the rural industry involves a big note of interrogation. That is why our Party has always said that unless the whole structure of the rural economy is closely examined and is given a new look in the light of our approach to the new world, we will continue to have these crises and the Parliament will continually be asked to try to retrieve a desperate situation and to succour the dying rural industries. If it is not this one today, it will be another one tomorrow.

In those circumstances the attitude of the DLP has been that the whole rural sector must be closely examined by a commission properly constituted for that purpose. lt must be adequately structured and supplied with personnel, with competent evidence coming before it from the whole range of disciplines which will assist to discover the remedies that must be applied once the problems are established. That was the purpose of our Party in presenting our proposition for the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the rural industries. As I have said, it was not merely an empty political gesture. It was the beginning of a very definite and determined effort to embark upon a course of action. As a further step in that course of action the Democratic Labor Party has now written to all the rural industries, to all the bodies and organisations in the rural sector which are concerned with one or another of the rural industries or some aspect of their operations. It is proposing also to write over the whole field of agricultural and rural disciplines within the universities to appropriate bodies, agricultural economists and statisticians and to all those people who may bo able to indicate the assistance they can give in such an inquiry. I take the liberty of reading for the benefit of honourable senators a document that has been sent out by us. It has been widely distributed but not yet as widely distributed as it will be.

Senator Webster:

– Could you indicate to whom it has been sent?

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes. It has been sent to 200 to 250 addressees representing the major rural industries and bodies and organisations associated with some aspect of those industries - processing, marketing, growing, activities of that nature.

Senator Webster:

– But to whom in the wheat industry?

Senator BYRNE:

– Offhand I could not say exactly. It would have been sent to the Australian Wheat Board, to bodies associated with wheat production and activities of that nature, lt is only the beginning of the list of people to whom it will be sent. It represents an approach. When the objective of the Democratic Labor Party was presented in this chamber the Australian Country Party responded by proposing an amendment to our proposition to the effect that there should be industry submissions. We considered that that was inappropriate at-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Senator Byrne, you had better return to the provisions of the Bill.

Senator BYRNE:

– I appreciate, Mr Deputy President, that I am perhaps painting a rather broad canvas, but the wheat industry is one of the great examples of the basic and fundamental difficulties besetting the rural economy. I am indicating that our plans are for total restructuring of the economy. I am dealing only briefly tonight with our plans as they ate relevant to the position of the wheat industry and to the obvious elimination of this recurring type of procedure in the national Parliament by which we must in some form or another come to the rescue of an ailing and faltering industry.

Senator Prowse:

– The purpose is only to lend money on which we are paying 5i per cent interest.

Senator BYRNE:

– But it all takes up the time of the Parliament. I am not saying that this Bill represents a great concession to the wheat industry. I am saying only that it highlights the recurring difficulties that are becoming endemic. They are becoming deeper and more serious and obviously all we are doing from time to time is trying to plug holes, to fill in the gaps in the ailing industries that require a complete re-look, a re-examination in the light of the new world in which those industries are required to operate. I am sure, Sir, that in the circumstances I will earn your solicitude by my advocacy as to the relevance of my submission. I therefore would indicate the broad lines along which we have approached the rural sector.

We have suggested that there should be constituted an expert commission of inquiry into the whole structure of the rural economy. That commission would examine the importance of the rural economy, its role and its function in the Australian economy. Honourable senators will be aware that we presented this proposition during the recent Senate election campaign, particularly in Victoria and Queensland where we gained very big numbers of votes. We regard that result as being in no small measure due to the response of the rural area in those States to our plans, to our positive approach to the problems which face the rural industries. We believe that the wheat industry in Victoria and Queensland played a conspicuous part in that result.

The proposed rural commission of inquiry would necessarily face an immense task because of all the elements which go to constitute the rural economy and on which its welfare, viability and national value depend. It would have to be an inquiry which would assist to charter the course of our rural economy at least into the year 2000. The commission would have to be prepared to examine the role of every rural industry, present and future. It would have to examine the complex economic, social and personal implications of any restructuring of the rural sector. It would have to accept the fact of a rapidly changing national economy in its relation to a changing world economy and new and changing patterns of consumer demand throughout the world, particularly in the developing countries. Of course, they do not exhaust the appropriate matters for inquiry. Therefore it will be obvious to honourable senators, as the document we have prepared for distribution states, that an appropriate investigation will be entrusted only to a body which in personnel, time, technical knowledge and administrative assistance is equipped to discharge this immense task.

Senator Webster:

– Who do you think that should be?

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 would be reluctant to suggest the actual personnel.

Senator Webster:

– I can understand that.

Senator BYRNE:

– That would be a matter for very earnest consideration. Obviously it would have to embrace in a fairly wide spectrum all those areas of life associated with the rural economy. I have in mind the technical areas of production and marketing. Without indicating who might constitute the personnel I now proceed to indicate the matters which we think should come within the scope of the inquiry, and in effect that might help to indicate the personnel who would be needed to conduct the examination. The subjects suggested by the Democratic Labor Party for examination by the proposed commission of inquiry are as follows:

  1. Expected export demand for Australian rural products, taking into account:

    1. the policies of the European Economic Community;
    2. the possibility of Australian associate membership of EEC;
    3. reciprocal trading agreements on the basis of securing constant markets for rural production by tariff concessions to consumer countries exporting secondary products to Australia, Japan in particular;

I do not think that Senator Kennelly has agreed with that proposition in the past.

The list continues:

  1. the possibility of a South East Asian Community;

    1. Rural producers’ costs, taking into account:
  2. the Australian tariff;
  3. government policies and other factors tending to raise costs in Australia;
  4. incidence of railway freights on rural producers in comparison with urban charges;
  5. road transport;

  6. the wage structure of the rural economy;

    1. Finance. Financial Structure required to support necessary changes and the Service and Finance for such purpose.
    2. Policy, taking into account:
  7. whether there is a case for permanent or temporary subsidies from the urban to the rural sector;
  8. whether any aggregation or re-organisation of present rural holdings is necessary, and if so. whether it should be achieved by independent action by rural producers, or through government-assisted schemes;
  9. expected future rural labour force required;
  10. rural education including re-training for any fanners facing displacement;
  11. establishment of decentralised industrial towns which would offer employment within that region.

I do not intend to presume any further on the indulgence of the Senate. 1 felt that I owed it to the Senate to remind it of the fact that the Democratic Labor Party sought on 3 occasions to debate this matter and when the Senate finally considered it the Senate did not feel disposed to support the proposition. 1 only wanted to indicate to the Senate that the Democratic Labor Party was at that time extremely serious in putting forward this proposition. In fact, it has pursued the matter since. My Party has been in touch with many of the people, organisations and functionaries in rural industry. I should point out that it has already received many letters of commendation and offers of support. As I have said before, this exercise is only in its early stages. However, the Democratic Labor Party, fortified by the widespread and growing belief that such an inquiry is necessary hopes that it will be able to persuade the Government that it should consider this proposition and embark upon the constitution of an appropriate body of inquiry.

The Bill before the Senate tonight indicates the type of chronic situation in which the national parliament is continually having to rush to the aid of rural industries.

Senator Prowse:

– This is the first time.

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 did not say that this was recurring legislation; I said that this was a recurring type of situation. We know that it is occurring throughout many of our rural industries. I want to point out to Senator Prowse that I do not disclaim for one moment the necessity for this legislation. In fact, the Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill. However, it has grave doubts as to whether this legislation will in any sense solve the problem which exists in the industry. The Democratic Labor Party believes that what is necessary is an examination of the problem in depth and a discovery of the solutions to it in depth also. This can only come about as a result of an appropriate investigation by a body which is properly equipped to discover both the problem and the solution. With those words and, more particularly, having put into the record the policy of the Democratic Labor Party and an indication of the sincerity with which it has pursued this proposal, I conclude my remarks. My Party supports the Bill.

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

(8.43) - in reply - 1 thank the Senate and you, Mr Deputy President, for the speedy consideration of the Bill through the Senate. The remarks of the 2 honourable senators who have participated in the debate were interesting. Although they were not directly related to the Bill, I think it is true to say that the Senate appreciated them. The Government does not necessarily agree with everything that has been said. T repeat that f thank the Senate for the speedy consideration of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I crave the indulgence of the chamber to make a few comments on clause 4 of the Bill. My comments relate in particular to sub-clause (3.), which deals with the conditions under which the moneys shall be made available. Sub-clause (3.) of clause 4 states:

Moneys lent under the last preceding .sub-section shall be lent on the following terms and conditions and on such other terms and conditions (if any) as the Treasurer, by instrument in writing, determines.

Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) then spell out specifically certain procedural matters relating to interest and repayment, but there is no reference whatsoever to the other terms and conditions which the Treasurer may apply to the loan. It is becoming increasingly unacceptable in the Parliament to use expressions of this kind without at least the setting out of some criteria or the giving of some guidelines as to the extent or the area in which the

Treasurer will exercise the additional authority which he will have under the provisions o legislation. I would venture to say that an expression of this kind would not be accepted in an examination of subordinate legislation. 1 believe that there would need to be a setting out of the terms and conditions to at least the extent of giving those who are examining the legislation and who will have to interpret it in due course an opportunity to know the sorts of things which are contemplated.

Senator Byrne:

– One must wonder why the legislation bothers to spell out any of the terms and conditions if the Treasurer has this very wide power.

Senator DEVITT:

– I believe that it is necessary to spell out the terms and conditions.

Senator Byrne:

– But having given this extra wide power, why does the legislation bother to spell anything out?

Senator DEVITT:

– 1 think this Bill is a sloppy piece of legislation in this respect. lt docs set out certain terms and conditions. These are broadly the sorts of terms and conditions upon which the Treasurer would proceed, lt is possible that it will be necessary to apply unforseen terms and condition:; in relation to this measure. Therefore, a blank cheque has been given to the Treasurer lo apply these terms and conditions. Will this legislation apply, for instance, to the area in which the wheat is sold or will it apply limitations as to whether the Australian Wheat Board shall deal in certain other directions? Many of the things which are exercising my mind at the moment are causing me to ask questions -about what sorts of terms and conditions are contemplated in this legislation. I hope that the Minister for Supply (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), who is handling the passage of this legislation through this chamber, will give honourable senators an opportunity to learn something about this matter.

The very crux of my remarks is the terms and conditions under which this legislation shall apply. Some are set out and some arc not set out. This chamber has been left to guess what terms and conditions have been left out. Surely the Parliament, in considering legislation of this kind, is entitled to at least some knowledge, some indication or some sort of an inkling of what further conditions are contemplated. There is no point in canvassing this matter any further. However, I hope that the Minister will give some indication to this chamber of the areas which are intended to be embraced by this legislation.

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

(8.49) - I would prefer to take on board the point made by the honourable senator and, instead of replying to him off the cuff, obtain a written reply for him. t would prefer at the moment to have the Bill passed before giving consideration to the point raised by the honourable senator. I will communicate with him in due course.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment: report adopted.

Third fit-tiding

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a third time.

page 639

POLLUTION

Reference to Standing Committee on Social Environment

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the problem of pollution, whether it be air pollution, water pollution, or land pollution - I suppose one can divide them only in some artificial way - continues to be under consideration by an appropriate committee of the Senate. Recently the Senate decided that the Standing Committee on Social Environment be appointed. We have had two important Select Committees of the Senate, one dealing with air pollution and the other dealing with water pollution. Both of those committees conducted lengthy investigations and presented reports which I think were pleasing to the Senate. The report of the Senate

Select Committee on Air Pollution suggested that certain nationally co-ordinated action should be taken. That Committee moved a fair way into the field of air pollution. With the experience gained by the Select Committee on Air Pollution and because of the agitation which was occurring in Australia and elsewhere, the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution was able to go still further, and it produced a magnificent report of which the Senate was entitled to be proud and for which we thank its members and the Chairman, Senator Davidson. We are proud of the work carried out by those two Committees.

At the time the Senate embarked on these inquiries, the field of pollution was regarded as being a little way out, a little unusual I suppose. In fact, it was thought that this was a non-controversial subject, one on which energies could safely be expended. But as everyone knows, and perhaps as those who suggested the inquiry at the outset understand, these fields became centres of tremendous controversy, not only here but all over the world, even before the committees had rendered their reports. I think we all want to be sure that the reports of the committees are not lost sight of. If there are to be any alterations to the proposals advanced we want to see that the Senate and some committees of the Senate will be concerned with them. We want to be sure that there is someone who can remind the Senate, and perhaps the Parliament and the Government through the Senate, that action needs to be taken to deal with the problems. We want some body which can continue with the extremely valuable work which was started. I do not think any one of us wants to see that work regarded as being finished. The problem of pollution is a continuing one. The contribution made by the Senate select committees ought not to be regarded as ended. The committees themselves realised that a great deal would have to be done. I think there is almost a duty on us to see that the work continues and does not end there. That is substantially the reason for my proposing the motion presently before the Senate.

Not only do we have senators who are expert in the field of pollution but also we have experts attached to the Senate staff. Others who are not on the Senate staff are available to us and can contribute to the oversight of this problem. The Standing Committee on Social Environment having been appointed, we have a body which could usefully continue to work on this problem of pollution. That is why the suggestion is made that there be a continuing oversight of the problem. The suggestion is not that there is some urgency for the Committee to bring down a report. It is suggested that it carry out a continuing oversight of the problem in the same way as standing committees in other countries do. Particular subject matters are constantly referred to those committees, and from time to time some urgent matter or some specific point may call for a report to be made. By this means there is a continuing oversight of particular legislative affairs. That is the nature of the proposal I am putting forward. I am proposing the continuation of the extremely valuable work that has been done by the select committees on air and water pollution in order to ensure that their recomendations are not shelved, as is sometimes suggested happens to recommendations made by select committees, although I believe this practice is diminishing.

Previously we appointed the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs, and that Committee brought forward a report. Later the Committee suggested that there be a committee appointed to carry out a continuing investigation into this subject matter. We in the Senate then proposed the appointment of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. In a sense that Committee is continuing the work of the original Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs. I think the appointment of that Committee is of value in the work of the Senate and is in the interests of the nation. I suggest to the Senate that we ought to do something on the same lines in relation to pollution. I do not think there would be very much difference of opinion about the suggestion that we should allow the work carried out by the two select committees on pollution to continue and the expert knowledge acquired by the Senate and the staff of the Senate to continue to be used.

I now wish to make some general remarks about pollution. I suggest that during the past 2 years millions of words have been written and spoken about pollution and the need to conserve our national resources. Much more needs to be said to ensure complete public education, to coordinate different groups to define the problems clearly, and to plan solutions. The time is ripe for action. That was the view expressed by Professor John Burton, the professor on natural resources at the University of New England. He said:

But for those who are really prepared to listen, most of what matters has already been said sud the time has come for action, not more words. lt is not enough to be convinced that conservation is a good thing, plain hard work is needed before it can effectively be put into practice. We need action urgently if there are to be any brakes upon the wholesale pollution of our country and the contribution to world pollution by our country.

Serious examination is now being given to the forecasts of prospective pollution levels in the Australian cities. In Sydney one can no longer delude oneself that the air of the city is cleaner than in older more industrialised cities of the world. Tests in George Street have shown that air pollution from carbon monoxide from motor vehicle exhausts is as bad as Chicago and Denver - cities with the highest readings in America. The maximum carbon monoxide concentration recorded during the Captain Cook celebrations was 114 parts per million over a 5 minute period. Denver’s 5 minute maximum was the same and Chicago’s was 81. Over an 8 hour period the maximum recorded in Sydney was 40 parts per million, compared with 37 in Denver, 39 in Chicago and 32 in Los Angeles. These figures should shake Sydneysiders and all Australians out of complacency. No longer can we comfortably refer to the terrible air pollution in America. We are breathing air in Sydney streets just as bad and often worse than in America’s foulest cities. This degree of pollution is a day-by-day health hazard, lt calls for immediate action, not for more words, more guidelines, more reports. We know how foul is the air in Sydney.

I suggest, for the benefit of Senator McManus, who might be thinking that the air in Melbourne is perhaps cleaner than that in Sydney, that the air in other major capitals is perhaps of the same order of foulness.

Senator Kennelly:

– The air in Melbourne is not as bad as the air in Sydney.

Senator MURPHY:

– It may be that the narrow streets in Sydney present a peculiar problem. It may be that the wide boulevardes in Melbourne and Adelaide - thanks to the great Surveyor-General - enable the pollution to be dispersed, but this is only a matter of degree. We have a tremendous problem. Action is needed. That action is partly legislative and partly administrative. The source of the legislative action must be Parliament. The superintendence of the administrative action must be Parliament. Probably the amounts of money required will be so tremendous that the source of this money will be the Commonwealth Parliament. Irrespective of whether the matter may appear immediately to be in many instances a State problem, there is no question but that the real solution to the problem will demand Commonwealth involvement on a grand scale - to provide money and, inevitably, to have some say in what is to be done to solve the problem.

Certainly it is a national problem. The Senate, having embarked on the setting up of 2 committees - I think with the good will of everyone - and the committees having reported, with the approbation of everyone, should be continuing its work in this field. America has acted to cut down carbon monoxide pollution because it recognised that car exhaust fumes account for about two-thirds of the air pollution in cities.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I think the United States intends to enact legislation which will require that the fumes from motor vehicles must be reduced substantially.

Senator MURPHY:

– 1 understand that all new cars in America must have their carbon monoxide emissions cut by about 97 per cent and other pollutants by similar high percentages by 1975. We can emulate that kind of action very quickly if we move quickly. The waters of our great cities are just as foul as the atmosphere. Recently tests on fish and marine life in Botany Bay showed mercury contents of up to 58 parts per million - a highly poisonous amount. In America all fishing in the Great Lakes was banned after fish were found containing up to 7 parts per million, but people are still fishing commercially in Botany Bay. Similar degrees of pollution have been found in Port Phillip Bay. The River Murray is heavily polluted with sewage. That once great water artery is now a sewer. Sydney’s incomparable beaches are filthy with sewage. The harbour is so polluted that people are unwilling to use harbour-side pools.

With the Duke of Edinburgh in Canberra, it is timely to mention his warnings on polluting our environment. He appealed to Australians not to leave the future generations a legacy of exploited resources and thoughtless pollution. He said that he had noticed a marked shift in recent years to a concern for the environment - a concern to make this country a satisfactory place in all respects for civilised and rewarding human existence. We must think not only of our own enjoyment and use of our environment but of the next generation and following generations. We must try to restore the damage that we have done to the environment and then ensure that our future actions do not generate other pollution problems for subsequent generations. Professor Temple, Professor of Physical Chemistry at Sydney University - another expert - has warned that we cannot live high on private affluence and at the same time go on creating public squalor. He pointed out that, if we want clean air and water, the community will have to pay. This includes industry, which must take a very large measure of responsibility for polluting our environment. In 1968-69 industry throughout Australia spent only $40m on pollution control in Australia - about $2 per head of population per year. This is not nearly enough when one considers the amount of damage caused to the environment by industry. Heavy penalties are not enough. Industry must become closely involved with a programme to redress the damage which has been done over the years and which is still being done. The Senate committees recommended that urgent coordinated action be taken on a national basis. For the convenience of those who read Hansard, and with the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard the conclusions and recommendations in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution.

  1. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

Although the Committee expresses views and conclusions throughout its Report, it reiterates certain specific conclusions, as follows:

  1. That an air pollution problem exists in Australia today, and that the potential dangers will be far greater and more costly to remedy unless urgent co-ordinated action is taken immediately. (Paras. 14, 95-97)
  2. That the Commonwealth should enact clean air legislation for its Territories. (Paras. 136, 195)
  3. That a more uniform approach to the problem by the States and the Commonwealth is essential. (Paras. 213-219)

  4. That the Commonwealth Government should take an active interest in air pollution matters by-

    1. acting as a co-ordinator of State and Commonwealth Government activity. (Paras. 216, 219)
    2. undertaking basic research in air pollution in Australia, and making grants to the appropriate institutions and authorities for air pollution research and personnel training. (Paras. 201-3, 207)
    3. making available increased tax relief to industry and others involved in expenditure on air pollution control equipment and its maintenance. (Paras. 208-212)
  5. That action must be taken to abate and control motor vehicle emissions, and that while these emissions have been partially controlled, no complete solution to the problem is yet available. (Paras. 59, 115-116)
  6. That, without prejudice to the inquiries or findings of other Parliamentary Committees which have yet to report to Parliament, consideration be given to the co-ordination of studies of the total environmental pollution problem - that is air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution and noise pollution. (Paras. 220-221)

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee therefore recommends-

  1. That the Commonwealth should immediately enact legislation for the control of air pollution within its Territories. (Paras. 136, 195)
  2. That the Commonwealth Government initiate a conference between Commonwealth and State Governments to discuss the establishment of a Commonwealth-State Bureau of Air Pollution. (Para. 213)
  3. That such Bureau should include:

The Director of the Commonwealth Department of Health, or his representative.

The Directors of the appropriate State Government Departments administering air pollution control, or their representatives.

The Directors of Town Planning, or their equivalents, of each Slate and the Commonwealth, or their representatives.

The Director of Meteorology, or his representative.

The Chairman of the CSIRO, or his representative.

Representatives of extractive and manufacturing industries, electricity generating authorities, gas and oil industries, and Universities which have undertaken studies directly related to air pollution, should be co-opted or invited as required. (Para. 216)

  1. That the functions of such Bureau should include:

    1. The co-ordination of Commonwealth and Stale activities in air pollution research and control measures by recommending and advising on .standardisation of policies and techniques. (Para. 216)
    2. The establishment of uniform standards tor the measurement of pollutants and the recording of data. (Paras. 216, 218)
    3. The making of recommendations for grants to education institutions and other bodies undertaking research or the training of personnel in air pollution matters, including the measurement of pollutants, their effects on human, animal and plant life, and method!) of prevention and control. (Paras. 205-6. 216)
  2. That a Division of Air Pollution be established within the CSIRO to undertake basic research into air pollution problems of particular relevance to Aust talia; to examine overseas studies and practices for application to the Australian situation-, and to undertake studies recommended by the Bureau of Air Pollution. (Para. 203)
  3. That the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology bc charged with the responsibility of establishing a national network of monitoring stations for ibc collection of meteorological data specifically for air peitition needs, the continuous measurement of air pollutants, and eventually of setting up :i predictive service for the warning of potential air pollution hazards. (Para. 204)
  4. Thai, in view of the special importance of emissions from motor vehicles in the overall air pollution problem, urgent consideration be given by the appropriate Commonwealth and State authorities to ways and means of bringing about the abatement and eventual control of those motor vehicle emissions which contribute to pollution of the air. (Paras. 29. 58-9. 115) 8.1 That the Commonwealth Government give consideration to the granting of financial relief lo industry and others involved in expenditure on air pollution control equipment and its maintenance by means of tax and duty concesisons, with particular reference to the extension of the taxation investment allowance and lo accelerated depreciation allowances. (Paras. 208-212) 8.2 That the taxation laws in respect to allowances for buildings nml plant be reviewed, particularly in relation to the defintion of chimneys. (Para. 21 1)

With the concurrence of honourable senators 1 also include the conclusions and recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution.

CONCLUSIONS

The Committee has expressed views and conclusions throughout the report. Here it groups those which it believes to be most important.

Part of a Problem - Water pollution is only part of a much broader pollution problem which is threatening our whole national environment, lt can be solved most effectively by tackling it as a national problem. In doing so. Australia must recognise its responsibilities in an international movement to clean up ‘spaceship earth’ and it must recognise that it may be both polluter and victim in ‘international’ problems such as that presented by oil pollution.

A Scarce Resource - Water is a scarce and valuable natural resources, more scare in Australia than in any other continent. Australia has advanced well beyond the frontier days when water could be considered free. Today there is an economic price on water, a price that is increasing steeply as the population grows and industry expands.

Deteriorating Asset - Because polluters so often escape full payment of this price, water resources all over the country are being squandered, by neglect or deliberate action, or by lack of administrative co-ordination. Rivers, streams, lakes, coastline and underground aquifers are being polluted in all States and Territories. Some waterways can no longer be used except as sewers. Fortunately, the deterioration of our water resources has not become so severe in Australia as it has in most older communities and in other advanced industrial countries. But the difference is only a function of growth and time.

Problems and Causes - The main water pollution problems in Australia relate to sewage, industrial effluents and salinity. They ave caused mainly by the lack of an effective pricing system, an abysmal ignorance of the causes and consequences of pollution, piecemeal and parochial administration of water resources, and half-hearted and illdirected methods of abatement. Until recently, there was no general public awareness that water pollution was a problem. Even now, the awareness is only limited and comparatively unco-ordinated The lesson has yet to be driven home that water pollution respects neither political boundaries nor social groups. Today, pollution is affecting the quality of our lives. Tomorrow, il may affect longevity. Yet all Australians may be numbered among both the polluters and the victims of pollution.

Confused Values - Although the blame for water pollution must be shared by all, some are more to blame than others. The true weighting of pollution responsibility is reflected equitably neither in the financial costs of abatement nor in the social costs incurred in lost amenity and decreased efficiency. Pollution has too often been justified by false economics. Easily measured private profits have been used as a facile argument to justify intangible and immeasurable social losses. As the pressures to pollute have been economic, the pressures to abate will be most successful where they also are economic. Costs must be weighed realistically against benefits and paid for realistically by polluters.

Ignorance and Inertia - Behind most pollution problems lie the twin factors of ignorance and inertia. A general lack of water pollution experts and an almost complete lack of training facilities are manifest, and there is no concerted programme of public education on pollution problems. Few opportunities are available for education in the technical fields related to water pollution. There are large gaps in the documentation of our water resources and there is no pragmatic programme of research into the causes and consequences of water pollution, or into its economics. The existence in Australia of many societies, voluntary organisations and individuals already dedicated to a particular aspect of environmental protection is widespread and plainly evident. Merely as illustrations, we refer here to bodies such as the Aus tralian Conservation Foundation, the Colong Committee, the Great Barrier Reef Committee, the National Parks Association of New South Wales, and to the very many individuals who are greatly concerned about aspects of the environment such as the protection of the coastline, the preservation of wildlife, and the maintenance ir their natural state of water bodies such as the Myall Lakes in New South Wales. The existence Of this keen interest gives promise that with proper stimulus, support and encouragement the nation may rely on a great body of Australian citizens willing and anxious to lend their aid to a programme of conservation, and pollution abatement. Although there was a marked improvement in public awareness of pollution problems throughout the world during the period over which our inquiry extended, there is, in Australia, neither a State nor a national programme of public education on water pollution. The problem of water pollution is intimately related to a lack of underStanding of water use and quantity. Any effective measures for the preservation of water quality must deal comprehensively with the management of water resources. The solution of the pollution problem in Australia will require the use of extensive resources of money and skills, and will call for the acquisition of knowledge through education and research on a scale that will require a national approach.

Diffused Responsibility - There is nothing in the present piecemeal and parochial administration of water to prevent the insidious growth of pollution excesses. The problem of pollution is so vast, the responsibility so diffused, and the ignorance of causes and consequences so widespread, that only a concerted national effort can save many Australian water resources from becoming unusable. Adequate constitutional powers for such an effort are already available to the States and the Commonwealth. Water pollution control in Australia lacks authority, co-ordination and planning, and clearly defined objectives. It also lacks money. It is administered by a variety of organisations which respond inconsistently to sundry extemporaneous pressures. The Commonwealth is not exempt from this general criticism. Its administration of water pollution lacks cohesion and direction. There has been a reticence on the part of many local and State authorities to enforce the existing laws relating to pollution control. The closer the relationship between the polluter and the enforcing authority, the less stringent has been the enforcement. In fact, the enforcement authority itself is often a polluter on a much larger scale than the alleged offender. The absence of, or variation in, standards and implementation policies has led to a situation in which industries have been able to take advantage of this disarray in gaining the most favourable conditions when establishing a new polluter industry. Too little encouragement has been given to those authorities, communities, individuals and industries that have adopted a responsible attitude to pollution abatement and control. Such encouragement may be given by a co-ordinated and uniform approach which assists in promoting the use of new technology and prevents the irresponsible from gaining an advantage over the responsible. Water pollution problems influence a wide range of regional issues. Local considerations, however, must have regard to the interests of adjoining regions. The technical and financial resources required are often beyond the resources of the region, and a wider involvement is then necessary. The overwhelming weight of our evidence suggests that order can be brought to this chaos of authorities only if they are co-ordinated at the national level.

A National Approach

The Committee concluded that the whole task of water resources management could best be undertaken on a national scale. It sees as vital the need to identify a national interest in water and to define a basic structure by which a national policy may be implemented. It leaves for later investigation and consideration by appropriate bodies within that structure the detailed processes by which the interest and policy may be effectively implemented. In particular, the Committee identified the following activities which it believes cannot be effectively handled otherwise:

Co-ordination. There must be StateCommonwealth co-ordination in ensuring that a balance between conservation and development is attained.

Assessment of present and potential pollution. There must be a comprehensive quantitative assessment of present and potential pollution problems and a continuing assessment of the country’s water resources.

Techniques for abatement and control. Technical resources must be co-ordinated to deal with common problems. Where unique skills and advice on techniques for abatement and control of pollution are required, these should be readily available from a national body.

Determination of Criteria. General criteria are required for assessing the acceptability of water for specific uses. These could then be adapted to differing local conditions.

Finance. As the existing problem is so extensive and the potential problem so great, there seems little doubt that financial aid will be a significant factor in the encouragement of pollution abatement and prevention measures.

Legislation. The diversity of attitudes reflected in the absence of unity in legislative control suggests that a co-ordinated approach to new legislation is essential.

International considerations. World concern and debate on water issues is increasing rapidly. A focus for Australia’s participation in such debate and action is therefore desirable.

Arbitration. Conflicts inevitably occur in water resources management, and in cases of dispute there is a need for a recognised authority to arbitrate. This could be undertaken at the national level.

The Committee regards as fundamental to a coordinated policy on water pollution the emergence of a national body (hat could operate and coordinate at the con of the whole national programme against pollution. The evidence tended to establish firmly that the Commonwealth may lay down and enforce a national approach through Commonwealth legislation alone. However, the Committee believes that, having regard to the Federal concept of the Australian Constitution, the creation of an effective national policy through one national agency acting with and through State pollution control bodies should preferably be achieved by the adoption of concurrent, parallel or complementary legislation. There are certain areas in relation to services such as research which require only Commonwealth legislation. An effective approach to water quality, conservation and water development can best be achieved by bringing together a wide range of skills, used in a vigorous corporate approach but maintaining the integrity of the individual disciplines. The wide variety of skills and interests involved in water pollution issues does not allow the identification of any national body with any individual Government Ministry. There could be direct conflict of interest in the location of the water pollution responsibility in the Department of National Development, the Department of Health or any one of a number of other departments. Although there can be a measure of arbitration within the national body, conflict between Commonwealth. State and individual interests will require resolution. It is necessary, therefore, that an independent body within the Federal concept be created or utilised for this purpose. In this regard, the Committee has noted the nature of the inter-State Commission provided for in the Constitution, and believes that consideration might well be given to its re-formation with, if constitutionally possible, effective arbitral power, and in a form suitable for the resolution of these potential conflicts.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations are’

  1. A National Polley. Australia should adopt a national approach to the management of its water resources which sets out acceptable standards, coordinates the aims and aspirations of State and local government authorities, and creates the machinery to achieve them in balance with other national goals such as those for growth and development.
  2. A National Body. The Commonwealth should lake urgent steps lo establish a National Water Commission.

The functions of the Commission should include:

  1. the Formulation; of a national policy on water resources management;
  2. an assessment of water resources and quality:
  3. programming for the conservation and orderly development of water resources. lt should also bc the administering authority for water resources within the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction.

It should be required lo take such measures as are necessary for the carrying out of these functions. These measures would include encouragement, assistance and co-ordination in regard to:

  1. the preparation of legislation and its enforcement;
  2. the conducting of research;
  3. education in the field of water development and quality control;
  4. technical and financial aspects of the programme;
  5. public awareness.

The National Water Commission should be responsible to a Minister of State determined at he time of its formation.

The Commission should consist of a Commissioner and six full-time Associate Commissioners.

The six Associate Commissioners should be appointed from a panel of nominations invited from the State Governments, and each should, in relation to the consideration of policy matters, have regard to. and liaise with, the State by which he was nominated. Each Associate Commissioner should be responsible for the direction of one “roup of disciplines within the Commission.

The Commissioner, imer alia, should be responsible for the administration of water matters within all Commonwealth Territories and in those areas which are the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth.

The Commission should he assisted by a multidiscipline administration involving specialists in the fields of health, engneering, ecology, finance, law. conservation, planning, research and education.

To mobilise the interest nf the numerous societies, voluntary organisation”! and individuals dedicated to the preservation of the environment, the Commission should set about the creation of a suitable voluntary advisory body, with appropriate Federal and State organisations and reasonOle n financial support. Any hhope of solution nf the pollution problem, which is part of the environmental problem, must he greatly enhanced hy public participation and support. Such an advisory body would provide for this participation and give it cohesion and strength.

  1. A Comprehensive Approach. The control of pollution should be undertaken by authorities representative of all interests. The prevention and abatement of pollution requires a comprehensive approach involving land-use planning, sociological and ecological assessments and the application of specialist water pollution technology. This comprehensive approach should he the objective at all levels of government. To achieve a co-ordinated, comprehensive approach, it is necessary, in e view of this Committee, that each State move towards the creation of its own central authority to co-ordinate State activities and to permit the most effective co-ordination between th the Commonwealth and the States.
  2. Systematic Assessment. Regional and State authorities should be encouraged to undertake, with the N National Water Commission, a systematic quantitative assessment of water quality and to monitor regularly their waterways and any pollution thai occurs in cm. re Pending the formation of the Commission, the Commonwealth should encourage the interchange of data and the discussion of acceptable criteria.
  3. Financial and Technical Resources. The financial and technical resources required to undertake an adequate programme of pollution abatement should be assessed. A financial aid programme in accord with the national policy should be considered. This should have particular regard to the major areas of sewerage, industry and salinity. The Commonwealth should consider the practicability of making special loans or emergency grants to industry and to local government for works and research.

Prior to the formation of the National Water Commission, consideration should be given to the need for a coastal protection fund to meet the cost of damage arising from tanker mishaps and oil spillages from refineries. Funds for this purpose could come from appropriate oil industry levies.

  1. Legislation and Control. Urgent consideration should be given to the preparation of adequate legislation for the control of water pollution in Commonwealth Territories. Through the National Water Commission, the Commonwealth should encourage the standardisation of legislation and codes of practice in water pollution matters, and should assist in the collating of existing legislation.
  2. Education. The Commonwealth Government should, as a matter of urgency, examine the facilities available for the education of professional and technical persons in water pollution matters so that the provision of adequate facilities will not be unduly delayed. Pending the establishment of the National Water Commission, the Commonwealth should use such instrumentalities as are available for the collection and dissemination of technical data.
  3. Research. The Commonwealth should provide research and travel grants for qualified workers in those fields already identified as significant in water pollution abatement. Studies directed towards the controlled re-use of water should be encouraged.
  4. Public Education and Encouragement. The Commonwealth should, through existing organisations, subsidise public education programmes on pollution and encourage a responsible attitude by all sectors of the community. Urgent attention should be given to measures relating to detergents, nutrients and industrial wastes. Financial inducements by way of subsidies should be considered.

It is clear that the urgency of the problems have been widely impressed on a majority of our people. The 2 committees have carried out a thorough analysis of what action is needed, but the matters must be kept alive. We can do that effectively by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Social Environment, which can look at the problems in the light of the thorough investigation by those 2 committees and in the light of what is or is not being done by the Government to carry out these recommendations. The Committee could suggest what measures, in its opinion, from the legislative view point should be taken. We can thus take the problem from the level of every day discussion to one of planned action. There is need to strengthen or to create new legislative controls and enforcement agencies. There is need for heavy government spending on more research so we can find how to reconcile progress with conservation. We must find out where to locate power plants. For instance, the proposed nuclear plant at Jervis Bay may create a major water pollution problem with the heated water that it will pour into the sea. Apart from the possible radiation hazards, the plant could destroy the ecology of the area. We must learn how to locate housing away from industrial areas. We should plan to avoid the suggested conservation tragedies such as the proposed Clutha coaldust dump near Wollongong which, it is suggested, will ruin one of the most beautiful landscapes in the country and which will pollute and air of a major provincial city.

The Committee on Social Environment may be able to play -I hope it will - an important national role. It can provide a forum for the experts to warn of the dangers. I refer to what President Nixon said to Congress about pollution about a year ago. He said:

The fight against pollution is not a search for villains. For the most part, the damage to our environment has not been the work of evil men, nor has it been the inevitable by-product either of advancing technology or of growing population. It results not so much from choices made; as from choices neglected; not from malign intentions, but from failure to take into account the full consequence of our actions.

It is time for us to look at the full consequences of our actions in Australia and to move urgently to restore and preserve the environment. The Leader of the Government in the Senate was kind enough to suggest to me that there may be some suggestions as to the wording of this proposal. The substance of my resolution is that there ought to be a committee which is concerned in a continuing way with this problem, especially as it has the opportunity to carry on the extremely valuable work which was done by the 2 Senate select committees. I would welcome any constructive proposals which are directed towards this end. This is not a party political matter at all. The preservation of our environment and the endeavour to do what is right in the national interest is away beyond any question of partisan politics. This is the way in which the problems were approached by members of the 2 committees. This is the way in which we approach the problem this evening. I ask the Senate to support the proposal which is directed towards these simple ends.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The Senate is obliged to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) for the comments which he has made. I am sure members of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution and the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution - the 2 committees to which he has referred - have noted with appreciation the compliments he has extended to them. I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree when he looks at the official title of the Standing Committee on Social Environment and when he looks at the terms of reference which he himself has proposed should be submitted to the Committee that the matters referred to it are not simply confined to the areas of air and water. Indeed, in some report which I read recently the matter of pollution and environment relates not only to air and water but also to the areas of noise, soil, the sea and coast and perhaps even includes radioactivity. However from the remarks the Leader of the Opposition has made the Senate will readily understand that he is painting a broad canvas in connection with environment and pollution. The inclusion of the term ‘social environment’ in the very title of the Committee to which we are referring paints a broad picture and goes far beyond the areas of air and water, ft is natural that Senator Murphy and all of us who may speak in this debate or who may have any connection with the Committee will have a deep and continuing interest in these 2 areas. These are areas in which 2 Senate select committees have been established and which have done a considerable amount of work. Furthermore without doubt these are urgent areas and they are the areas which create the greatest amount of public interest. They are areas in which we, not only as senators but as citizens, are concerned.

The words ‘pollution’ and ‘environment’ are words which are constantly bandied about today so much so that sometimes we bandy them around in contexts where it is difficult to take them seriously. But both words and both areas are serious. They are not only serious in the concerns of life itself but also serious in terms of management. The Leader of the Opposition said he understood that there might be a suggestion to change the form of the motion I shall read the suggested change now. So that he may have an opportunity to think about this 1 shall pass a copy over to him. I suggest that the resolution might read:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on social Environment the following matters -

I use the plural which differs from the word used on the Notice Paper -

  1. the examination of the necessary steps to ensure the continuing oversight of the problems of pollution, including ways and means of preserving the environment from pollution; and
  2. the recommending as soon as possible of what further measures might be taken to overcome the problems revealed by the reports of the Senate Select Committees on Air Pollution and Water Pollution, and which measures, if any, should be taken urgently.

The Leader of the Opposition will readily see that most of his words are included. Perhaps it may be said that there is not a great deal of difference between what he has put forward and what I have suggested. But I invite him to think about this because in my view the suggestions which I have put forward provide a little more concise area of action and perhaps a greater directive. ‘Social environment’ is a somewhat new term in Parliament. Of course it is not new in public usage, in other Parliaments, in modern studies and research or in committee jargon. The resolution proposes to refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment the 2 matters which are set before us on the notice paper today. I hardly think that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting the maintenance of a Senate Standing Committee to be constantly in office as a body exercising a continuing oversight of the problems of pollution, including ways and means of preserving the environment from pollution. Rather I suggest that the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment might come into this Senate with a report following upon what I would hope would be the examination of the necessary steps to ensure the continuing oversight. In short, The Senate Standing Com- mittee on Social Environment if it so thought might well recommend to the Senate that a body, either existing or yet to be recommended, might be the body which would ensure the continuing oversight.

If a Senate standing committee is entrusted with continuing oversight then it has totake unto itself a great deal of activity, research, time and effort as well as employing within its structure a whole range of additional personnel of a consultative, legal, legislative and research nature. Furthermore tonight I suggest to the Senate that we look at this matter - ifI may put it in this way - in terms of confining the Senate standing committee’s activities to a deliberate and defined area of activity. As all honourable senators will know, one of the problems in the emergence of this committee work is that often our terms of reference have not been defined sufficiently and we have had a wide ranging canvas. This has made for problems because circumstances change and because we are dealing with problems that are now on the Australian horizon. We are involved in all the variations of the problem concerned and. as time goes on, circumstances alter and we find ourselves with new problems and new work to do. Consequently, we are not bringing in our reports with sufficient rapidity. We come to a conclusion and make suggestions to the Senate, and then we take up our duties on either another action altogether or a related area of the action to which we have just been referring.

Therefore, I suggest quite genuinely an alteration of the form of words in paragraph (1) of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.I suggest that there should be an examination of steps to ensure the continuing oversight of the problems of pollution rather than a submission of this whole matterto the Committee which would then beas it were, the established body to undertake this work.

Senator Byrne:

– What do you suggest?

Senator DAVIDSON:

– I shall read it again. It involves the inclusion of certain words at the beginning of paragraph (1). I suggest that the motion should read:

T hatthere be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the following matters -

the examination of the necessary steps to ensure the continuing oversight of the problems of pollution, including ways and means of preserving the environment from pollution: and

the recommending as soon as possible of what further measures might be taken to overcome the problems revealed by the reports of the Senate Select Committees on Air Pollution and Water Pollution, and which measures, if any. should be taken urgently.

Two or three things stand out in the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. One is the reference to the reports of the Senate select committees on air pollution and water pollution. Let me point out the common area of activity of those 2 committees. At page 64 of its report the Select Committee on Air Pollution said:

It was brought hometothe Committee many limes during the enquiry that air pollution is but one small part of man’s contamination of his environment. Pollution of the water resources of the world, pollution of the soil and, in this mechanised world of ours, pollution of the environment by the noise of man’s activities are all parts of the same problem. In some cases, such as the use of wet-scrubbing methodsto clean exhaust gases from industry, the curing of an air pollution problem can lead directly to the creation of a problemof water pollution.

In short, the emphasis is on the fact that that inquiry revealed that air pollution is but one small part of man’s contamination of his environment. I turn now to the report of the Select Committee on Water Pollution. At the beginning of its conclusions it said:

Water pollution is only part of a much broader pollution problem whichis threatening our whole national environment.

It can be solved most effectively by tackling it as a national problem.

That last sentence leads me to refer again to the report of the Select Committee on Air Pollution, which suggested that if this matter is to be dealt with at all it must be dealt with as a national problem. The report stated:

The Committee therefore considers that, in any future arrangements for the study of pollution problems, cognisance should be taken of the total environment and the interaction of the different facets of what is virtually one problem.

When tabling in the Senate the report of the Select Committee on Water Pollution, I pointed out with particular emphasis that the problem needed to be dealt with on a national basis. In order to give effect to that objective, the main recommendation of that Committee was the setting up by the Commonwealth of a national water commission. We set out many details in this connection. We even went so far as to refer to the matter of constitutional authority, because in our view this was a very important issue. We submitted that, on the evidence that was presented to the Committee, the Commonwealth, through a coalescence of powers in a number of fields, had sufficient legislative competence to establish a national approach.

So, for those two reasons - the total pollution problem in the sphere of the environment and the fact that both the committees that have already done work on this matter considered that a national approach was not only desirable but also necessary - I believe that paragraph (2) of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition should read:

  1. the recommending as soon as possible ot what further measures might be taken to overcome the problems revealed by the reports of the Senate Select Committees on Air Pollution and Water Pollution, and which measures, if any, should be taken urgently.

I suggest that that provides the Standing Committee on Social Environment with the opportunity to discuss very definitely the recommendations and conclusions presented in those 2 reports and to present recommendations to the Senate as soon as possible. I believe that that is important and imperative. But it is not much good saying ‘as soon as possible’ if the canvas is so wide that the Standing Committee cannot bring forward matters which are relevant, upon which decisions can be taken and upon which action can be based. 1 hope that the report will not cover too much of the canvas of the forms of pollution that we have in the community today. We are all tempted to refer to them. Of course, we are concerned about them and therefore we refer to them.

The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition is related in principle to a plan of action. That is what I am concerned about. I trust that, whoever is on this Standing Committee and whatever work it undertakes, it will be able to go forward on the basis of terms of reference which it understands quite clearly and quite definitely and which are within a defined area. I suggest that the Standing Committee should report to the Senate as soon as possible so that we will receive an immediate report from it, even though in that report it may recommend that the Com mittee itself should go on to do certain other things or make certain other investigations. If we give it too broad a canvas or if we make its terms of reference too uncertain, it may go on and on and, because circumstances can change, the whole area of the study of the environment may well be brought into disrepute and also the whole Senate committee system may run the risk of being in danger.

It is very popular today to be on the bandwagon of the pollution of the environment. It is all very well to criticise industry, communities and even humanity for what they are doing to the various elements of our environment. But never let us forget that in our acceptance of the standards of living that we enjoy, appreciate and talk about we run the risk of being offenders against our social environment. If we are prepared to accept a way of life that we think is a good one and if we are prepared to work for and contribute to an improvement of our standards of living, we should also be prepared to act responsibly and to accept the discipline that such improvements in our standards of living, such improvements in our affluence and such improvements in our opportunities impose on us.

So, 1 take the liberty of suggesting this small change in the form of words in the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I leave it to the decision of the Senate. I express the hope that in the end the Standing Committee on Social Environment, in the motton that is before us tonight, will have clear guidelines and clear directions as to the areas in which it is to operate and the areas on which the Senate expects it to report. With those observations and qualifications, I support the motion before the Senate.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the motion. I have been informed by Senator Murphy that it is suggested that paragraph (2) in the motion might be altered in some minor particular which might give it a slightly different orientation. Possibly Senator Davidson is aware of the proposal. It would meet with the approval of my Party. We support the motion in its present form but, if the amendment is forthcoming, we will support the motion in its amended form.

I was a member of the Senate Select

Committee on Water Pollution and was aware of the deliberations and recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution. When the report of the Water Pollution Committee came before this chamber it dealt with a very peculiar situation. The States had been activated very considerably to operate in this field of the control of pollution of the environment. There was a great deal of activity in State regulation and in State legislation. The proposal of the Water Pollution Committee was that the Commonwealth should move quickly so that it might capture the activity and enthusiasm of the States and, contributing ils own activity and enthusiasm by the passage of parallel legislation, produce a national code and a national machine to control the pollution of the environment both in the States and in Commonwealth territories. One of the elements implicit in the recommendations of the Water Pollution Committee was the note of urgency.

When that report was presented lo this chamber an amendment was moved by the Party to which t belong to the motion that the report be received. That amendment was to the effect that the motion to be conveyed to the Government be treated as a matter of urgency and that the Government should act urgently on the contents and recommendations of the report. 1 understand that that was a somewhat rare procedure. Perhaps it had not been adopted before. Nevertheless it was an indication of me seriousness with which the Senate regarded the whole matter and of (‘le urgency which it thought should accompany consideration of the report. To my knowledge there has been to this stage no activity by the Commonwealth Government. Within ils own territories of which J am aware, or elsewhere, there has been no attempt by administrative action, by regulation or certainly by legislation to operate in terms of the report. I am not altogether familiar with whether the Government has been in touch with the States in an attempt lo arrive al that co-ordinated position of the Commonwealth and State activity which the report so strongly commended. That being the case, it unfortunately does appear necessary that there should be constituted some on-going body which would have under continuous scrutiny the steps that are necessary from time to lime to implement a programme of environmental control and protection.

In other words, the motion now before the Senate would be much more effective if the Commonwealth had moved or had given an indication of moving and the proposed on-going body, therefore, would have under its scrutiny something that was already operating. To the extent to which that is not the case, this motion contains some criticism by implication of the Government for the fact that it has not moved in terms of either of the reports - at least to my knowledge and perhaps to the knowledge of other honourable senators. Nevertheless if, as is suggested by the motion, this matter is referred to the Standing Committee, the Committee then can do what Senator Davidson has suggested. Without attempting to cover a very broad canvas in one or two sweeps of the brush, it can attempt to pick out the steps that can be taken, that should be taken and that most urgently are required to be taken, and commend those to the Government so that at least step by step a programme of co-operative federalism in the concept of control of the environment may be carried into operation.

For example, in terms of the Water Pollution Committee’s report, I can imagine that the Standing Committee might first of all look at the extent to which the Commonwealth Government has moved to implement within its own territories any of the recommendations in the report. That is a limited section of reference which might well occupy the attention of a standing committee if it had such a reference as this before it. lt might then pose another question: What approach has been made by the Commonwealth to the States to try to co-ordinate the legislative and administrative actions of both? That could be another limited area, but nevertheless an area of an urgent character, which could produce a definite and effective answer. That is the kind of operation that Senator Davidson has in mind - not that there should be, as it were, a permanent select committee looking at this question of environmental control but a committee which could investigate from time to time one step or another which might be taken, which has not been taken and which should be taken to implement finally a total programme of control and protection of the environment.

As I listened to Senator Davidson’s speech, it seemed to me that that is the kind of concept that he has in mind. If it is, it is a concept with which I would agree completely. I have expressed before my deep concern that standing committees which have before them major references of tremendous breadth and depth might be so delayed in their investigations and in the presentation of their report and so interrupted in consideration of any matter that the question under review loses all significance with the passage of time. Therefore, to operate such a reference as this within the terms of Senator Davidson’s suggestion would appear to me to he the most effective manner in which a standing committee with such a reference, or for that matter any reference, might operate. 1 hope that the motion which was carried so firmly by the Senate on the presentation of the Water Pollution Committee’s report will receive the urgent attention of the Government as we asked. Perhaps it would be proper if at question .; n. r - I may well do it within the next few days - a question were posed to the appropriate Minister asking whether the Government has acted in terms of that motion of the Senate and, if so, what has been done. If this reference is made to the Standing Committee it would be not inappropriate for the Committee, as constituted with this reference, to ask the Government what has been done in terms of the reports, more particularly in terms of the commendation contained in the reports that the Government take urgent action.

In this field of environmental control we find now that the States are far ahead of the Commonwealth. They are more interested, they are more active, they are achieving results. If we are to have environmental control on a national basis it is vital that, so far as possible, legislation shall be uniform and co-ordinated. Once the State legislative action falls into State patterns it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to disturb them. This is the time when the Commonwealth should be most active in co-operation with the Stales which are at the peak of their activities. If this moment is lost it will be difficult, if not impossible, to recapture it. I would hope that a committee of this nature with this reference might well press the Govern ment, not on a political basis but on the basis of the operation of the Parliament, the protection of the nation and for the most effective implementation of a programme of environmental control, for early and urgent action to co-ordinate the activities of the States with those of the Commonwealth in devising a programme of environmental control as recommended by the reports of the select committees to which reference has been made. I commend this motion to the Senate and firmly support it, either in its present form or in the amended form as suggested by Senator Murphy which I think would be accepted by Senator Davidson and other honourable senators.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Very briefly, I support the very lucid exposition which was given by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) on this subject. I think the watchwords in his remarks were ‘planned activity’. I differ with Senator Davidson to some extent, although I might have misunderstood him. Perhaps I could begin by saying that the outstanding feature of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution was not from the direct implementation of its recommendations by the present Government but in that the Committee pinpointed certain problems in the States, as a result of which the States galvanised themselves into activity.

While the Committee was in Melbourne taking evidence a controversy existed about a sewerage diversion into Port Phillip Bay. It was remarkable that during the time that we were there taking evidence the Premier of Victoria saw the light and decided to divert the sewerage line into Bass Strait. Conversely, when the Committee was in the Northern Territory we found that we were able to assist the Department of the Interior by exposing the depredations of the Rum Jungle project which grossly polluted the Finniss River. It is history now that the Department of the Interior has conducted field surveys to see what rehabilitation has been carried out by the Atomic Energy Commission. Applying those experiences and following the original line taken by Senator Murphy, I say with all due respect to Senator Davidson that I would not be content to see surveys and that sort of thing only. I want to see interim measures, and in order to achieve these I would adopt Senator Byrne’s thesis that we should be calling witnesses and making spot checks on the activities of some Government departments to see what is being done about environmental pollution, even if it is only in its infancy. Some matters call out for an independent body to mediate 1 conclude by referring to 3 classic illustrations. At the moment in the Australian Capital Territory there is a tug of war involving the Postmaster-General’s Department about erecting a combined television tower and restaurant on Black Mountain. In this matter the Minister for the Interior is trying to be a benevolent neutral, the Postmaster-General’s Department is wanting to embark on pollution by environmental rape and some of the lower echelon of the Department of the Interior are opposed to the proposal. Some of the officers have not committed themselves. But the Minister has remained silent. This is a mailer in respect of which a public inquiry lasting one or two days could bring all the issues into the open, as a result of which some people would be obliged to pull up their socks.

Another matter which I mention relates to out new frontier. I refer to Dampier Sound and the operation of the Hamersley empire. The plain fact of the matter is that despite all our talk about pollution, in some rivers in that area pollution has been perpetuated under the guise of mineral exploration. 1 suggest that in that case, if we brought the Minister for National Development before us and asked him what obligations he had in this regard, and for that matter what obligations the Western Australian Government had, we would be able to embark on immediate effective interim measures. This is the way that I see the situation. I think we would find that if we proceeded in this way we would not have to wait for the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Alan Hulme) to act as a generalissimo on anti-pollution measures so far as the Commonwealth is concerned. If there were public hearings at which Ministers and their departments could be asked to defend themselves in relation to what they were doing in the cause of pollution - particularly water pollution - we would be able to get somewhere.

Again following on with Senator Byrne’s thesis in relation to Federal responsibility and again adverting to the Australian Capital Territory, there has been an amazing delay in the proclamation of additional parklands in the Australian Capital Territory. Obviously the greater the open space the better it is. Senator Cotton, who is not now in the chamber, would be aware that 1 have been waiting since last November to learn when the Minister for the Interior will take courage and say that a certain number of acres in the Northern Territory will not be a play area for the mining interests and for him to accede to the original request made by the Northern Territory National Parks Board for additional open spaces. 1 welcome the move which has been made by Senator Murphy, but I believe that any inquiry should not be restricted to academic discussion. Only by confrontation with some of these departments will we be able to get quick measures which will prevent in a practical way intrusions into our existing environment.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– The principle inherent in Senator Murphy’s motion is that there must be a continuing and definite Government activity for the preservation of our environment. I agree completely with this attitude and 1 commend him for having introduced the proposal. Perhaps the honourable senator could have used verbage to make it a more definite reference of the whole matter, but I agree with the attitude and the intention behind the proposal. When Senator Henty proposed that there be set up 2 select committees, one to study the problem of air pollution and the other to study water pollution in Australia, I felt at the time that the proposal was rather premature. Bearing in mind the vast open spaces of Australia one would spontaneously react that it could not happen here, that the things that, we read about as happening in other parts of the world just could not happen in Australia. It was not very long after the formation of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution, under the chairmanship of Senator Branson, that we realised from evidence that we had a problem in Australia far beyond that which could have been even remotely anticipated by anyone in this chamber or by the public at large.

Reference was made this evening by Senator Murphy to the presence of carbon monoxide at certain peak periods of traffic in Sydney. Frightening figures were revealed to us in evidence showing that at some peak traffic hours there were recordings as high as 80 parts per million of carbon monoxide in Sydney at certain locations. When one realises that that is within 20 parts per million of a toxic presence of CO, one realises that it is high time that we as a nation became interested in our environment and that what is happening here has not before been completely recognised. I feel that the activities of both the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution and the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution have led to a deep awareness in Australia of a problem of environment generally and that therein lies one of the greatest benefits of setting up these committees.

I have before me a feature article issued by the Information Service of the British High Commission in Australia on 25th March - 5 days ago. It states that environment is now more than a passing fashion. lt refers to the appreciation of the old countries of the world of the need for drastic action to remove a condition which was applying there to a degree which was most detrimental to the quality of life of the people. It mentions action that was taken in Great Britain. A year and a half ago, from the top of Australia House and looking over London, I was able to see what had been achieved in a few brief years to improve the atmosphere and obtain clearer air. I would have expected to see a rather smudgy, grim and smoky city. I had the delightful experience of seeing the effect of a proper approach by Government to ensure an improved environment in the City of London. For example, there had been the prohibition of coal grates in homes in certain areas where tremendous amounts of smoke had been exuded into the atmosphere, leaving behind a grime which in addition to the effects of industry had put over the city a ceiling through which the sun could not penetrate. Today the sun is penetrating through what was hitherto a ceiling over the old city of London. As a result the environment and the people’s place of living has been vastly improved.

We can learn from the old, but we must realise also that we will have in Australia very similar problems unless we act. as Senator Murphy suggests, in a continuing role of persistence in ensuring that we maintain here an environment to which we would all ascribe. This article on environment issued by the Information Service of the British High Commission in Australia stated:

Sixth-form schoolchildren in Britain may later this year be studying the problems of the environment and pollution as part of their final examinations.

The proposed course - it has still to receive final sanction - would take in deforestation, soil erosion, noise and pollution in the towns.

The report goes on to state that since Londoners have taken an interest in improving the environment they have recorded that there are now 138 bird species in that city.

Senator Little:

– What sort of birds would they be?

Senator LAUCKE:

– These are plumed birds of bright colours. Also, 57 fish specimens are now available to anglers from the once barren River Thames. This is a great improvement. This next point relates to the important role to be taken by government. Under the sub-heading ‘Change in Attitude’ the article goes on to state:

News of the study course came in a week marked by the first report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution . set up by the British Government just over a year ago.

The report itself, and the course, underline a change in public attitude to enrivonmental dilemmas - the shouting is over, the work has begun.

I say again that Senator Murphy’s proposal for the reference of these matters to the Standing Committee on Social Environment means that the games are over and it is now a serious business to ensure the retention of the Australian environment. We have to keep it as it has been in the past. Judging by the present trend of things and the concentration of pollution in certain areas, woe betide us unless we do become active.

While taking evidence during the inquiry by the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution I and my fellow Committee members were impressed with State activity to combat air pollution. Action taken in New South Wales impressed me particularly. According to evidence given to us, in the 7 years following the passage of the Clean Air Act in New South Wales pollution problems in the major industrial areas in that State had abated by 40 per cent. This was in spite of a doubling of the industrial capacity. This shows what can be done when there is a concerted effort on the part of a government and which is appreciated by the public. I would like to see greater activity by this Government in accordance with the recommendations of both the Select Committee on Air Pollution and the Select Committee on Water pollution. The No. 1 recommendation of the Committee on Air Pollution was that the Commonwealth should enact legislation immediately to control air pollution within its territories. Realising that environmental control basically is a State matter, it is incumbent upon the central authority to lead the way and thereafter to act jointly with the States to ensure a better approach generally and a common attitude to the problem.

Senator Branson:

– The Commonwealth should set the example.

Senator LAUCKE:

– That is it. The Commonwealth should set the pace and the example. There should be no undue intrusion by the Commonwealth but there should be helpful co-operation between the Stales and the Commonwealth by use of the bureau we proposed. I have no desire to speak at length on this matter. My point in rising was to commend the proposal to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Social Environment. The Committee has been set up and now it must become active. In brief, I heartily support this proposal. The motion is timely and f look forward to interest being shown collectively by the Government and the people of Australia lo ensure that we retain for ourselves Australia as a place with lovely clean air, open spaces and a decent atmosphere. I support the motion.

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

(9.55) - The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has moved that the matter of pollution be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment. I do not oppose this motion. The Senate hai received reports from the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution, both of which were chaired by honourable senators from the Government parties. Both committees produced very valuable reports. Therefore it seems to me that this motion is a very natural succession to the reports from those committees. I think there is every reason why the matter mentioned in the motion should be referred lo the new standing committee that the Senate has set up.

Senator Davidson, who wa» the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, suggested some variation in the wording of the motion without departing from the principle and substance of Senator Murphy’s proposal. I leave it to Senator Murphy to indicate whether ite intends to react to the suggested variation. I do not believe that it is something upon which the Senate should divide or about which an amendment should be moved because all of us are in accord with the principle. 1 find myself in complete agreement with some of the things said in this debate tonight. 1 think that bofh Senator Murphy and Senator Laucke said that the time has come for action. We have heard the words and there is now a need for more action at this time in our history when we have far greater advantages in tackling this problem than have the denser and smaller countries. If we are vigilant we can seize the nettle and solve the problem with far less difficulty than, for instance, the authorities in Europe, the United States of America and other countries where there are highly concentrated industrial areas with huge populations.

Perhaps the situation in which I grew up enables me to visualise this problem much better than most people. The family home from which 1 am very proud to have come was on the banks of the Parramatta River in Sydney. 1 think that area was visited on one of the first tours of inspection undertaken by the 2 pollution committees. They visited Hen and Chicken Bay and the area along the river to Flemington and so on. In my young days there was a swimming pool at Meadowbank at Uhr’s Point Bridge. There was a little sandy beach on the banks of the Parramatta River. We swam there, but he would be a very courageous man who would even put his foot in the Parramatta River at this stage. If a man fell out of a boat he would want to get out of the water as quickly as he could and then wash himself because the river is polluted. Now I live in an area at Eastwood above the smog line. From my front verandah in the mornings I can look across towards the western suburbs and see the smog line. All of us who travel by air to and from Sydney at various times see evidence of the industrial pollution, lt is not evident to such an extent in Melbourne. lt is true, as Senator Laucke said, that the New South Wales Government made a significant contribution to solving the air pollution problem when it introduced the Clean Air Act. The authorities in London for instance, who face difficulties many times greater than our own, have been able to accomplish much towards solving the problem there. We have had select committees of the Senate investigating water pollution and air pollution and both of them put down comprehensive, intelligent and very worthwhile reports. The Senate has since created the Standing Committee on Social Environment and this motion moved by Senator Murphy, subject to adjustment or otherwise of the wording, seems to me to be a natural consequence. I see no reason why we should not give a speedy passage to this motion.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– in reply - I thank the Senate for the way in which it has dealt with this matter. Although it is of the highest importance it has been dealt wilh expeditiously, lt concerns us because of the work of the 2 Senate select committees but it is of greater concern to the nation. I listened to what Senator Davidson said. I think for technical reasons paragraph (1) should remain as it is. Strictly speaking, it is the matter that is referred and not the examination, because that is involved in the nature of the Committee itself. Further, the scope of the words is a little wider and it would obviate argument as to whether one was stepping beyond the wording when matters were being dealt with by the Committee.

The Committee has control over what it does. As honourable senators are aware, it is constituted with an effective majority of senators from the Government parties. Turning to paragraph (2) of my motion, I would like lo accept Senator Davidson’s proposal. I think the wording is an improvement and I would like to amend my motion accordingly. Adopting what Senator Davidson has proposed, paragraph (2) would read: the recommending as soon as possible of what further measures might be taken to overcome the problems revealed by the reports of the Senate

Select Committees on Air Pollution and Water Pollution, and which measures, if any. should be taken urgently.

I ask for leave to amend my motion accordingly.

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

Senator MURPHY:

– The difference on the other aspect is not very great and I appreciate what has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). I think the feeling of the Senate would be that we should deal with the matter in ‘.hat way. 1 hope that the Standing Committee in considering and dealing with this matter will do as well as the 2 select committees have so far done. If it does ] think the Senate will be very pleased. The contributions so far made have been to the credit of the Senate and the advantage of the nation. 1 hope that that work will be continued, implemented and enhanced by the Standing Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 655

QUESTION

CRIME IN AUSTRALIA

Reference to Standing Committee on Social Environment

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The Senate may recall that on 2nd November 1970 Senator Cavanagh presented a petition signed by 102 citizens praying that the Senate seek to ensure that the Commonwealth Government obtain the co-operation of the States and supply extra finance to the States to enable proper town planning and development to halt the increase in crime in Australia. The full text of the petition is as follows:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth

That they are gravely concerned at the apparent appalling increase in crime in Australia, particularly in densely populated areas;

That they fear the police forces of the various Slates and Territories are undermanned and underequipped to handle the increase in crime;

That their concern is aggravated by the apparent number of unsolved crimes particularly those involving violence to the individual including murder,

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable members of tile Senate will seek to ensure that the Commonwealth Government will seek the co-operation of the States and supply extra finance to the Slates to enable;

proper town planning and development to halt the increase in densely populated areas which leads to increased crime,

the proper staffing and equipping of police forces to enable adequate crime prevention and detection measures to reduce the frightening increase of both solved and unsolved crime,

the proper detention of and rehabilitation of criminals, and

compensation to victims of crimes of violence.

The important step was taken on referring the petitions to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. From a public point of view it illustrated what can be done. Petitions in important terms emanating from ordinary citizens of the Commonwealth could be referred to a standing committee of the Senate because they commended themselves to honourable senators by their commonsense and wisdom. It was expected that the Committee might be. able to investigate these extremely important matters, but it was not really the appropriate body to deal with them. At the time no other appropriate committee was available.

Of the 7 committees in the system which we have proposed, the most appropriate might have been the Standing Committee on Social Environment or the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It has happened that the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare has not proceeded very far into this matter as it has been heavily engaged in considering other matters. Certain submissions were invited from police authorities and various other State authorities. I understand that the Attorneys-General were invited to make submissions. The submissions received can be made available to the

Standing Committee on Social Environment.

I have spoken to the Chairman and 1 think to all members of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. They are agreeable to the transfer of the reference. They thought that the move would be conducive to the more efficient functioning of their Committee. It fits in with a previous decision of the Committee and is really a machinery measure for the better functioning of the committee system. I ask that the Senate accordingly accept the motion.

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

(10.8) - The purpose of the motion is to transfer a reference from one standing committee to another standing committee. It is not necessary to argue the merits of the reference as they have already been debated. The only point at issue is whether the reference would be more appropriately dealt with by the Standing Committee on Social Environment. I do not challenge the proposal and do not oppose the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 656

ADJOURNMENT

Hospitals in Victoria - Australian Wool Com mission - Television

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– 1 wish to bring to the notice of the Senate and the Government the crises now occurring in the hospital services in Victoria. I am referring not only to the general hospitals that look after the health and welfare of the ordinary citizens -but also to the homes and hospitals for the aged and infirm. These institutions in Victoria, and no doubt similar institutions in other States, are facing great financial difficulty. They have reached the stage at which in some cases the beds that are urgently required cannot be filled because of lack of finance to employ sufficient staff to care for the patients. The situation has been reached where many of the hospitals which could and would willingly expand their services are unable to do so because of a lack of finance, despite the fact that an expansion of these services is vital. The situation has been reached where hospitals in Victoria for the aged and infirm - I can refer to one in particular because I am a member of its committee - have been instructed by the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission that under no circumstances are they to employ any more labour during the current financial year.

The hospital of which I am a committee member is not permitted, as a result of a direction of the Hospitals and Charities Commission, even to replace its wastage of staff. The hospital is Grace McKellar House, which is in the city of Geelong. lt is controlled by the Hospitals and Charities Commission. The members of the committee of this hospital and the citizens of Geelong have worked very hard over the years to make it probably the best hospital of its kind in Australia and probably one of the best hospitals of its kind in the southern hemisphere. We are very proud of what we have been able to achieve over the years since the initial public appeal for the establishment of this very fine hospital.

Senator Mulvihill:

– How many beds does it have?

Senator POYSER:

– At the moment it has in the vicinity of 234 beds for aged and infirm patients. The number of beds should be at least trebled. We are in a situation where we cannot proceed any further with the expansion of this hospital because of financial difficulties. The 54 beds which we have added to the establishment over the last few months - I might say that we have been able to do so only a.s a result of the assistance of the Commonwealth in the form of subsidies - will be available for occupation in May of this year but they will not be occupied because of the direction of the Hospitals and Charities Commission that staff must not be engaged. The result is that these beds will have to remain unoccupied.

I am able lo inform the Senate that, tragically, there are 800 aged and infirm persons on the waiting list of our hospital. A total of 250 of the SOO persons waiting are urgent cases who should be hospitalised immediately. Many of the people who arc on the waiting lists of hospitals are dying because they are unable to gain the medical attention and hospital accommodation they need. Part of the reason for this is the fact that insufficient finance is being made available by the Commonwealth to the States for the servicing of hospitals. Urgent meetings have been held by 2 organisations which are associated with hospitals in Victoria, namely, the Country Hospitals Association and the Association of Victorian Homes and Hospitals for the Aged and Infirm. Both organisations have met recently. The Association of Victorian Homes and Hospitals for the Aged and Infirm met on 25th March of this year to study the serious crisis which is facing the administrators of homes at the present time. Tn the course of that meeting 3 resolutions were unanimously carried. The first resolution was that there should be an increase in the personal care subsidy and a reduction in the age qualification. The second resolution was that there should be an increase in the Commonwealth’s nursing home benefit and supplementary nursing home benefit. I will go into these matters in a little more detail later on. The third resolution was to the effect that there should be an extension of hospital benefits to patients accommodated in nursing homes. I wish to quote 2 sections of the address which was given by the Chairman of the Association of Victorian Homes and Hospitals for the Aged and Infirm when he opened the meeting. He said:

Our executive has obtained figures from som; 21 member institutions. This has revealed that at the 30lh June 1970 their combined overdrafts were S355.000-

I will speak in round figures for the purposes of this quotation - but by the end of December last it had increased to 5762.00(1, an increase of 5426.000 and 127 per cent. To turn to the operating costs these again are alarming, because the actual combined deficits of these 21 institutions was $431,000 as at 31 st December last, but according to budget estimates the combined deficit as at 30th .lune 1971 will be Sim. This will be an increase of $655,000 and 152 per cent.

I know from experience that many of these hospitals, because of their financial difficulties, have approached their banks for increases in their overdrafts and have been told quite clearly that no further financial accommodation will be made available to them and that they will have to exist on their present overdrafts. The situation is being reached where these hospitals are unable to pay their creditors. If something is not clone urgently - it can only be done at this stage by the Commonwealth making an urgent grant to these hospitals - the situation may well arise where the wages bills will not be met by the end of the current financial year. The Chairman of the Association went on to say:

The executive committee considers that the Commonwealth Government’s claim that it provides for pensioners is most unrealistic with the allowances made for nursing homes and other benefits. It is 8 years since the S2 per day nursing home benefit was introduced. There has been no change except that the Commonwealth Government pays $3 per day for a limited number of cases which the Commonwealth claims are intensive nursing care patients. Commonwealth officers carry out the assessment of these cases and they do not give approval lightly. 1 repeat that I will deal with these matters later in my remarks. He went on to say:

Those of our member institutions which are State subsidised have found that the additional Stale grants made available through the Hospitals and Charities Commission are quite inadequate to counter rapidly rising costs because of the limited amount made available by the Commonwealth to the States.

I repeat that I am quoting a part of the address which the Chairman of the Association of Victorian Homes and Hospitals for the Aged and Infirm gave when he opened the special meeting which was set down to consider the financial difficulties of homes for aged and infirm people. In moving a resolution later in the meeting - I think it was the third resolution, which related to extension of hospital benefits to patients accommodated in nursing homes - one of the delegates to the meeting stated:

Because of the lengthy waiting periods prior to admission -

He was referring to the long waiting lists of homes for the aged and infirm - these patients, who, for various reasons, cannot be kept or nursed at home, must necessarily be admitted to private hospitals or nursing homes. The present nursing home benefit of $2 per day or $5 daily for the relatively low percentage of those accepted by the Commonwealth Department of Health as intensive nursing care patients, is far from sufficient to cover the fee costs involved.

People who are active in the conducting of homes for the aged and infirm are well aware that the Common-wealth’s subsidies are not providing sufficient finance for them to be able to meet the additional costs which are accruing in both administrative expenses and the field of expansion. I make a plea to the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) to take up with the Government as an immediate objective the making of an emergency grant to the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission, earmarked for providing the financial relief that is urgently needed by both the homes for the aged and infirm and the general hospitals.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Finance is needed not only in Victoria but Australia-wide.

Senator POYSER:

– I think the need is Australia-wide as I mentioned earlier in my remarks. That would be the position, but as a Victorian I speak for that State. I want to make a further plea to the Minister to look more closely at the way in which the granting of the S3 per day supplementary allowance for intensive care patients is being administered by officers of his department, lt is generally felt by people associated not only with the larger hospitals controlled by the Hospitals and Charities Commission but also with private nursing homes that there are many patients who should be receiving that extra $3 per day supplementary allowance but who are being denied it by departmental officers and/ or medical officers without any proper or adequate examination of (hose patients. In fact, in many instances it is done administratively by an officer in Melbourne.

Honourable senators will recall that I raised this matter late last year during the debate on the estimates for the Department of Health. I was advised by the Minister representing the then Minister for Health that I should take up - specific cases in which 1 felt some injustice had been done. I have done this in two or three of what I would term glaring cases. The most recent of these was the case of an 86-year old lady who was an inmate of a private nursing home in the city of Geelong. This lady broke her hip and is in no way ambulant at the present time, as I am able to indicate from medical evidence which I have in my possession. This patient was refused the supplementary allowance initially, despite the fact that a qualified medical practitioner who had treated her for many years had submitted a comprehensive report indicating that she needed intensive care. This opinion was supplemented by the matron of the home. The Minister indicated that he would investigate the case. Finally 1 received a reply from him. 1 do not wish to go into the detail of the reply because I have already made a copy of it available to the present Minister for

Health, and he has been able to examine it. 1 was most disturbed that this plea of mine had been rejected. I found that as part of his inquiries the then Minister for Health had sent a doctor from the Department of Health to Geelong to investigate this case. 1 learnt, and I have it in writing, that the doctor did not even have the courtesy to go to the matron when he visited this nursing home.

When he arrived there he simply found this 86-year old lady who had been lifted physically out of bed and placed in a chair in the sun. He spoke to her for a short time and indicated that she was reasonably healthy and would not require the intensive care supplement, despite the fact that there was ample evidence that she needed a tremendous amount of physical care from at least 2 nurses when she had to be moved for various purposes.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But that was under the previous Minister.

Senator POYSER:

– Yes, that was definitely under the previous Minister.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It would not happen now.

Senator POYSER:

– We are hoping it will not. During this visit the doctor indicated verbally that this patient was fit to go home and that they, whoever they may be, could well look after her. As far as I am concerned the word ‘they’ is in inverted commas, because there is noboty else who is able to look after this lady in her present slate of health. The previous Minister indicated in the final paragraph of his reply to me that the doctor suggested that if Mrs B’s condition deteriorated they could reapply for the supplementary benefit. Of course, if there is any further deterioration in the condition of this 86- year old lady I am afraid that she will no longer require any type of benefit. This is the type of case that has been treated very cavalierly by members of the administration.

I have received evidence and submissons from persons closely associated with the management of aged and infirm hospitals in Victoria that they believe that the payment of this additional supplementary allowance is based on a percentage of the number of persons who are inmates of aged and infirm hospitals rather than on the merits of the cases concerned. In relation to Grace McKellar House my own personal investigations indicate that despite the fact that people are moving in and out of that hospital - some are rehabilitated and able to leave it and many die there - there is an almost static figure of 33 per cent of the inmates who are receiving the additional S3 supplementary allowance. Obviously the allowance is being paid on the basis of a budget rather than on the needs of persons who are in these institutions.

I had intended to quote from a medical report that I. have in my possession relating to the old lady about whom 1 spoke previously but 1 have made it available to the Minister concerned and I am certain that he has all the information he requires without my quoting directly from the report this evening. This evening I am in the position of not only appealing to the Minister to have another look at this case, because I believe it merits a closer investigation, but also to look at the general administration of the fund to determine how allowances are allocated to the various people who apply for them. I have said before and I repeat it, that the doctor on the spot, who is able closely to examine his patient and who has had that person in his care often for a number of years, and the matron of a hospital, who is equally closely associated with an aged person who is ill, frail or infirm are in a far better position to decide whether that person needs intensive care than an officer or a medical practitioner who may be sitting in an office 45 miles away.

Far too many patients have their claims rejected without any medical examination. It is on record in relation to the case that I. have quoted this evening that when the doctor came from Melbourne to see- this patient he made no medical examination of her. He simply spoke to her for a short time and made his decision on that basis. It is the height of rudeness for any officer of the Commonwealth department not to have even the courtesy to advise the matron of a hospital that he has arrived for the purpose of seeing one of the inmates of the hospital. If this is the type of administration that we are to have, people will lose complete confidence in the operation of such a fund. Again J refer briefly to the points that have been made about aged and infirm persons homes by the association which looks after these people. That organisation is asking for direct Commonwealth finance immediately, ft is asking for an increase in the subsidies that are now being paid and it is asking for it urgently.

Another aspect on which it. wants urgent action is the promise made during the last Senate election campaign by the then Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to do something about the availability of hospital benefits to persons who are chronically ill and who are forced to remain in aged persons homes or private nursing homes. It seems that 1 am always talking about exMinisters and ex-Prime Ministers. There is such a turnover at the moment that we can hardly keep up with the new Ministers and Prime Ministers. In the short period that I have been a senator - about 4 years - 1 have seen 4 Prime Ministers. That is not a bad effort. In many cases, the people who are chronically ill and who are forced to remain in these homes have paid into hospital benefit societies or similar benefit societies almost all their lives. When most reach the last years of their lives and need urgent medical attention, after 3 months the benefit is taken from them and the burden that should have been carried by the organisation to which they have perhaps been paying for a lifetime has to be carried in part by the families; many of whom can ill afford to meet the cost of hospitalisation of their aged parents, aged aunts or aged relatives. I appeal to the Minister to ascertain when the legislation will be forthcoming. It has been promised. When will there be an extension of hospital benefit payments to those people who are urgently in need of financial assistance and who are probably in more need of it now than during the years when they were paying into the societies to which they belong?

I refer again to the position of general hospitals. Recently urgent special meetings of the Country Hospitals Association in Victoria have been held because its memben are facing a similar situation to that which effects the aged and infirm homes. Again I shall cite the position at the General Hospital at Geelong. It supplies hospital facilities for a population of about 120,000. If it cannot get finance within the next 3 months, it will be forced to close down large sections of the hospital. It has reached that stage. A warning has been given by the chairman of the hospital committee. I have permission to quote him. He has put. on record these words:

The Committee may at some future time have to consider the propriety of remaining in office if they find themselves unable to pay wages and other creditors. The question is the same as in business. We, as the board of management, have to pay our debts or go out of business.

The hospital’s deficit this year, will be $250,000. It also has been advised that no further finance will be available in the current financial year and that it is anticipated that the allocations of finance will not be made until about November. This hospital has approached its bankers and has sought an extension of the overdraft on which it operates, lt has been refused, and I presume that it has been refused because hospital management committees are now bad risks. They are bad risks because they have no foreseeable way of raising the finance necessary to pay the normal maintenance costs associated with hospital care.

A similar position applies al Ballarat also. The stage has been reached where the services required in an expanding community cannot be provided. The Ballarat Hospital has written to ali Victorian parliamentarians in similar terms to those which I have indicated. Its problems are similar to those that exist in the Geelong Hospital. We could well find that within 3 months not only will the hospital not be able to meet its creditors, but even dismissals will be taking place at the Geelong Hospital. The situation then will be that large sections will close and the need for beds which exists at the moment will be far more urgent. We will find that persons who need urgent hospital care will bc unable lo get it. They may, in effect, end up like many of our aged people now and be dying before they can obtain the care so vital to their rehabilitation and their return to good health. So I make a plea to the Minister to place before the Government the urgent need for a direct grant in the immediate future to the State Government for allocation to the Hospitals and Charities Commission. This will enable direct financial assistance to be given to those hospitals that are in such urgent need. 1 also make an appeal to the Minister to submit to Cabinet the other matters that I have mentioned in relation to increased subsidies associated with the care of the aged and infirm. I sincerely hope that my plea will not fall on deaf ears and. as 1 said earlier, that the administration of the supplementary allowance will be treated in a more humane and practical manner than at the present time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I had intended to raise 2 matters on the adjournment debate this evening, the first relating to an answer lo a question that was given to me today by the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Drake-Brockman) concerning the activities of the Australian Wool Commission. I understand that because of certain circumstances the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry cannot be here this evening. I defer that matter for the time being, except to say that I regard it as arrogance and high-handedness on the part of the Australian Wool Commission and, indeed, bordering on contempt of this Parliament for the Minister to come up with an answer that for commercial reasons it is the policy of the Australian Wool Commission not to release information on matters raised by an honourable senator when a representative of the Australian Wool Commission can appear on a programme of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and tell certain sections of the public who might be listening to that broadcast some details of the transactions engaged in by the Commission. But I will have something more to say about that at another lime when the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry is present in the chamber.

The other matter that I want to raise relates to the Postmaster-General’s Department and concerns the existing state of the Australian television industry. A number of Australians have become very concerned at developments that are taking place, and which have taken place over recent weeks, to deprive Australians of the right to work at their own profession in their own country. Today during question time 1 raised a matter of share transactions concerning John Fairfax & Co. and I hope that that matter will ultimately be investigated. But in fairness to that company I have to say that it appears to me that the Fairfax station in Sydney, although in my opinion not doing sufficient to project more Australian programmes, is probably doing more than any other commercial station in this regard. But the fact is that Australian artists, writers, producers, actors, the unions and the production houses engaged in the industry all tell me that the situation today is in fact worse than it has ever been and that urgent and drastic action has to be taken by someone to protect the livelihood of those who work in the industry. We all know that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has a statutory responsibility, a responsibility vested in it by Act of Parliament, to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programmes serving the best interests of the Australian public are presented. Under section 114 of the Broadcasting and Television Act the Board has a statutory obligation lo ensure that as far as possible Australians will be used in the production arid presentation of programmes.

We know hat last year a very hard and long fought battle was waged to obtain an . improvement in the number of hours of transmission of Australian programmes. We all know that last November about 4 or 5 days prior to the Senate elections - I emphasise that date bearing in mind the hard fought battle which had been waged over the preceding 12 months - the Control Board laid down a new quota system to come into force as from next September. I have already made the observation in this Parliament by way of question that new production episodes of ‘Homicide’ and ‘Division 4’ are being stockpiled by commercial television stations in order to cope with the new quota which will be required of them next September by the Board’s edict. Just as the Australian Wool Commission is stockpiling Australian wool, it appears that Australian commercial television stations are stockpiling Australian television- productions. At the present time they are engaged in filling their existing requirements so far as Australian productions and dramatic productions are concerned with the use of repeat programmes.

I want to bring to the attention of the Senate a section of paragraph 463 of the 22nd Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which appears at page 106. In that paragraph the Board mentions that 8 stations failed to comply with the requirements to televise : 50 per cent of Australian material. The stations are named. The Board mentions that a number of the stations were country stations faced with technical difficulties in that they did not have videotape reproduction equipment available to them. But 2 of the stations mentioned are long established stations, namely GTV and ADS. The report states:

With regard to GTV and ADS, which are wellestablished metropolitan stations, the Board recognised that the margin of failure was not statistically significant. However, it indicated an unsatisfactory trend in the. stations programming, and the matter is under discussion with the respective managements.

I do not know what discussion has taken place but I am informed that last week in Melbourne GTV9, one of the stations mentioned in the Control Board’s report, and, I understand, a Packer station, has removed an Australian programme, namely In Melbourne Tonight’, which employed about 120 Australians. I am informed that as a result of that programme being removed from the air most if not all of the 120 Australians have been sacked. It appears that the policy of the stations will be: ‘We will comply with ‘he quota if we have to comply with it but we will not reduce our importation of overseas programmes. We will cut down on our variety programmes and transfer that money info dramatic productions.’ The stations cannot cut down on documentary programmes because they have very little, if any. It appears that the commercial stations are using the weight of their power with this Government and using their wealth and influence to superimpose their own authority and standards on anything which the Control Board might determined

I have been told that several people engaged on the executive side of this industry are considering testing the legality of the power of the Board to lay down quotas under the regulations governing programme standards. I suggest to the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood), who in this Chamber represents the PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme), that if such a challenge goes ahead the Government should immediately amend the Broadcasting and Television Act to write into the Act in clear and express terms provisions which will provide minimal standards for Australian dramatic, variety and documentary programmes. It has also been mentioned to me that several production companies throughout Australia that have been engaged in this industry since it came into existence and which are now very much feeling the pinch, suspect very strongly that by the non-acceptance of their productions by commercial stations they - the production companies - are being victimised because of the part they played in securing a greater quota for Australian dramatic productions.

I do not intend to mention names at this stage because, as I have said, it is only suspicion at this stage but should it turn out to be a fact then I will bc insisting that the whole of his industry be investigated by the Trade Practices Tribunal. If the suspicion on the part of these people becomes more than suspicion and there is direct evidence of victimisation because of the part these people have played in securing an improvement in Australian standards, then 1 will be naming in this Parliament the channels which are victimising, the executive personnel of those stations who are engaged in the victimisation and where the victimisation is taking place. But surely it is more than suspicion when I am told that certain programmes, which are being offered at half the cost of other programmes that the stations are purchasing, are in fact being rejected by the stations. lt may well be that if the Minister or the Control Board will not act - and 1 am afraid the Board itself cannot act much more than it has to date because it appears to have become a toothless tiger against these commercial interests - then the trade union movement itself may have to take action as it did in the Dunlop case, lt may well be that if it is found that victimisation is taking place because Australians are concerned about the extent of Americanisation of their country per medium of the television screen, that the trade union movement will have to consider boycotting certain stations. 1 emphasise that I will have no hesitation whatever in naming the stations and the executives of those stations if it is proved to my satisfaction that victimisation is occurring. But before it comes to that the Postmaster-General should take strong action to protect those who obtain their livelihood from the Austraiian television industry.

Finally J ask the newly appointed Minister representing the Postmaster-General in this chamber to ensure that all matters coming within his responsibility to this Senate and which are raised in the Senate under the heading of this portfolio are sheeted home to the Postmaster-General and that expeditious answers arc given to the Senate by that Minister.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I listened with great interest to the remarks of my friend Senator Douglas McClelland but I do not propose to traverse his entire speech as 1 did not hear the whole of it. 1 simply say this. I was one of 5 men who helped to fix the Australian quota and I say categorically that no pressure from any company, from any producer or from any organisation was brought to bear upon me or to my knowledge on any other member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The quotas that were fixed were fixed after hearing representatives of production houses, the licensees, Actors Equity - of which T was at that time and still am a member - and every section of the broadcasting and television industry. 1 know we are dealing with television but every section of the industry, including the writers, were given an opportunity to present their case. I merely want to say that if Senator Douglas McClelland had any evidence of malpractice in this industry I would cheerfully join him in hunting it down because this is a most important and significant industry and, as he says, it employs large numbers of Australians.

I share his regret that the ‘In Melbourne Tonight’ programme, which as he said employed 100 to 120 Australians, was discontinued by Channel 9. The reason given by the company’s chairman of directors was that the ratings for the programme, which had run since 1956 - to some extent the television channels are the slaves of the ratings - had dropped to 56 per cent of what they were 2 years ago. I am not justifying the discontinuance; I am merely mentioning the reason given by the chairman of directors. I believe that the Senate has reason to be grateful to Senator

Douglas McClelland for his careful watch on the transgressions - real and, might I say, in some cases imaginary - of the licensees and the operatives in this very important industry. I look forward to traversing, on a future occasion perhaps, some of the matters he has raised this evening.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I will deal with the matters which have been raised by the honourable senators who have spoken in this adjournment debate in the order in which they spoke. I am sure that Senator Poyser will appreciate that any answer I might give him tonight could not give him the satisfaction for which he would be hoping. I say that for 2 reasons. The first is that in a relatively short time I have endeavoured to come to grips with the many aspects of the health administration, and I am still in the process of doing so. But that is not the only reason. There is a reason which would be more permanent and enduring and which v/ould affect any Minister who had the responsibility, and that is that when matters involve, as Senator Poyser has urged, the provision of Commonwealth finance the most any Minister can do is to put such claims as he considers are appropriate before the Government for its consideration in the light of the many priorities and competing claims that the Government has to consider.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Are there higher priorities than health?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– There are many matters which, in their context, may have higher priorities; but I can assure the honourable senator that 1 will always regard health as of major importance and will seek to have it treated as such. However, I think we all know that the Government has many demands upon it and it must consider those demands in an endeavour to satisfy the many interests that regard their particular demands for finance as legitimate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Should you consider other demands when health has to be considered?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am sure that there have been occasions in the Senate when Senator Cavanagh has made claims upon the Government for the provision of finance for some matter other than health. Also, I will be very surprised if I can expect that in the future he will limit his demands to those matters for which I have some responsibility, f think the point I am making is readily understood.

Let me return to the matters Senator Poyser raised. They were serious matters and 1 treated them as such because I did not apprehend that they were put in any sense of political partisanships. They were put in the sense that here was an area of administration in respect of which he believed that better could be done than was being done at the moment, lt is in that light that 1 have appreciated his remarks. With regard to his broad plea that the situation affecting Victorian hospitals in particular was such that they were nigh on bankruptcy and in need of urgent financial assistance, 1 believe that the point is well sustained. 1 appreciate his concern, 1 share his interest, and I recognise that this is a pressing problem. But in saying that 1 think one must bear in mind that the provision of hospitals is essentially a matter for the various State governments.

Senator Byrne:

– Why are the Victorian hospitals in that condition?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not doubt that the pleas, which may be made by hospitals in other States are the same as those made by hospitals in Victoria, but 1 think that Senator Poyser would join with me in asserting thai in these matters of finance Victorians have always adopted a forefront role in pressing their claims, and so it is with the hospitals. The point I make is that the provision of hospital services and the arrangements for financing those services are primarily the responsibilities of the State governments, and any general claim .that there should be an emergency grant from the Commonwealth Government is to be placed in the context of what is accepted as CommonwealthState financial relations and the various financial assistance grants which the States receive from the Commonwealth. In that area I cannot’ say anything tonight which would be more informative to the honourable senator than that which he has culled from his own reading, and experience over the years.

Apart from that, there is a role in which the Commonwealth does assist in the pro vision of hospital finances. Of course, the Commonwealth’s main role is through the hospital benefits scheme, and it is through this scheme that assistance is provided to patients in meeting their costs of hospital treatment. But it should be recognised that in providing this assistance to patients the Commonwealth also is indirectly assisting the States in their financing of hospital services. The extent to which the Commonwealth Government is meeting its responsibilities in the provision of hospital benefits, and thus indirectly assisting the States hospital systems, can be gauged from the fact that during the last financial year Commonwealth expenditure on hospital benefits totalled more than S64m, and a further §1 18m was provided by way of fund benefits through the Commonwealth administered hospital insurance scheme. I think it should also be noted that during the same financial year total expenditure by the Commonwealth and the funds on hospital benefits payable to Victorian patients amounted to the substantial sum of $46m. These figures clearly indicate a Commonwealth responsibility and interest.

I think all honourable senators are aware that the Government is at present reviewing its hospital benefits scheme, and this is one of the areas which I am endeavouring in a short time to master in some respects. This examination is being undertaken in the light of the Nimmo Committee’s report which was presented last year. This review is proceding at the present time, and I trust that it wil be completed as soon as practicable. But it is a complex matter. On thai aspect. 1 think the only, other comment which I might usefully add is that 1 have under way at the present time arrangements to meet some people representing the hospital administrations who have been meeting recently, in the hope that I can get from them some further information which will be of assistance to me.

The. other matter which Senator Poyser raised concerned the manner of administration of the grants for intensive nursing home care. As I understood Senator Poyser, he suggested that the way in which these grants were administered was unsatisfactory because initially they are administered in the light of documents and material which is provided without that on the spot examination which he said should characterise the consideration of every grant. If one were able to do as Senator Poyser suggested, undoubtedly there would be greater satisfaction and less of the types of criticisms which one hears from lime to time. It is important to recognise that a tremendous number of these grants are applied for and that a limited number of Commonwealth medical officers is available to supervise each application which is made. I think that this is recognised by the provisions of the National Health Act under which these grants are administered. I think that, in this sense, the Senate would accept that the administration should be in accordance with what the Act provides. Section 57a of the National Health Act, if anyone is interested in looking to the source of this provision, indicates that applications for these grants shall be made by the proprietor of an approved nursing home, that application shall be made in a particular form and that it shall be supported by a certificate of a medical practitioner. Where the DirectorGeneral or the person to whom he delegates his authority is satisfied that the person in respect of whom an application is made requires intensive nursing home care and that the nursing home is adequately fitted, furnished and staffed, there may be a grant. That does not exclude an on the spot investigation by a Commonwealth medical officer and invariably, where any complaint is made that a grant should have been made which has not been made, that investigation is undertaken.

In the case which Senator Poyser has drawn to my attention - and I acknowledge that it was brought to my attention earlier today that it was to be the subject of remarks during the adjournment tonight - that was the procedure which was followed, f have some details which f feel I should communicate to Senator Poyser privately because he showed a reticence to mention the particular lady’s name and 1 feel that an equal reticence should be shown by me in giving some personal details of her position. But, though those matters will be available to him, I should say this: A grant is made not because a person is aged, not because a person is incapacitated in some way and not because a person requires general care, but because a person requires and is dependent upon nursing care. The Act provides: . . “Intensive nursing home care’ means nursing home care for a person who, by reason of infirmity, or any illness, disease, incapacity or disability, is bedridden or virtually bedridden and is wholly or substantially dependent upon nursing care, or, by reason of the treatment of any illness, disease, incapacity or disability, is wholly or substantially or dependent upon nursing care.

There is a difference, from the inquiries that I have been able to make in the course of the day, between nursing care and general care. I can assure Senator Poyser that it is in that area that the particular rejection has been made of the lady whose case he has been espousing. She has been determined by a Commonwealth medical officer who investigated her case to be a person who certainly requires general care, but she does not require nursing care. Having said that and having-

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– Was she ambulatory or was she not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– She is certainly not ambulatory. The point I make is that this represents the way in which this matter has been administered. All 1 can say at the present time is that I propose to look at this case with a view to ascertaining whether his is a reasonable interpretation of what amounts to be nursing care. It must be appreciated that the administration of this provision is dependent upon what interpretation is given to the language of the statute and, as far as it is within my power, 1 hope to have a charitable and humane administration of these provisions so that, where there is a genuine case which requires assistance, that assistance can be given.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Senator Poyser is complaining that the investigator interviewed the patient and not the matron who could have told him what the patient needed.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Senator Poyser raised many matters. I have taken note of the matters that he did raise. Indeed, they were in the material which he provided to me earlier. I have noted those matters and 1 shall do what I can to examine the procedures under .which these determinations are made. I repeat what 1 said earlier, that this is a question which should be looked at in terms of providing assistance where it can legitimately be given in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and that the administration should, so far as is possible in the many instances where applications for assistance have been made, deal with the applications humanely.

I turn to the matters which were raised by Senator Douglas McClelland. I sense that there were two broad aspects involved in what he said. The first was the regret that he expressed that the television show, In Melbourne Tonight’, which has run for many years in Melbourne should have ended.I am indebted for the general information which Senator Hannan provided. I shall certainly convey to the PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme) the general substance of what Senator Douglas McClelland has said, for such comments as the Minister considers are appropriate, but I feel that I ought to say in regard to the first aspect that it is not the role of the Postmaster-General or the role of any person within government to determine what programmes shall be shown by a particular commercial television station. While we have commercial television stations the ordinary considerations which motivate them in determining what they shall show and how much they shall pay for what they are prepared to show remain essentially financial business considerations. I suggest that while we have a system of television in Australia such as we now have - it is a very satisfactory system which has served the people of Australia well - those considerations will always prevail.

The second aspect which I understood Senator Douglas McClelland to raise was that there might have been victimisation and unfair practices, and I understand that he will investigate these matters with a view to exposing them if his suspicions are right.I can only say that if unfair practices and victimisation have occurred he would have much support in exposing these matters, becauseI feel that exposure is the most certain way of ensuring that what is being criticised does not occur again. But. on the other hand, I should say that the basis upon which Senator Douglas McClelland based his accusations appears to me to be particularly flimsy. As I have said, I shall convey the tenor of his remark’s to the Postmaster-General for his comment.

In reply to what Senator Hannan said, I am sure that the Senate is indebted to him for his invaluable reminder that quotas are fixed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board after inquiry, in which all interested parties are given the opportunity to be heard. I believe that under the scheme of the Broadcasting and Television Act this is a far more satisfactory way of doing it than to leave it to what might be the fluctuating decisions of different Ministers and different governments. It is far better to have those decisions made in the way in which the Act provides.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 March 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710330_senate_27_s47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant