Senate
12 May 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

The Senate met at 10 a.m.

The Usher of the Black Rod - Honourable senators, the President.

Honourable senators - Hear hear!

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Honourable Sir Alister McMuIlin) took the chair, and read prayers.

page 1707

RETIREMENT OF SENATORS

Valedictory

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

– by leave - I move:

That the Senate places on record its appreciation of the long and meritorious service rendered by Sir Alister McMuIlin K.C.M.G. who will have held the office of President of the Senate for a record period of 17 years 9 months on his retirement from the Senate on 30th lune 1971; That the Senate also records its appreciation of the distinguished service rendered to the Parliament and to Australia by Senator T. L. Bull, O.B.E., Chairman of Committees and Deputy President, Senator the Hon. Malcolm Scott, Senator the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin, D.B.E., Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood, D.B.E., Senator A. Hendrickson, Senator the Hon. P. J. Kennelly, Senator J. P. Toohey, Senator G. H. Branson. Senator C. F. Ridley, Senator F. Dittmer and Senator R. H. Lacey; and That the Senate extends to all retiring senators its good wishes for a long and happy retirement.

You, Sir Alister, have had a distinguished career since you joined this Parliament as a Liberal Party senator for New South Wales in 1951. You have had a record period as President of the Senate, a position to which you were first elected in 1953. You have been Chairman of the Senate Standing Orders Committee from September 1956; a member of the House Committee, of the Library Committee - being Chairman of that Committee from 7th September 1956 - and of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings from September 1956. You have been a member of the General Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for 1954-55, 1956-57 and 1959-60, and have been Chairman of the Council on two occasions - in 1959-60 and 1969-70. You are also Deputy Chairman of the National Library and Chancellor of the University of Newcastle. On many occasions you have led parliamentary delegations overseas and have represented the Commonwealth at major international events many times.

You have always espoused the importance of the Senate in the Commonwealth parliamentary system and have worked unceasingly to assist senators in the performance of their legislative duties and responsibilities. Perhaps one of the most important changes you have supported, and one from which we have to a large degree benefited by your efforts, was the introduction of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. You have devoted a great deal of time and energy to the planning of the proposed new and permanent Parliament House and were Chairman of the Joint Committee on that project. On this occasion I want to say to you - and 1 will be supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) and, I hope, by other senators - how appreciative we are of the wonderful services you have given to the national Parliament and to us as senators. Your dignity and you ability to control the Senate have been an inspiration to all who will follow you.

Senator Thomas Louis Bull, O.B.E., our Chairman of Committees, entered the Senate in 1965 as a Country Party senator for New South Wales. He was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs from August 1965 and a member of the Australian delegation to the 12th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Ottawa in 1966. Senator Bull was a member of the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes and the Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs. He became Temporary Chairman of Committees on 18th April 1967 and was appointed Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade in August 1970. His appointment as Chairman of Committees was made on 25th November 1970. Sir, as your immediate deputy, we have come to respect the precision and capability of Senator Bull as Chairman of Committees and also as a senator.

Senator the Honourable Malcolm Scott who was elected as a Liberal senator for Western Australia in 1949 has also had a long and enviable record of service with the Commonwealth Parliament. He has held positions on the Printing Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. Senator Malcolm Scott has represented the Australian Parliament on several overseas delegations and lead the Australian delegation to the 5lst Annual Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union at Brazilia in 1962. He was appointed Government Whip in the Senate in March 1966, a position he held for several years until his appointment as Minister for Customs and Excise from 28th February 1968 to 12th November 1969.

Senator the Honourable Dame Annabelle Rankin, D.B.E., came to the Senate as a Liberal senator for Queensland, taking her place as far back as 1947. Dame Annabelle served on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. She had a long career as Whip, both in Opposition from October 1947 to October 1949 and as Government Whip from June 195.1 to January 1966. She was elevated to Dame of the Order of the British Empire in 1957. Dame Annabelle was appointed Minister for Housing in January 1966, the position she held until she announced her pending resignation to become Australian High Commissioner for New Zealand.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood, D.B.E., was elected as a Liberal senator for Victoria in 1949. She has held positions on the House Committee and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and was a delegate to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in New Delhi in 1957. Dame Ivy was appointed Temporary Chairman of Committees from August 1962 and was a member of the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House from December 1965. She was honoured with the title of Dame of the Order of the British Empire in 1967. She was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital

Costs and she is Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare.

Senator Albion Hendrickson entered the Senate in 1947 as an Australian Labor Party senator for Victoria following the 1946 general election. At various times he has served on the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualications and the Senate Standing Orders Committee. He was Temporary Chairman of Committees from February 1956 to October 1966. In 1957 he was a member of the Australian delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference at New Delhi and was a member of the Australian delegation to the 14th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations at New York in 1959. Senator Hendrickson served with the Australian Imperial Force in World War I.

Senator the Honourable Patrick John Kennelly was elected as an Australian Labor Party senator for Victoria in the Senate election of 1953. He came to this chamber with an already long and distinguished career in the Victorian State Parliament. Senator Kennelly entered the Victorian Legislative Council for Melbourne West in a by-election in May 1938 and retired in June 1953. In the State Parliament he served as Honorary Minister, Commissioner of Public Works and Minister in Charge of Electrical Undertakings. In the Senate he has served on the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications, the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review and the House Committee. He was appointed Temporary Chairman of Committees from September 1968. Senator Kennelly was Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate from February 1956 to February 1957. He has been a trustee on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust since March 1967. He was also a member of Australian delegations to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference at Canberra in 1959 and the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference at Copenhagen in 1964.

Senator James Philip Toohey was elected as an Australian Labor Party Senator for South Australia in the Senate election of 1953. He has served on many committees, including the Printing Committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint

Select Committee on Government and Parliamentary Publications, the House Committee, the Senate Standing Orders Committee and the Senate Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir.

Senator George Howard Branson was elected as Liberal Party senator for Western Australia at the general election in 1958. During his term in office, Senator Branson has had wide service with committees, including the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Privileges Committee, the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse and Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution. Senator Branson was Acting Government Whip in the Senate from 22nd April to 5th May this year. During World War II Senator Branson served with the second AIF in Malaya, where he was captured, and he was a prisoner of war from 1 942 to 1 945.

Senator Clement Frank Ridley was elected as an ALP senator for South Australia at the general election in 1958. He was appointed Temporary Chairman of Committees from February 1964 and a member of the Printing Committee from March 1964. He served on the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications, the Standing Committee on Publications and the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Senator Ridley was a member of the Australian Delegation to the Twentieth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations at New York in 1965.

Senator Felix Dittmer, a distinguished doctor of medicine, entered the Senate as an ALP senator for Queensland in 1959. However, he had already had a distinguished career as a Queensland State parliamentarian prior to joining the Senate. He first entered the Queensland Legislative Assembly in 1950 and was Deputy Leader of the State Parliamentary Labor Party at the time of his defeat at the 1957 State election. Since his election to the Senate, Senator Dittmer has represented the Commonwealth Parliament as a member of the Australian Delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations at New York in 1962 and the Parliamentary Dele gation to South America in 1965 and to South East Asia in 1967. He has been a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works since May 1963 and has served on the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs.

Finally, and certainly by no means least, Senator Robert Herbert Lacey was elected as ALP senator for Tasmania in 1964. Previously he had served in the Tasmanian House of Assembly for a period in 1959. Senator Lacey has been a member of the Senate Standing Orders Committee since February 1967. In 1966 he was a member of the Australian Delegation to the Twelfth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Ottawa. He also served on the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution.

For the record I have put a fairly brief detail of the service that has been given to the nation, firstly, by you, Mr President, and then by the other senators who are about to retire. It is significant, I think, to record that, because of the effluxion of time and because of other circumstances, about 20 per cent of our senators will be retiring shortly. We want all of you to feel that, in your going, you carry with you the warm regard and admiration of those of us who remain. You, Mr President, have been here a long time. Senator Hendrickson and Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin have been here a long time. The other senators who are retiring have not been here so long a time. The Senate is a place in which we express our political convictions firmly and with vigour. It is not a place for cissies. Through it all we live together in a sense. We come to understand men and women in the activities of life. We have a great comaraderie which transcends Party politics. We do not shrink from expressing our Party views and our convictions. Through the Parliament there is a recognition of the humanities and of the need for men and women to live in understanding. When we have differences we have a capacity to agree to differ because we know that, in our democratic process, this is the way it must be.

I think that those honourable senators who are not retiring will feel a certain emotional reaction to the fact that no less than 12 of our colleagues are going into political retirement at least so far as the Senate is concerned.

In moving the motion I wish on my own behalf and on behalf of all the others, Government senators, to convey to you, Mr President, and the other honourable senators I have named our very best wishes to you all as you go away from this place and to acknowledge the great contribution you all have made, in whatever capacities you have served - as President, Chairman of Committees, chairman and members of committees and senators - to the people of Australia and to the nation by the service you have given in the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I have great pleasure in seconding the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). It is sad to be speaking about those who are leaving us. I join with the Leader of the Government in wishing them well in their retirement. I hope that they enjoy good health. We will all miss them. Mr President, you have been an excellent President of the Senate. You have presided over it with great dignity. You have achieved many valuable changes on behalf of this Parliament. You have occupied the President’s chair for so long - nearly 18 years - that your absence will alter the atmosphere and character of the Senate. Your flexible handling of the Senate’s proceedings will be greatly missed. I think that behind your fairly serious demeanour reposes a deep sense of humour and a keen appreciation of human fraility. There are many occasions when human fraility can be observed in this chamber. You have been fair but firm in your handling of the proceedings.

The record which Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has outlined is a solid one. During your record term of office you have taken a very active role in the development of the Senate Committee system, not only as President but also as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee. It was in this year that you took an historic step when you presented a report on the operation and future of those committees, which was adopted by the Senate and which will affect greatly the future conduct of this chamber. I am glad to see that that has happened during your term of office. You have seen the fruits come to pass while you are Still here. I believe that we will look back on this move as a starting point for the transformation of the Senate. You have always carried a great part of the burden of promoting and encouraging a better understanding and appreciation of the Senate and its role in our parliamentary system. Your own conduct has done much to uphold and strengthen the traditions of the Senate as an institution. You have never been a slave to rigid procedure in the chamber. Your readiness to allow free debate within wide limits has enhanced the value of this chamber. Mr President, we wish you well and we thank you for your efforts on behalf of this chamber and of the nation.

Senator Bull is a man who has brought the typical rural virtues to this chamber. He has been unassuming and modest about his achievements and patient and forbearing in his capacity as Chairman of Committees. I am sure that he has found deep satisfaction in his role as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade. His membership of the Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes in 1967 provided another outlet for a man with his extensive interest in rural industry. It is a pity that he is leaving this chamber when the rural crisis poses such a challenge to men of his Party and his background as well as to the whole of this nation. I hope that he can make further contributions to rural industry after his retirement from parliamentary life and bring to bear on rural problems the added expertise he has gained from his 7 years in the Senate. On behalf of the Opposition I wish him well also.

Senator Malcolm Scott also has had a strong record of achievement in this chamber. I propose to say something special about the honourable senator. Apart from the achievements which have been mentioned by the Minister I should like to say that when Senator Malcolm Scott was a Minister he had a very hard passage in the Senate, especially from the Opposition. I think we all recall one particular occasion when there was a motion in this chamber. After that debate was ended Senator Malcolm Scott spoke to me and outlined certain matters, after which I said to him: ‘I wish you had said this before the debate was over because I think it casts a completely new light on the matter.’ I told him then and subsequently that before he left this chamber I would like to say that whatever his errors might have been, he would go out of this chamber with no suggestions against his integrity or his veracity. I am satisfied that whatever errors there might have been - we have all committed errors - I and my colleagues, and I think the whole chamber, take him to be a man of unimpeachable integrity.

Senator the Honourable Dame Annabelle Rankin has been an adornment to this Senate for some years - I shall not say for how many years. She has served on many of the important committees of the Senate, including the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. She had a career - I will not say a long career - as Whip, both in Opposition and as Government Whip. She was appointed as the Minister for Housing in January 1966, a position which she held until her recent resignation from that portfolio to become Australian High Commissioner in New Zealand. She holds the distinction of being the last member of the Government who has also been in opposition. Her departure leaves Senator Justin O’Byrne as the oldest surviving member of that era. We wish her well in her important new post as Australian High Commissioner in New Zealand.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood also has had a career of considerable achievement and we are all indebted to her for her work in this chamber. As time has gone on she seems to have been achieving more and more, certainly greater distinction in this chamber for her activities in connection with health and welfare which clearly have been of the utmost benefit to the whole nation. Her chairmanship of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs was a distinguished one and I am glad that the report which was made by that Committee will go down in history as the Wedgwood report. As the one who moved for the establishment of that Committee may I say to Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood: I, with all my colleagues, am proud of the achievements of that Committee under your chairmanship. We thank you for your services in that capacity and as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. We are sure that the nation is indebted to you. We wish you well.

Senator Hendrickson is a man who throughout his life has been active in Australian Labor Party affairs. Before he entered the Senate in 1946 he was private secretary to the then Minister for Customs, Senator Keane. He was a member of the First Australian Infantry Force. Bert, for all his gregarious manner and jovial good humour, has always held unswervingly to his strong views inside the Australian Labor Party. He was one of the first members of this chamber to open up the implications for Australia of Britain’s proposed entry into the European Common Market back in the days when a great many Australians had little idea of what it represented. I have always found him to be a loyal and dedicated colleague, an asset to this chamber and to his Party. I am sure he will continue to work for the Labor movement as hard outside this chamber as he did inside it. I believe he suffered a great loss with the death of his fellow Victorian, the late Senator Cohen; Bert collapsed at the funeral. This chamber holds many memories for him. I should like to put on record our appreciation of his friendship and help and his devoted service to the Labor Party and the people of Australia.

Bert Hendrickson has been one of the people who cement relationships around the Parliament. His activity outside but around the chamber in getting people together and in organising functions which brought members of the Labor Party together with diplomats from other countries and with all sorts of visiting dienatories has opened up the minds of members of the Australian Labor Party and made them think about problems apart from those arising in the chamber. Bert set himself out to do this on behalf of the Party and I think that it is one of the most wonderful things that he has done. But above all, he has been a solid Labor man, certain and sure. I - and I think everyone else - will miss him very much.

Senator Kennelly retires from this chamber as a towering figure in the Labor movement. From his early youth, Pat has been closely involved in the Australian Labor Party. He rose to become one of the most influential figures both inside and outside Parliament. 1 think we all remember that he was labelled ‘the king maker’. He has seen our Party in its moments of success, its moments of tribulation and its moments of disaster. His life has been influenced by his desire to keep Labor united and strong. He was Federal Secretary of the Party from 1945 to 1954. In this position he was closely linked with Senator Toohey in the reconstruction of the Victorian and the New South Wales branches of the Labor Party. He served for 15 years in the Victorian Legislative Council, becoming Leader of the Party in that chamber and a Minister in the Cain Labor Government.

During the split in Victoria in 1955 he suffered the full brunt of the opposition from those who later left the Australian Labor Party. In the late 1940s he played a leading role with the then Australian Labor Party President, Jack Ferguson, and Ben Chifley in keeping the Australian Labor Party on an even keel. He gave Chifley great assistance in keeping the Party united at a very difficult time. One of his greatest strengths was his ability to count the numbers. We all know the saying, which has become legendary in this country and which is associated with his name: ‘Give me the numbers, brothers; the logic won’t help*. He has seen this truism expressed time and time again when Labor has failed to get the numbers after winning a debate. Pat has always been a simple, egalitarian man, despite his involvement in great matters within the Party. He has never been afraid to mix it in debate. We will miss his presence in the chamber but I am sure he will continue to make his presence felt in Victorian Labor politics.

Senator Toohey has been one of the outstanding figures in this chamber for many years. He has played a most influential and prominent part in the Labor Party for the past 20 years or so, both inside the Parliament and in the running of the Australian Labor Party. He first became involved in the Labor movement when he joined the South Australian Vehicle Builders Union as an organiser. He later rose to the position of assistant secretary. He became State Secretary and State President of the South Australian Branch in the late 1940s. He worked effectively to prevent any split in the South Australian Labor Party during the troubles in 1955 and played a big part in ensuring that the South Australian delegation remained firm at the Federal Conference. This was largely due to the sensible and balanced leadership in South Australia, under Senator Toohey’s guiding hand.

As all of us in the Senate know, Jim Toohey possesses the keen analytical mind of the logical debater. He also has a most persuasive personality. This combination no doubt has played a great part in his success. He had a major role in the reconstruction of the New South Wales Branch of our Party in 1955 when he was a member of the Federal Executive. He also once held the position of Vice-President of the Australian Labor Party. A lot of the work involved in this reconstruction fell on Jim’s shoulders. One of his major attributes is his ability to remain on warm and friendly terms with people inside and outside the Labor Party with whom he disagrees quite strongly on politcial attitudes. He always has been a very loyal senator and member of the Party. He is a quiet man with a tremendous background in the Australian Labor Party and in this chamber. I will not go through his record of membership of action committees inside this Party although it is a long and impressive one. Those things are a matter for the record. We know that he has been one of the great figures in South Australia and in the councils of the nation. We thank him for his achievements here, on behalf of the nation, and outside on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and through it the nation. He will be greatly missed in this place and in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Branson is another honourable senator from the land who brought into this place the patience and wisdom of the country man. He served in the Second Australian Imperial Force as a lieutenant and was a prisioner of war in Japan. That experience did not embitter him. I think his humanity came out very strongly last week when he spoke about the report presented by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. I think that was a most impressive speech. It showed that he was a man who understood not only his colleagues in this chamber but the problems of the rest of the community, especially those in the younger generation who are much misunderstood because their elders and those outside their sphere do not take the trouble to understand them. Senator Branson has served faithfully and well in this chamber on a good number of committees. He has contributed to fair debate in this chamber, sometimes quite strongly - sometimes a little over strong - but all the time he was shown, as he did the other day, that he desires to understand his fellow man and fellow woman. He wants to help them. He has great sympathy, which has transformed his own life and has been a very great quality to inject into this chamber. Senator Branson, for your contribution to this chamber we thank you. May I say we especially thank you for the great wisdom and insight that you injected into this chamber the other day. We will miss you, Senator Branson.

Senator Ridley has followed the same course as Senator Toohey throughout almost his whole political career. He, too, travelled through the Vehicle Builders Union into high office in the South Australian Branch of the Australian Labor Party. He was President of that Branch before he entered the Senate in 1958. I have always found him to be a quiet, steady worker with a logical and well ordered mind. In private conversation he has the quite remarkable gift of being able to get through to the kernel of an argument In the early 1950s he travelled to China with Albert Monk and Frank Chamberlain. It is a most unusual coincidence that he grew up with Jim Toohey, played football with him, became his life long friend and is now retiring at the same time as him.

Clem Ridley has played a significant role in both the industrial and political areas of the Labor movement and has served his colleagues and the people of South Australia very well indeed. I believe that he and Jim Toohey have other things in common in that they both like gardening. I hope that they will enjoy many more years of each other’s company after such a life- long connection. Senator Ridley has also been an extremely hard worker in this chamber. His record in committee work is good and his contributions to the debates in this chamber over the years have always been sensible. He is not inclined, as some of us are, to get a little angry during debates and perhaps to exaggerate. He has always been a speaker who has introduced moderation into the chamber. This has been his life. He has been a man of moderate views and he has induced moderation in others. Perhaps this was due to his Chinese experience of finding the middle way. I think that the Senate will very greatly miss Clem Ridley when, along with Jim Toohey, he leaves here. We hope that they will both be long able to enjoy themselves. I am sure they will. Clem, we will miss you very much.

Senator Dittmer is not here today. We are going to miss him also. Mr President, I think that you will miss him perhaps more than anyone else because he . sat behind you in the chamber in an awkward position in which he could not easily be seen by you, but over the years he certainly made himself heard. I think it has been a very great tribute to your forbearance and his persistence that the debates continued without more - critical situations arising than did in fact occur. Senator Dittmer was born in Queensland. He went to State schools, to the University of Queensland and to the University of Sydney. He is a Bachelor of Arts, a Bachelor of Science, a Bachelor of Medicine and a Bachelor of Surgery. He has been a specialist medical practitioner. That specialty was carried into 2 parliaments. He was a member of the Legislative Assembly in the Queensland Parliament and Deputy Leader of the State Labor Party there.” He became a senator for the State of Queensland in 1958. Senator Dittmer served in the Australian Imperial Force. His recreation is stated as reading, but I do not think that he had very much chance to indulge in that recreation in this chamber.

He was the doctor to Parliament for a long time. We have since had an injection in the House of Representatives of a number of other medical practitioners who have shared the burden, but for a very long time Felix Dittmer was serving us as honorary medical adviser. He saw his function as doctoring to the individual complaints of the members and doctoring to the ills of the nation by inclining you, Mr President, to his belief’ and also those Government Senators opposite who were not so inclined. We will miss him very much. He is a man of great intellectual ability. In this chamber he often displayed that ability.

He is a man who goes out of here with a monument. I recall that not long after I came into this chamber Senator Dittmer was persisting in calling for a centre of marine studies in Queensland. He persisted, as we sometimes do, in pushing Senator Gorton, who was then in charge of the Commonwealth Scientic and Industrial Research Organisation and later Minister of Education and Science. He received many rebuffs year after year, but finally the persistence of Senator Dittmer was rewarded and the Commonwealth established such a centre, small though it may be, in the State of Queensland. I think that was largely as a result of the persistence inside and outside this chamber- of Senator Dittmer; and I think the nation will have very great reason to thank him for that persistence.

Senator Lacey is another senator who will no longer be with us. I think it is a great tragedy that Senator Lacey served so short a time in the Senate. He served only one term. He had a lifelong association with both the political and industrial sections of the Labor movement. In the early days of the Australian Workers Union in Tasmania, Bert was a full-time organiser until he fell into difficulties in that Union, which has been characterised by certain disputations over the years. Later he became State Secretary of the Tasmanian Branch of the Australian Labor Party, in which position he served the Party tirelessly for many years. He was a dedicated man at a time when salaries for Party officials were not what they are today.

Bert is one of the most knowledgeable men on horse racing in Australia. My colleagues have told me of his enormous store of information about form and horse flesh. One of them recalls a day in Perth when he was betting simultaneously on 6 different race meetings. Since he entered the Senate in 1965, Bert has always been a dedicated and loyal Labor parliamentarian. He has concentrated on a sphere with which he was familiar - prisons, aid to prisoners, rehabilitation of prisoners and the reform of the prison system in Australia. He has not spoken very much in the chamber but he has done a great deal about these matters outside the chamber, and I think that there are many thousands of people, already and many to come who will be appreciative of his work. They may not be aware of what he has done but they will benefit from the considerable work which has been done by Senator Lacey in this field. He has many good friends in both chambers. We will miss his quiet presence in this chamber.

Mr President, having said this about our colleagues, I would like to say that we will surely miss you and the, others who are going. It will be a convulsion in the Senate to have so many go and to have so many replacements. It will be a changed Senate but it has been a good Senate. It was made a good Senate by the presence of those who were with us and who are now leaving. For my part, I say that I have enjoyed being here with all those who are going. We have gone through .a period of great and exciting change in this Senate, and each of you in your own way has contributed to it. The nation is indebted to you. I hope that you will enjoy the rewards of the duties which you have carried out so faithfully in the Senate.

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

– I should like to associate myself and my Country Party colleagues with the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). For a variety of reasons this occasion is sincerely regretted by all who have the honour to sit in this Senate. Today we are saying goodbye to 12 of our colleagues from both sides of this chamber who collectively have served this nation and this Senate with dedication and distinction. Five of our colleagues - Sir Ailster McMuIlin, the Honourable Dame Annabelle Rankin, the Honourable Malcolm Scott, Dame Ivy Wedgwood and Senator Bert Hendrickson - have each given more than 20 years of valuable service to this Senate and to the electors in the States they represent. Two other honourable senators - Senator Jim Toohey and Senator Pat Kennelly - just missed by a couple of years in being in that select band which contribute 2 decades of service to this Senate and to the people of Australia.

Out of curiosity I took the trouble to tally up the number of years given to the Parliament by the men and women whom we are farewelling today, and it conies to a staggering total of 198 years. Whichever way you look at this, it is a lot of experience for a nation to lose at the one time. It would be wrong to assume that the men who will replace the 12 senators to whom we are saying farewell today will not bring to this chamber equal talent. But I think that the 12 who are retiring may have had a harder road to hoe in the years that they have been in this Senate. More than half of them have served 18 years and more in the Senate and have helped to guide Australia through some of the most difficult periods in this country’s history, particularly in the immediate post-war period.

It is not my intention to mention every one of the honourable senators by name. We all know them well and are keenly aware of the fine work they have done in this chamber, both as honourable senators and on the various committees on which they served. However, I would like to mention one or two of them. Sir Alister McMullin, who has already been mentioned, is one man to whom this chamber is deeply indebted for the way in which he has conducted the affairs of the Senate and the distinction and honour he has given to the Presidency. I would like also to add my own personal tribute to you, Mr President. Having served under you as a Deputy President I know the courtesy and the help that you gave me during those difficult first days when I took over that position. 1 pay tribute also to our 2 lady retiring senators, Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin and Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood. Dame Annabelle has given 24 years in helping govern Australia while Dame Ivy has given 22 years. Their performance is all the more creditable in the light of them being women in an establishment which is occupied predominantly by men. They have acquitted themselves with great distinction.

Finally, I pay a tribute to Senator Tom Bull, one of our Country Party stalwarts, and a man of whom we have been very proud both for his performance in this Senate and for the way in which he has fought outside for the Country Party. To those people who are departing and to their families I and my Country Party colleagues offer our very best wishes for the future and our warmest regards.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– On behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party I wish to pay tribute of our respect and regard to you, Mr President, and to the other honourable senators who will be retiring from this Senate. 1 do so in the absence of Senator Gair who is incommoded with a very heavy throat infection. He has asked me to identify him personally with the remarks which I now propose to make. It is a sad occasion when so many honourable senators who have been our friends and colleagues for so long have, by choice or other circumstances, been put in the position now of severing their connection with this chamber. But nevertheless it is an occasion on which we can record the contributions they have made and the value they have been to this chamber and through it to the Australian nation. I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to speak even in these circumstances because of my long parliamentary associationthough somewhat interrupted - with the honourable senators who are retiring, with your good self, Mr President, with Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, with Senator Hendrickson and with Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood. They have all been in this chamber for many years and I was an early colleague of theirs.

I would just recall that you, Mr President, and I entered this chamber on the same day and made our maiden speeches on the same day way back in 1951. Over the years our parliamentary association has engendered a very deep regard - on my part for yourself and I would hope on your part for me. I know that I have been the recipient of many kindnesses at your hand, as has every other honourable senator in this chamber. I think it should be said that your presence, as does the presence of any significant figure, will always leave an indelible impression on this institution with which you have been associated for so long and so honourably. Your identification, particularly with the establishment of the parliamentary committee system, has had a strange impact on this institution in that it has brought members much closer together in a communion of interest and responsibility so that those who perhaps stood at arm’s length across the chamber found themselves in a closer association in which they understood each other’s point of view. I think the real value of the work of the Senate in more recent years has been to a great degree the consequence of that closer understanding and therefore the reciprocal regard and respect which honourable senators serving on these parliamentary committees have engendered one for another.

I know, Mr President, that you have, and always have had, a certain style as President. After all, the Standing Orders are always before you on your bench but I think it could be said that you have never regarded the Standing Orders as an iron discipline to be exercised over honourable senators. You have regarded them as guidelines to be generally observed, but no more than that. Therefore your attitude in the chair has been one of liberality and understanding. But I think it should be said it is not possible for such a style to be discharged unless it is accompanied by tremendous stature in the person who elects to act in that way and by tremendous regard and respect for the impartiality, integrity and understanding of the person who elects to use his office in that way. You have all those qualities, Mr President, and that is why your style of presidency has been an enormous success and has engendered the free flow and the fruitful discharge of business in this chamber. So to you, Mr President, I pay my own personal respects and the respects of my Party and I wish to you and Lady McMuIlin long years of happiness and contentment in the honourable retirement which is now your due.

I mention particularly Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin and pay her a tribute of personal regard and also a tribute of chivalry. We have had a long association in this place and I shall be very sorry when she no longer sits on the Government benches where she as Government Whip always provided midnight suppers for honourable senators whose tempers were frayed and were brought to any discharge of their duties only by the solicitude she always showed in the discharge of her duties. To other honourable senators I pay my tribute of respect. They have brought to this place the disciplines which they commanded in private life. They have liberally brought to the discharge of their duties the knowledge and skills which they acquired before they came here. The Parliament is richer for the fact that they have been with us. They have made their contribution. They go out with honour and distinction to the retirement which is now theirs.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Mr President, very briefly I want to be associated with all those remarks which have been made. I do not want to mention each honourable senator by name because i have known them all over a fair number of years. You, Sir, and Senator Bull have had the honour and the duty of being the chairmen of this place. i suppose you have been the mam chairman and the first among equals. Today we. pay that respect to you, and also similar respect to Senator Bull. We all know that at times you have made mistakes. A person who never made a mistake never made anything. We all know exactly those times when you made mistakes. They were when you were arguing with any one of us. We knew you were wrong because, as an old parliamentarian used to say when I first came here: ‘I may have my faults but I. am nevery wrong.* Throughout the years I have found that most parliamentarians are like that.

I shall miss the forty-niners, because i was one of them myself. Amongst them was Dame Ivy Wedgwood, who is retiring, and 2 of my colleagues from Western Australia. Senator Murphy forgot to mention that Senator Hendrickson ls prior to that period. The only honourable senators now here who have sat in Opposition and as members of a Federal government are Senator Hendrickson, Senator O’Byrne and Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. At the moment we have joint fathers of the House in Senator Hendrickson and Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. I ask honourable senators not to help me with what I am about to say because they will mess it up more than I will. One of those honourable senators is a female; so I suppose we could say that she is the mother of the House. But as she has her blessed . singleness, as I heard her explain on one occasion, this makes it even more complicated. I think all honourable senators know what I mean. The situation is that Senator O’Byrne will become the father of the House. It has taken him a long time to become the father of the House but that is his way. It took him a long time to become a father. I am sure he will carry out his new duties as father of the Senate as well as he carries out his duties to his 3 lovely children in Launceston. I wish all those honourable senators who are retiring good health. If one does not have health, then one does not have anything.

I appreciate very much people like Senator Jim Toohey and Senator Clem Ridley whom we have not seen the best of in this chamber because they have had a great deal of ill health - very serious ill health. We could have lost both of them. But they have been spared to work on. I have appreciated their advice very much, I think more than the advice I have received from the other honourable senators about whom I am speaking today. One reads about American senators and their advisers. If I could have those 2 gentlemen advising me on some of the things I have to do I would indeed be a very grateful man. As I said, I shall not go through the names of all the honourable senators who are retiring. In regard to clashes of debate both within the Labor Party and without I can only quote Henry Lawson who, in The Last Review’, wrote: ‘If I have spoke a word in anger then I’m sorry for it now.’

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– Very briefly I add my congratulations to the retiring honourable senators. I feel a tinge of genuine sadness at their retirement because we will not be seeing them again in the next session. I express my appreciation of the contribution which they have made in this Senate. They have been a most important part of the history of the Senate. They have participated in one-third of its history - a period covering 25 years. I remember quite well when Dame Annabelle Rankin, Sir Walter Cooper and Sir Neil O’sullivan were 3 of 36 honourable senators. It amazed me that they were able to handle the various duties that devolved upon them as the Opposition at that time. Mr President, down the years we have seen your predecessors, Senator Gordon Brown and Senator Mattner, occupying the President’s chair. Each of them has made a great contribution. In the same period we have seen 5 Prime Ministers: Mr Chifley, Sir Robert Menzies, the late Mr Harold Holt, Mr John Gorton and Mr William McMahon. This has been a very interesting phase in the history of the Senate.

We have seen the formation of the great Whips union, with Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, Senator Reg Wright, Senator Cotton, Senator Scott and Senator Withers. In this most important era in the history of the Senate we have seen the contributions of these retiring senators change the Senate from what was widely known as a rubber stamp into a viable and purposeful forum for the States and the Commonwealth. The Senate is making a tremendous contribution in creating a great image and great status for this part of the Parliament. I place on record my great appreciation for the services rendered by all those retiring senators. I wish them a happy and healthy retirement with their loved ones at home.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I associate myself with the remarks that have been made today in relation to the retiring senators. For you, Mr President, I wish a long and happy retirement, as I wish for every senator who is retiring from this House. I make particular reference to the 3 retiring Victorian senators because they have given very many years of service in public life in both the State and Federal Parliaments. I express my sincere hope that Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood will have a very long and happy retirement, because she has thoroughly earned and deserved it. She has been most active over the years, particularly with the problems of the sick and the aged. She has left monuments in this place to her efforts in that regard.

I want to make some very personal references to Senator Kennelly and Senator Bert Hendrickson who are retiring, because I have been closely associated with them in the Party and in this House for a period of 25 years. We have had our ups and downs. Pat and I have not always agreed on political issues but we have never lost the personal friendship that I hope will remain between us for the rest of our lives. Bert Hendrickson was a tower of strength to me in the movement before I came into this House, as was Pat in the organisational work I carried out on behalf of the Party. As a matter of interest, the other day I was working out the turnover of the Senate. I have been here a mere 4) years. In that time 30 senators have left this chamber - half the House in 4i years. We have had a remarkably high turnover in the last few years for various reasons, through the untimely death of some active and young senators, and through the unfortunate defeat of some at the polls, but fortunately most have retired after long and loyal service in this House. I hope that all the senators who are now retiring will have the long and happy period of life that they deserve and will never forget their associations with .honourable senators on both sides of the House who remain here.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I think that it is not appropriate to .extend this valedictory occasion unduly, but I believe that it would be out of keeping with the traditions of Parliament if, on an occasion when 12 of our colleagues are passing as individuals from the chamber, we did not notice that at their advent the voice of Parliament in this place was sometimes heard but scarcely ever with effect. It is no accident that today this is the only place where the voice df Parliament is being heard in this Australian Capital Territory, and that today the voice of this chamber is often heard with great effect. This achievement should be encouragement to those who go from us. I do not wish to recite by name all those who are: going but I will permit myself, and I know I shall have the goodwill of those I do not mention, to say two or three things about some.

To you, Mr President, with your record term and your untiring and unswerving endeavour to create the perspective of this Parliament in our kindred parliaments overseas through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the InterParliamentary Union, may I say that we are greatly in your debt. To my mind your second contribution is your dedication to the formulation of the concept that should guide us in building a new and permanent parliament house. I believe you have never allowed yourself to forget that before another century is out it will be the home of our outstanding democracy, the only democracy of note in the southern hemisphere. Therefore, the home that should be provided for the representatives of the people of Australia is of great importance as an expression of our democratic purpose. Thirdly, as has been commented on and as I wish to acknowledge, there have been your presence and your influence in the formulation and development of the committee system of this Parliament, a cause that has been the product of a great many over a long time and, although not yet to perfection, is already bearing fruit.

May I mention Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin who has given the longest period of service on the Government side of the Senate chamber. She came to this chamber in her own distinction in 1946 having made a remarkable impression not only in Queensland but also throughout Australia as a leading representative of our Party. She followed the distinguished career of her’ father who was both a soldier and a statesman and who left an indelible mark on the history of Queensland. Her contributions in this chamber over the period to which I have referred have been most impressive from many points of view.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood has the distinction in our Party of being one of those who attended .and made a remarkable contribution to the debates at the original conference, in Canberra when the Party was formed in 1945. From then until now her unswerving and earnest dedication to her work has been acknowledged by everyone, finding expression particularly in her membership of the Public Accounts Committee and her chairmanship of 2 committees of the Senate. In that respect we all know of her great contribution to general welfare work, to health and to assistance to handicapped and disabled persons. Of course, it has been always a great source of affection for us to see her accompanied by her husband, so distinguished in the First World War as to give cause for pride to them and to us.

Lastly, may 1 just mention with great appreciation the phrase of Senator Murphy when he referred to Senator Tom Bull as the exemplar of all the rural virtues. He should have been called John Bull. I may be permitted, without any endeavour to revive a controversy, to recall his achievements for the ‘No’ case during the last referendum on the Constitution. I believe it had a real affect upon the history of this Senate. I recall those achievements - I know that some will say, permitting myself to use the words of old Will . Shakespeare, with advantages - as being of great stimulation to me. May I say that I endorse everything that has been said this morning. It has been a glowing satisfaction to me to hear the references that have been made to the retiring senators. Of course, I join especially, in the wishes of good will, affection and friendship that will continue, throughout their retirement, which I hope they will be spared to enjoy for a long time.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– I too would like to join in what has been said regarding yourself, Mr President, and the rest of our colleagues who are retiring from the Senate. To you, Sir, I would like to record my appreciation of the advice and assistance that you have given me over the years I have been in this chamber. I appreciate it deeply. I would like to mention that after 30th June I will be the only surviving member of the Australian Labor Party team that was elected in 1958 under the team leadership of Senator Jim Toohey. 1 feel that I must show my appreciation to Senator Jim Toohey, because I feel that it was because of his popularity, the high esteem in which he was held in South Australia and the workthat he had done for the Australian Labor Party that enabled me to be elected as the fifth candidate at that election. 1 thank Senator Jim Toohey for all the assistance and the help that he has given me from that time onwards.

I would like to record my appreciation to Senator Clem Ridley also. These 2 men have been of great assistance to me. The Senate will miss not only Senator Jim Toohey and Senator Clem Ridley but also the other senators who are retiring, including yourself, Sir, on 30th June. I wish each and every one of you the best of health and I hope that your retirement will be a happy one and that at times you will come back and see the friends you have made while you have been members of the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators, it was a touching experience to walk to read prayers for the last time in this honoured chamber and to be greeted as you have greeted me. It is something that I shall always remember. I want to place that on record. I want to say to the leaders and the other senators who have spoken how much I have appreciated their kind references to me. I will not be very long in my remarks, but there are just a few things

I should like to say. My relationship with the Opposition has been a very pleasing one. Of course, in that I include my friends in the Australian Democratic Labor Party. It has been a very interesting association. It only goes to show what happens in a parliamentary chamber which is fairly evenly divided and where compromise is a determining factor in many of the attitudes that one adopts. It is not a question of appeasement but of compromise. All through the years the Opposition has been very kind to me. Of course, it has taken me up on points of order and things like that. Sometimes I have won; sometimes it has won. But that does not matter, because after it is all over there is no ill feeling. I owe a lot to the ‘ Opposition. Nobody could have served a useful purpose in this Chair without the co-operation and assistance of the Opposition. I will always remember my colleagues on the Government side with great affection because of the close association I have had with them.

I want to turn now to the staff who have been a tremendous help all through the years. I refer to all the staff of Parliament House. I have said before and I repeat now that it is a great pleasure to be able to say that never at any time have I felt a shadow of doubt about the integrity of any member of the staff of this House. That is a big thing to say. They are loyal people who are devoted to the cause. I have in mind particularly my Clerk, who works very closely with me, and the others associated with him. The people who serve in the dining room, work in the kitchen or anywhere else in the building have been completely loyal to the institution of Parliament.

I think it is correct to say that the Senate has come a fair way. It would be natural that it would as progression takes place in a parliament. As we have seen what has been needed, we have never been slow to adopt methods that are new and worthwhile. I think the whole face of Parliament must change considerably in the years ahead, because what has been satisfactory to people of our age may not prove equally satisfactory to the younger people who will be taking their places in this Parliament and in the general life of Australia. It is our duty and responsibility to look forward all the time, to anticipate what will be required rather than to have these things forced upon us as they probably would be.

The work of the Senate has improved very consideraby. The quality of speeches has been raised a great deal. I attribute a good deal of the improvement to the work of the Parliamentary Library. Honourable senators will remember that when it started off it was not used very much. It is now used extensively. The work of the Library staff has been reflected in many contributions to debates that you gentlemen have made and I commend its service to you because of its worth and the great help it will be to the cause of Parliament.

I was rather pleased to hear Senator Wright refer to the new and permanent parliament house. It is a great regret to me that the project has not been taken further forward. I appreciate that the question of costs enters into such considerations and it always will. Senator Wright quite rightly referred to this great democracy in the Southern Hemisphere. What are we doing? We show our admiration for democracy by working in a temporary building. I am not saying it is not a good building. It is, but it is a temporary building. We cannot blame people who visit us and say: ‘These people are not that enthusiastic about democracy because they have not built a permanent place to work in’. It will take a long time to build a new parliament house. Many things should be done. I think the report on the proposed new and permanent parliament house is quite useful and I hope that in the years immediately ahead somebody will take up the report and proceed with the National Capital Development Commission to plan a new building. I leave aside the question of where it is to be built. So far as I am concerned, that does not come into it. I think that wherever the new parliament house is built, basically the report will be the brief for the architects. My advice is that the work should be carried out fairly soon.

I thank you all very much. It has been a wonderful experience. A period of 20 years is a fair stretch out of one’s life, but it has been rewarding. It has not been a dull period. In it there has been plenty of light and shade and a great deal of activity. We have seen Australia go from one strength to another. The improvement in the 20 years that I have been here is unbelievable when one thinks back to what we were doing 20 years ago and compare that with Australia today. I have no doubt at all that the balance in politics will always be maintained in Australia because commonsense will prevail. Regardless of whether the present Government or the present Opposition is in power there is a strong current of loyalty to the country in which we live. Commonsense will continue to prevail in Parliament. I cannot imagine anything terribly foolish being done by Parliament because there are always balances and counter-balances. We will always have a good parliament in Australia.

I pay a great tribute to the Senate. I have great respect for it. We have come a long way in our committee work and we all appreciate its value. As to my small contribution, I have always tried to interpret Standing Orders with a good deal of liberality. I do not think that in a House such as this one can try to nail things down hard and fast. It must always be remembered that what is not allowed at, say, 11 o’clock in the morning may be allowed at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. It all depends on the tone and the temperament of the chamber.

I pay a tribute to these gentlemen of Hansard who have consistently through the years written the reports of the Senate with great integrity and, I think, with great effectiveness. They have tidied up the speeches considerably and we, and posterity, owe a great deal to them for having presented a true and faithful record of the work of this Senate. I say to all honourable senators: Thank you very much. I have enjoyed being with you. It has been good fun. I will miss you when I go away from you.

Senator BULL:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I should like to thank those honourable senators who have spoken this morning for the references which they have made to me during my sojourn in the Senate. I had hoped that somebody else would have risen following you, Sir. I acknowledge that I have been allowed to rise to speak because I hold the office of Chairman of Committees. Having regard to the longer terms of office of other honourable senators and the tremendous contributions which they have made, I thought that some other honourable senators would have risen to speak after you, Sir. May I be forgiven for rising at this stage, acknowledging the greater contributions which other honourable senators have made.

I have always felt honoured and pleased to represent the Australian Country Party in the Senate, and I shall always remember with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction this period in my life when I have been a member of the Senate. I should like to thank you particularly, Mr President, for the encouragement and advice which you have given to me at all times. It has proved valuable. I am sure that other Chairmen of Committees have had this same experience. I join with other honourable senators who have spoken this morning about your contribution to the Senate as the Presiding Officer. I know that we all regard you with a great deal of affection and acknowledge the contribution which you have made as the Presiding Officer in the Senate.

I should like to refer briefly to the great changes which have taken place in the Senate. I refer to the committee system. Whilst I do not wish to enlarge on this question, I think that history will prove that this has been a most important period in the history of the Senate. I believe that the Senate will play a still more important role in the institution of the Parliament under our bicameral system. I know that we work under a party system, but despite the different political philosophies which we might have, I like to feel - I am sure it exists - that there is a great deal of good will between those who sit on the right of the Chair and those who sit on the left of the Chair. I leave this chamber thinking and believing that this is so. I hope that it is so. I am sure that this state of affairs has been brought about, to a large degree, by the establishment of committees on which we work together as a small group and get to know and appreciate the human qualities of members of the Parliament.

Reference has been made to the rural industries. It is one of my great regrets that I leave the Senate at a time when the rural industries are facing unprecedented difficulties, which are acknowledged by the Parliament, and I trust that ways and means will be found to assist them in the crisis that confronts them today. But knowing the men on the land, the great incentive that they have and their great determination to overcome difficulties, I am sure that in the future we shall see once again our rural industries making a contribution to the Australian economy.

I should like also to thank all honourable senators for their friendship, particularly those honourable senators who sit on my left. I also thank the officers of the Senate. I acknowledge the part which they have played, and I thank them and other members of the staff in the Senate. I trust that the Senate will continue to be a very effective chamber, upholding the very best traditions of the institution of Parliament In my judgment, this is far more important than the party system to which each of us contributes to the best of his ability. We should remember that the public outside watches us, as a democratic institution, very carefully. I hope that we shall be worthy of the trust that the public puts in us and that we shall be able to uphold the democratic system which governs our country at present. To my mind, the alternative is something which we cannot think about and which we should hope would never come about.

I thank all honourable senators for the friendship that they have given to me. I wish them well, whether they remain as senators or whether, like myself, they are leaving. I hope that, on the occasions when I return, I shall have the pleasure of meeting at least most of them. I thank you for your kind comments.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

- Mr President, I have been given a very pleasing duty. My duty is, on behalf of Senator Toohey, Senator Ridley, my colleague of many years in Victoria Senator Hendrickson and Senator Lacey, to join in thanking honourable senators for their very kind words. I was sitting here listening to those words and I wondered whether, if they thought so much of me, I had better withdraw my intention of retiring. I did not know what to do. I thought: ‘If they like me so much, why should I go?’ But knowing the position as it stands, that is out. Speaking for myself at the moment, I feel that it is about time that I did get out. There comes a time in a person’s life when he has had enough. Today my health is immeasurably better than it was 2 or 3 years ago. Even so. at my age, I believe that it is time to say: ‘Enough. If there is anything you have left undone, try to get it done by somebody else.’

I thank you, Mr President, for your very great kindness not only to me but also to those who have given me the honour to speak for them. You have always been kind. You were tremendously kind to me when I first became a senator. I think that before I first spoke in this chamber I went to you and asked you, for certain reasons, whether I could address you as Mr Chairman. There was a personal reason involved. At that time certain words were fairly hard to say. You readily agreed. I thank the officers in the chamber. Like you, Mr President, I want to thank those outside the chamber. I have had very many happy minutes with them. Some of them are barbarians as far as sport is concerned. They do not know what the proper winter sport is, and one has to be sorry for them. Apart from that, I have been tolerant of them. They have been most kind to me.

We hope that the time is not far distant when we on this side and our successors will be on the other side. I have always thought that in politics there is only one place to be, and that is on the right of the chair. One is wasting a lot of time and saying a lot of words that no-one reads if one is on this side of the chamber. As you, Mr President, said in your few words in which you thanked honourable senators, it is true that there are no better speech makers than the Hansard writers. That has been my experience in over 32 years in politics. If I could make a speech as good as the ones they write, I think I would be pretty good. I might have said hard things in debates, but that is what makes the show go. It is not a game of kiss in the ring. One believes in principles and if one believes in principles one should express them with as much force as possible. One attempts to impress one’s opponents; but one never changes a vote. So, on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues I thank honourable senators for the nice words they have said. I wish all pf you - not only those who are leaving the Senate but also those who are staying here - the greatest asset a man can have, that is, health. When one has that one can do a great deal.

Let me conclude on a personal note. I have enjoyed the lifetime I have had. When one has been a member of a political party for more than 56 years, as I will have been next August, one becomes part of that party. I never wanted to come to Canberra. I could have come earlier than I did - possibly in my heyday in the Labor Party - but I did not want to come. A set of circumstances which some people in this chamber may recall forced my entry into the Commonwealth Parliament. But that is all part of the game. I defeated many, and some defeated me. I wish to thank one person who is not here; that is my wife. Without her I could not have done what I have done. Very few men succeed in life without the help and encouragement of a partner in life such as I had. I thank her for it. I sincerely thank my colleagues for their great kindness in asking me to speak for them, On their behalf and my own, Mr President and fellows senators, I say: ‘Thank you’.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Queensland

– Almost 25 years ago now I made my first speech in this chamber from the position in which Senator Wilkinson sits today. I think I am more terrified today than I was then - and that is saying a lot. I thank all those who have spoken today for the very kind things they have said. I thank Senator Wright especially for his reference to my late father. All these things I appreciate tremendously. I appreciate, Mr President, the guidance you have given us on all the occasions on which we have wanted it. I express my appreciation to the Clerks of the Senate and the members of the staff, including the members of the Hansard staff who very often put the word better by pen than we can by mouth.

Since I came here there have been many changes. When I came I was one of 3 senators in Opposition, as has been recorded. Those who were here in government in those days will remember that we battled very hard. The going was very hard, but we made friends with each other and with those who were in government. We learnt to understand what Parliament meant; that people could argue and disagree inside and be firm friends outside. This is tremendously important. As Senator Byrne said, during the time I have been here there have been 5 different Prime Ministers. There have also been several Leaders on both sides of the Senate. I pay tribute to them all. I pay tribute to our present Leader, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. There has never been a better

Leader of the Government in the Senate. He has understood what people feel. He has created team work which I believe all of us consider has been of benefit to the Senate and those who have served in it.

I appreciate what the people of Queensland did in sending me to serve my country in this place. I hope that today there are people whose lives may be a little better or a little happier because of what 1 have been able to do to help them along the road of life. I think that would be the wish of all of us who have served here. To all my- colleagues who are leaving the Senate I extend my best wishes. They have all contributed, a great deal. To those who are staying behind I say: ‘I wish you good health and good fortune’. I thank you all, whether you are on this side of the chamber or the other, for what you have contributed to make my life in this place happy and hard working, and at times even difficult. In the argument of debate and in the searching inquiry of your questions you have helped me to contribute more. I thank you for that. But above all else, I thank you foi* your friendship. Wherever we are from this day forward, whatever our tasks may be, you and I who have served together in this chamber will be linked by memory. We will not forget each other, and the link will be strengthened, I believe, by the friendships which we have formed. Thank you very much for all that you have said, and thank you for your assistance and your friendship.

Senator Malcolm Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Mr President, Mr Leader, Leader of the Opposition, Senator DrakeBrockman, Senator Byrne and other honourable senators who have spoken to say farewell to the 12 retiring senators who are departing from this chamber as from 30th June this year: I should like personally to thank you all for the very nice words you have spoken. One thing which is sure when one comes into the Senate is that there will be an end to it at some time. That end has come on this occasion for 12 of us. Many of us have been able to survive in this place for periods of up to 22 years. In the time that I have been here it has been very heartening to see the growth that has taken place in Australia and the improvement of conditions for all people who live in this country. I wish those who take our places in this chamber every success. I believe that a foundation has been laid for the Senate which will enable it, despite the feelings, of some people a few years ago that it would be better out of existence altogether, to continue for a very long time. I think it will continue for as long as » we have a democratic Parliament in Australia, and I hope that will be forever.

I thank the Leader : of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) for his reference to the hard times that I had as Minister for Customs and Exercise. When one comes into this place one does what one believes is right. I have always done that, although there was one occasion’ when some people thought that what I did might not have been right. At that time. I was rather hurt when someone in this place accused me of certain things. When I- spoke to that person later and explained the situation to him he was. very sorry for what he had said. I thank you for what you have said, Senator Murphy.

You Mr President, have spoken about the good fellowship between the parties ^ which occupy places in this chamber. I agree that we should endeavour to achieve that good fellowship because it is very important. You, Sir, have been very kind to us during your term as President of the Senate. You have looked after all of us. There have been occasions in this place when things have been said by me and others which probably would have been better left unsaid, but while we are in it we have to be prepared to take it as well as to give it. I have always endeavoured to do this and I have always admired you, Mr President, for the. way that you have controlled proceedings.

I go out of this chamber knowing that the Senate has improved tremendously since we became senators 20 years ago. I look forward to coming back here with my good wife on future occasions to renew friendships. I look forward to those occasions when I can meet you and discuss with you the problems of this nation, as we have discussed” them on so many occasions while I have been a senator in this place.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– I should like to thank all those who have spoken today- the Leaders of the different parties and other honourable senators - for their references to myself and also to all of my colleagues who are leaving the Senate. 1 should like, Mr President, to add to what has been said about yourself because I believe that not only have you established a record in this Parliament and one that history may never better but also you have established for yourself overseas a reputation that has not only enhanced your personal reputation but has also done much for Australia. I have had the great privilege of travelling with you and I know how highly you are regarded in parliaments in other countries and amongst people who speak with authority for those countries.

Looking back over 211 years I feel that my time in the Senate has been a magnificent opportunity for service. All of those who have been privileged to have such an opportunity will always remember it with gratitude. It has also been an occasion for us to establish firm personal friendships with people whose political opinions may be quite different from our own. One of the things which has impressed me over the years, and it was referred to by Senator Bull, is the amount of goodwill which exists between members of the Parliament, no matter on which side of the chamber they sit. This is as it should be because, after all, this Parliament serves Australia and the people of Australia and as long as we remember that I feel that the destiny of the Australian people will always be safe.

In adding to the thanks that go to you, Mr President, to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and to all those with whom I have been associated politically, I should like to thank the staff because, as I mentioned the other night at a small party in this building, whilst politicians, parliamentarians or whatever we might like to call them, may come and go, the Public Service and the staff of Parliament House go on. Therefore, it is essential in the interests of the nation that we have men and women of integrity, dedicated to their jobs, and I believe that we have such people in this Senate. I should also like to thank members of the Hansard Staff because, like every other member of the Parliament, I have benefited greatly from their expertise. I hope that they will go on reporting future members with the same degree of kindness and clarity with which they have reported those who are retiring.

In conclusion, I should like to thank Senator Reg Wright for his reference to my spouse. I believe that no parliamentarian is able to do his or her work properly without the support of either a good woman or a good man and I have been extremely fortunate in that I, like Senator Kennelly, have had the devoted support of my spouse during my years in the Parliament. I do not regard this as a farewell at all. I feel that those of us who are going out will hope to continue our work for Australia and for the people of Australia in one way or another. We will not be sitting in these seats, we will not be making speeches in this place, but I hope that our interest in the work we have done and any of the benefits that may flow in the future from this place always will be our concern so that, as Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin said, we will be linked with you always in our wishes for the people as a whole. I thank both the retiring senators and those who will be carrying on here, and hope that the friendships we have made will last eternally. Thank you very much.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– Mr President and all honourable senators who have spoken about us, I thank you. I want to express my thanks to all my colleagues throughout the chamber for the friendships I have made while I have been here. I have believed always that life is far too short for us to make all the friends that we want to make. If we believe that, we must believe also that life is far too short to waste time in making an enemy. I hope I leave here without having made an enemy. My thanks go to all the staff who have been so courteous and friendly. They have been willing to help at all times. They have infinite patience which at times must have been pretty sorely tried. All of us are only transients in this chamber - there comes a time when each one has to leave - but I believe the staff is a permanent institution, and that is a good thing. I think that the internal management of this place is in very good and capable hands.

It has been a great privilege to work with all of you, but I want to pay a special tribute to my Leader, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. I have fought alongside him both in war and in peace. Sir Kenneth has been Leader of the Government in the Senate in the most difficult times - far more difficult, I believe, than those of the 6 or 7 other leaders under whom I have served. Sir Kenneth has had to lead without a majority, and that is a mighty difficult thing to do. I believe he has led successfully because he possesses two virtues: The first is that he is a complete gentleman; the second is that he is completely trustworthy. The highest thing you can say about a political colleague is that he is a gentleman whom you can trust. I will miss you all very much on the political level, but I hope to see you quite often in this place as friends. To all of you whom I leave here to carry on the work of Parliament in this institution I say: Remember always that you will never go far wrong, both in legislating and in the treatment of your colleagues, if you stick to the old axiom that has stood the test of time: Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. Thank you for what you have said.

page 1725

SOCIAL SERVICES

Petition

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourablethe President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of Wilfred Williams of the Lions Club of Richmond in the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That for some time past the attention of the said Club has been directed to the needs of benevolent institutions for additional accommodation and equipment to cater for the numbers of destitute or near-destitute men, women and children of all age groups.

That the capital cost of welfare works is higher than the amounts which can be raised by community service organisations or local government authorities on a voluntary basis.

That there are increases in costs of maintenance in children’s and babies’ homes in Victoria, the shortfall last year being approximately $500,000, which cost is aggravated by inflation and continuous rises in the cost of living.

That large quantities of money, running into approximately $500m per annum, are being levied from taxpayers by the Commonwealth Government by way of obtaining a surplus on domestic account.

That appropriation for the above purposes could be made from the above surplus on domestic account. Alternatively, that the various tax. deductions and other tax advantages granted to dealers and speculators in residential vacant land and existing housing (i.e. more than one year old) under the Income Tax Assessment Act could, in the public interest, be withdrawn, which would increase the tax revenue and could be appropriated to a Treasury Trust Fund.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that the Senate will initiate or concur in appropriate legislation for the purpose of (1) making grants suitable to the financial needs of benevolent institutions for additional accommodation and equipment of a capital nature and the estimated costs of same, in particular for destitute or neardestitute men, women and children of all age groups, and for those in a non-pensionable age category and (2) enabling financial grants of a supplementary nature to be made for maintenance costs of an urgent nature in such institutions.

And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 1725

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

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

That the amendment of the Export (Fresh Fruit) Regulations, as contained in StatutoryRules 1971 No. 35 and made under the Customs Act 1901- 1968 and the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905-1966, be disallowed.

Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the notice of motionI have just given.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WOOD:

– I wish to inform the Senate that the notice of motion I have just given is a holding notice in order that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which is concerned about these regulations, may further pursue its investigations. The Committee has on two occasions had discussions with officers of the department concerned and it may well be that the regulations can be amended in such a way that the Committee’s objections will be overcome before the Senate reassembles in August.

page 1725

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has anything happened in the last day or so towards a normalisation of relations between Australia and the People’s Republic of China? There have been reports of a Cabinet discussion of the matter and the adoption of a new attitude.

Will the Senate be told the substance and effect of the changes, if any, that have occurred in the attitude of the Government?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator is asking me to comment upon what he assumes to have been discussed in Cabinet. He would know as well as I do that it is unreal to expect me to do that. It is true, as reported in this morning’s Press, that the Prime Minister has made a statement concerning the willingness on the part of the Australian Government to have dialogue - I think this was the word that was used - with the People’s Republic of China. I do not know whether I can do any more at this point of time than repeat what the Prime Minister has said. There are also other references in the Press which might predicate some changes in other fields as well as in Government. But apart from that, I cannot contribute anything to the honourable senator’s request for further information at this time, particularly when it relates to policy, which it is not permissible to deal with at question time in any event.

page 1726

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOSPITAL

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware of a report in this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’ that the resignation of Dr Ford, the Director of Rehabilitation in the Canberra Hospital, has been announced? Is he aware also that in presenting his resignation Dr Ford has expressed his frustrations with the many difficulties he has experienced in directing that important part of the Hospital’s work? What is being done to prevent further resignations in this very important section of hospital work? Has expenditure in this department been cut down due to the Government’s economy drive, and what other activities in this Hospital have been cut for the same reason?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware of the fact that Dr Ford has resigned from his position at the Canberra Hospital, and I am also aware that he has resigned in order to take up a position which appeals to him in the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. I regret, as I know the Hospital Board regrets, that Dr Ford has decided to leave Canberra and to go to Melbourne. I think Dr Ford has made a name for him self in Canberra, and he has expressed himself on many occasions about what he would like to see in the Hospital and the greater facilities that he would like to have available. There are practical difficulties, I would think, in all areas of hospitalisation and part of the progress which is occurring is due to the impetus and initiatives which are fostered and developed by people like Dr Ford. As to the balance of the honourable senator’s question, as far as I am aware there is no specific cut due to the Government’s recent economy drive, but I would ask her to put that aspect of her question on notice. I undertake that an inquiry will be made and she will get an answer in due course.

page 1726

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The Australian Government has noted (he rapid succession of events which suggest a marked development in the willingness of the People’s Republic of China to deal with the rest of the world. We have already stated that it is our long term objective to normalise our bilateral relations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China and we have further decided that we will now explore the possibilities of establishing a dialogue with the Government of the People’s Republic.

We must bear in mind that a major obstacle to the development of formal relations with the People’s Republic of China has been that Government’s support for insurgency and subversion in countries of the region with which we as an Australian Government have close relations and mutual strategic interests. For those reasons we will proceed with caution and we will want to ensure that when any steps are taken there will be some response of a reasonable kind from Peking. Whatever we do will be without prejudice to the rights of the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Subject to security requirements there are, of course, no restrictions on the rights of Australians to visit the People’s Republic of China.

page 1726

QUESTION

JERVIS BAY STEEL WORKS

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry whether any inquiry has been made by any agency of the Commonwealth into the likely costs and benefits to Australia, as distinct from the Armco company, of the Jervis Bay steel works proposal. If not, will he have such an inquiry instituted as a matter of urgency?

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

– Like the honourable senator, I have been reading a bit lately in the newspapers about this project. As I understand it - this is not information I have received from the Department but from my own knowledge of the affair as it affects New South Wales - there was an organised arrangement to develop this project in association with some of the resources of New South Wales. I do not know a great deal more about the matter than that at the present stage, but the proposal appears to have reached a situation at which there does not seem to be much prospect of it going on. Accordingly, I will ask the Minister for Trade and Industry for information about it. I do. not think I can do anything more than that. I may be able to find out something in New South Wales when the Parliament adjourns.

page 1727

QUESTION

WINE SALES

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is the Minister aware of the deeply disturbing decrease in wholesale wine sales since the imposition of a 50c per gallon excise charge? Has his attention been drawn to the statement made yesterday by Mr Jeffery Penfold Hyland, President of the Federal Wine and Brandy Producers Council, that the decrease is an effective 20 per cent, equivalent to an annual figure of nearly 5 million gallons? As repercussions of this dismaying decrease must inevitably have a direct bearing on the grape growing industry, particularly in the heavy producing irrigation vineyard areas, will special credence be given to the rising problems of growers in regard to outlets for their grapes when the interdepartmental committee reports on the effects of the excise and a decision is made on the continuation or abolition of the charge?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am not sure whether the reference by Mr Penfold Hyland to a decrease of 20 per cent relates to a decrease in sales for example since June of last year or a 20 per cent decrease of the volume which might have been expected had things gone on as they were going at that time. I must refer this question to the Minister because the interdepartmental committee is at work on this and I am sure that it will gather all the facts. I am also sure that any information which any honourable senator has bearing on this matter, if sent to me, will be taken into account by that committee.

page 1727

QUESTION

LA TROBE UNIVERSITY

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, and Science. Has the Government’s attention been drawn to a decision of the La Trobe University Students’ Representative Council at a general meeting last Wednesday to donate 2 amounts of $100 to moratoriums and a sum qf $200 to the National Liberation Front in Vietnam? Is the Government aware that the Council’s funds are built up from a compulsory levy called a ‘General Service Fee’ to which university authorities apportion amounts of government money made available to the students through State and Federal government scholarships for student education? What, steps does this Government propose to take to stop government money being so channelled into subversive activities designed not only to kill Australian soldiers whom the Government has committed in Vietnam but also to promote the NLF aggression in Laos, Cambodia and Thailand?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– My attention has not been directed to the decision of the Students’ Representative Council to make the donations referred to. I am aware that the funds of most of those student bodies come from compulsory levies. The honourable senator will be aware of the legislation that was passed in this Parliament some 3 years ago specifically directed not to student bodies but to bodies in general in Australia to prevent them transmitting funds to enemy factions. The Students’ Representative Council, at the La Trobe University is a matter for the University authorities who are primarily responsible to the State Government. We come into the university situation only in supplementing finance and maintaining the Australian Universities Commission to govern general policy on education. I point out these facts to the honourable senator so that our responsibility will be put into perspective.

However, I am grateful for having my attention drawn to this matter and I shall immediately communicate it to the Minister to see what action is proper under Commonwealth legislation.

page 1728

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the atmosphere of euphoria in the Press and in another quarter surrounding this matter can the Minister advise the Senate as to the identity and the authority of the body extending the recently publicised invitation to the Australian Labor Party for a delegation to visit Red China?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I understand that the response came from a body called the Chinese People’s Institute for Foreign Affairs. In 1 962 it was described as a mass organisation which, as I understand it, is a semi-official body not part pf the formal structure of the Government of the People’s Republic of China. It is used as a convenient vehicle for communications to non-government bodies in foreign countries with which the Government of the People’s Republic of China wishes to communicate.

page 1728

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Health, relates to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse which was tabled in the Senate last week. Does the Minister agree that it is terribly important to ensure that this report is widely read and fully comprehended and that its findings are disseminated throughout all sections of the Australian community? As the matter of education and medical treatment is now one which, I believe, largely concerns the Minister’s Department and since this subject is very special and its. implications are far reaching, will he give earnest consideration to establishing a special public relations section within the Department of Health to ensure that the whole question is kept actively before all sections and levels of Australian society thereby ensuring that the benefits of the Committee’s findings and its recommendations can be employed to the maximum extent possible for the good of the people of this country?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am sure that all honourable senators will be conscious of the fact that such have been the pressures upon us in varying ways in the last few days that time to read and fully to digest such valuable documents as the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse has not been available. I have, glanced at the report and I sense that there is a tremendous amount of valuable material in it. I propose to examine it closely after the Senate has risen and I expect that 1 will have a report from my Department as to ways in which the Department can assist in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. I think all I can say to the honourable senator is that the most complete and intensive examination will be made of the recommendations of the Committee.

page 1728

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

–

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Has the Minister seen a statement by the General Manager of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations that the collective opinion of the television industry is that no Australian quota should be imposed which cannot reasonably be complied with by every station and that doubts are held by several licensees as to the wisdom of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s declaring an increase in the quota of dramatic programmes as from next September? Will the Minister agree that the television industry consists of not only stationlicensees and executives but also producers, artists, writers, technicians and all people employed within the industry and that the statement so expressed by the General Manager of FACTS is not in fact the collective opinion of the industry? Did the Broadcasting Control Board, in determining the new standards, take into account the viewpoints of all sections of the industry and the public interest and after considering all matters involved arrive aL what it considered to be a fair and reasonable basis for increasing Australian dramatic standards? Finally, bearing in mind the repeated find?ings of the Control Board in surveys that it has conducted, that is that a majority of Australians want greater Australian programming, will the Minister assure the

Senate that the new standards will be rigidly enforced?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 wish I could give adequate answers to all the questions which have been asked by the honourable senator. I feel that in order that a comprehensive and balanced answer can be given to all those questions they should be put on the notice paper. The Postmaster-General can then give to them the consideration which they require.

page 1729

QUESTION

FAT LAMB MARKET

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Because of the long and continuous glut in the fat lamb market in Australia which has compelled producers to accept cost of production or less over the past several seasons can the Minister say whether every export avenue has been investigated as a means of draining off the surplus in Australia? If not, will the Government bring fresh energy to the task of finding new outlets? Is the search for new outlets a function of the Australian Meat Board or some other organisation? If it is, will the Government confer with whoever is responsible with a view to positive action?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I cannot assure the honourable senator that all avenues have been explored but I would be fairly firm in my belief that very close scrutiny has been made of the possible markets available. The honourable senator will recall that recently representatives of the meat trade in America and representatives of the Australian Meat Board and the New Zealand Meat Board met in New Zealand to discuss the promotion of lamb in those 3 countries. A committee was formed and a decision was taken that money should be made available for the promotion of lamb in America and that a promotion campaign directed at the trade and the consuming public should be carried out. I understand that that promotion campaign is to begin in about June of this year. Other than that I cannot give the honourable senator any information. However, I assure him that I will bring the question he has asked before the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 1729

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. Has the honourable senator seen the report in a newspaper this morning that the Premier of New South Wales stated that he personally deplored what he described as the unwarranted inquisition type of inquiry made of Mr Cooper of the Sydney Stock Exchange. by the Committee? I ask also whether he would care to explain the circumstances and what the warrant was for the inquiry which was made of Mr Cooper on 31st March?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– Yes, I have read the report in a Sydney newspaper on the observations made by my distinguished friend the Premier of New South Wales in relation to what he described as an inquisitorial engagement by the Securities and Exchange Committee on the activities of the Sydney Stock Exchange. In explanation I inform honourable senators of the following: From my recollection the secretariat of the Committee drew my attention to the fact that on 3rd March a cornering situation was developing in the Sydney Stock Exchange. I instructed the secretariat to keep me informed as to the development of this shortening situation. On .. 27th March clearly a corner had been established in the Sydney Stock Exhange. I invited Mr Barton of Tjuringa Securities Ltd to appear before the Committee and explain what was transpiring because, at that stage he was easily identifiable as the person who was moving the Sydney Stock Exchange into a corner.

Subsequent to Mr Barton’s evidence I had a message given to Mr Cooper, the Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, asking whether he wished to come before the Committee again- he had appeared before us on other occasions and on other matters - to explain to the Committee what action the Sydney Stock Exchange proposed to take in the context of a corner. He accepted the invitation and arrived in Canberra. There were some other parliamentary committees meeting that morning, or the business of the Senate was proceeding and it was not possible for me to have him before the Committee until after lunch. In order to provide for Mr Cooper’s convenience I deferred 3 other witnesses.

The next day in a public statement, with the consent of the Committee, I agreed to make available all the public transcripts of evidence of Mr Barton and Mr Cooper. There have been approximately 200 applications to the Committee’s secretariat for copies of that transcript. Whether it was the result of the Committee’s activities or not, the Sydney Stock Exchange has taken subsequent action to polish up its own regulations in the context of corner situations in the Sydney Stock Exchange. The New South Wales Premier’s own AttorneyGeneral has introduced amendments to the Securities Industry Act of that State to prevent any further cornering situations.

page 1730

QUESTION

TRIALS: AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS ABROAD

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: In view of last year’s incident when an Australian girl languished for a lengthy period in a prison cell in the Canary Islands before the Spanish authorities brought her to trial, and in view of a further current incident involving Miss Randall pf Sydney who has been in gaol in Italy for 6 months awaiting trial, what action is the Department of Foreign Affairs taking to obtain speedier trials for Australian citizens abroad who face these predicaments?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I believe that the honourable senator’s question arises out of the publication of a news paragraph in the Canberra Times’ of recent date. I am able to inform him, in regard to this defendant on a drug charge in Italy, that the Australian Government is not in a position to insist on other governments giving priority to cases involving Australian citizens. In this case the young lady is at present awaiting trial. The delay in the case being brought before the court is due to a very large backlog of cases waiting to come up for trial in the Italian courts. Many of the defendants are not Italians, and it is difficult to obtain preferential treatment for any particular person. In this case the Australian Embassy in Rome has, since the time of the arrest of the young lady, been pressing the Italian authorities to have the trial conducted as soon as possible. The fixing of the date is for the Italian authorities. Other than keeping it respectfully and constantly under attention, the Government has no further authority in the matter; but that we keep on doing.

page 1730

QUESTION

PORT MORESBY AIRPORT

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Parliament whether the Department of Civil Aviation has restricted landings of large passenger carrying planes on the aerodrome at Port Moresby in the Territory of Papua New Guinea because the main runways are showing signs of serious deterioration?. As tourism is a major industry in the Territory, what action is being taken by the Department to have the’ landing area strengthened and the restriction on the landings of large passenger carrying planes removed?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I . have no information available to me at the moment on any restriction of large aircraft landing on the Port Moresby strip. I know that there are proposals for strengthening the Port Moresby strip and doing some extra work there. This is a case in which I think the honourable senator is entitled to precision and accuracy in the answer and I shall get that for him.

page 1730

QUESTION

CANCELLATION OF SCHOLARSHIPS: VICTORIAN UNIVERSITIES

Senator WOOD:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Why did the Minister and the Cabinet decide that they would not support the Victorian Government in its aim to put down lawlessness and disruption amongst university students by cutting off the scholarships of the people concerned? Is it a case of the Federal Government not wanting to discourage disruption and dissent among university students or is it a case of the Government taking the easy way out, as it so often does in relation to industrial troubles and so on? Is the Government not conscious of the fact that it costs money to provide education for these louts and also that it costs money to provide buildings in which to house them? Is it fair to the taxpayer of this country that these people are allowed to do these things at his expense while no action is taken against them? Why is this Government afraid to take the same action as the Sir Henry Bolte Government is taking in Victoria?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In answering the question of the honourable senator I must immediately repudiate some of the aspersions he has implied against the Government. I adopt the suggestion in part of his question that the Government is providing public money for scholarships and university institutions and is under a responsibility to ensure that the purpose of this expenditure is not frustrated. Students who wish to pursue their education without obstruction should not be obstructed by unlawful activities - on university campuses. Apart from saying that, I think I should refer the question to the Minister, and in doing so I express the hope that I shall have a further answer for the honourable senator tomorrow or, if we are sitting then, next week.

page 1731

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– -I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. 1 . Is it a fact that a large tonnage of liquefied petroleum gas was recently shipped by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd to South America and that the price of this gas was about $15 to $16 per ton? 2. Is it also a fact that the current price of this type of gas from Australian refineries is in excess of $30 a ton? 3. Can the Minister inform the Senate why the Department of Customs and Excise grants export licences instead of the gas being used inside Australia and thus assisting to reduce the cost of living and the cost of manufacture? 4. Is it a fact that on long term contracts for liquefied gas for Japan the Esso-BHP price is of the order of $16 to $17 a ton? 5. Is it also a fact that the total committed for export by Esso-BHP is approximately 1 million tons a year? Can the Minister inform the Senate why this liquefied petroleum gas is not available from Esso-BHP to consumers in Australia at less than $32 a ton?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I carefully followed the points as they arose in the honourable senator’s question and, unlike the honourable senator, who made the tally 6, I made the tally 8. What I will do is refer these questions to the Minister for Trade and Industry and also to the Minister for Customs and Excise, because the questions will call for detailed answers from both those responsible people.

page 1731

QUESTION

SERVICE TO YOUTH COUNCIL

Senator LAUCKE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Service? whether he is aware of the splendid job being done by the Service to Youth Council in South Australia, a voluntary organisation which has a staff of trained young counsellors providing a 24-hour advisory service to youth who have the pressing social problems which are plaguing many young people today. Is the Minister aware that the work of the counsellors is backed by the honorary services of social workers, doctors, lawyers and psychologists? In view of the great social need for this type of social welfare activity, will the Government give consideration to including a monetary provision in the next Budget for the work of this laudable voluntary organisation, the Service to Youth Council in South Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I was not aware of the existence of the Service to the Youth Council in Adelaide to which the honourable senator has referred, but I must say that the detail which he has given of the work of this group of young people is not only tremendously informative but also it is tremendously commendatory of the enthusiasm and the dedication of people who are prepared to give up their time in this way. I am sure that the information given by the honourable senator is informative to all honourable senators. I will certainly give consideration to the request which he has made and pass it on to the Minister for Social Services for his consideration in whatever submissions he makes with regard to the Budget.

page 1731

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE ATTENDANTS

Senator DRURY:

– My question was to be directed to the President himself but I will be thankful if you, Mr Acting Deputy President, will convey my question to him. On 30th April I asked Mr President a question concerning the pay rates and conditions of attendants employed in Parliament House. I should like to know whether the President has been able to consult Mr

Speaker regarding this question. If he has done so, could he advise the Senate as to the outcome of their deliberations?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - The inquiry will be referred to the President.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Air. Before the Senate goes into recess could the Minister advise the present position regarding the purchase of the Fill aircraft? Is it true that so far Australia has paid $228m to the United States of America as a deposit on the 24 Fill fighter bombers? In view of the many difficulties, including the fact that 18 crashes have occurred with this aircraft, would the Australian Government be further financially committed over and above the $228m should our 3-man Royal Australian Air Force mission, in Washington decide to cancel the order for the plane or would we be entitled to some refund? If so, how much?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I think that in answer to a question on notice asked by Senator Keeffe I said the other day that the amount of $US228m is our outlay at the present time. I referred to this matter last week in answer to a question by Senator Bishop when I explained that I would be sending officers to the United States of America to make inquiries concerning the progress towards meeting our operational technical requirements as laid down under the Laird-Fraser agreement in May of last year. I explained at that time that because there had been slippages in the static and the fatigue tests there could be a delay as to when we could view the results of these tests and so make a decision. The honourable senator will recall that under the Laird-Fraser agreement these tests were to be advanced in order to enable Australia to make a decision late this year. Because of the slippage I want to know whether we will still be able to make a decision at the end of the year or, if not, how long after that period we will be in a position to make it. Of course, despite these slippages, we may be still in a position to make that decision later this year. This is the information with which those officers in America will be supplying me when they return.

page 1732

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT*

Senator POYSER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. I refer to the Minister’s answer to a question asked by Senator Young yesterday concerning the Australian Broadcasting Commission programme ‘This Day Tonight*, ls the Minister aware that the political scientist at the University of New South Wales who is embarking on a study of alleged bias in the ABC pro-, gramme referred to, is one who is associated with a group at that university which is responsible for a steady flow of propaganda in support of the present Government’s foreign policy, particularly in Indo-China? Has the Government encouraged this group, to undertake this socalled research?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I was not aware of the facts put forward by the honourable senator. I would imagine that the views of academics ‘ at universities do not matter so long as the work which they do is balanced and, as far as possible, based upon objective standards. I can assure the honourable, senator that the work to which he referred is not being financed by the Government.

page 1732

QUESTION

CUBA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who represents the Prime Minister. Is it a fact’ that a serious difference has arisen between the United States and Australian governments over the supply of agricultural machinery by Australia to Cuba? Has the United States Government indicated that it will take action to deter further exports of such goods by Australia to Cuba? If such a difference has arisen, will the Minister make a statement on this matter before the Senate rises?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI think perhaps I should accept the question now rather than ask that it be placed on the notice paper because that course could involve some delay. I am not aware of the circumstances or the facts to which the honourable senator has referred. If it is possible to get the information he seeks, I will make a statement to the Senate.

page 1733

QUESTION

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it the case that there is no agreement between Australia and the Republic of Ireland providing for reciprocal payment of social service benefits, or a double income tax agreement between the 2 countries? As there are close associations between the people of Australia and the people of the Irish Republic, will the Government propose negotiations with the Irish Government with the objective of establishing such agreements?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– There are 2 parts to the honourable senator’s question. One part deals with social service benefits and the other part deals with a possible taxation agreement. I think I will refer the first part to the Minister for Social Services and the second part to the Treasurer to see what information we can obtain.

page 1733

QUESTION

JAPAN

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. While it may be true that Japan spends only 1 per cent of its gross national product on defence, as the Prime Minister announced in the House of Representatives, is the Government aware that substantial contributions to the re-arming of Japan have been made by the Government of the United States of America since the end of World War II? Will the Minister inform the Senate of the total amount of United States contributions to Japanese rearmament since the end of World War II?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is well known that the United States of America has made substantial contributions to the Japanese economy, as well as to the defence of Japan. I think it would be well known that recently the Japanese Government has increased its expenditure for defence purposes. That expenditure is regarded as not unreasonable in view of the circumstances in which Japan is placed at the present time. With regard to the amount of United States contributions for the purpose referred to by Senator O’Byrne, he would not expect me to have that knowledge without reference to the Department. I will obtain that information for him.

page 1733

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who represents the Prime Minister. I ask: Is there any truth in the report in today’s ‘Australian’ that on the instructions of the Prime Minister building additions to Parliament House estimated to cost $lm will be cancelled? If the report is correct, of what additional room space will the Parliament be deprived? Was the cancellation of the building additions discussed with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives who have a particular responsibility to provide space and facilities for members of Parliament?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am not informed on that point. I think that in the circumstances this question should be directed to the Presiding Officers. Nevertheless I will seek some information for the honourable senator and see whether I can make it available tomorrow.

page 1733

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator FITZGERALD:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. In view of the tributes he paid yesterday to the South Australian Prices Commissioner, is the Minister aware that the South Australian Commissioner is likely to investigate the increases in doctors’ fees which were agreed upon by the Federal Government and the Australian Medical Association. In view of the fact that governments throughout Australia accept the prices fixed by the South Australian Prices Commissioner in so many fields, can the Minister advise what action will be taken by the Government if it is found, after full investigation, that the increases in doctors’ fees are excessive?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have seen Press reports of what it is alleged that the South Australian Prices Commissioner is proposing to do and what it is alleged might follow if there should be a recommendation from the Prices Commissioner that in some way for some reason doctors’ fees are higher than they should be. I will await the outcome of any decision in South Australia, and if and when such a decision is made the Government naturally will give consideration to the position. If there should be some politically motivated decision in South Australia which would have the effect of reducing doctors’ fees, it may amount to this: Doctors themseves would not observe the recommendations and either they might seek to charge more than the common fee or they might decide to leave South Australia. Either event would . have unfortunate effects on the national health scheme. The Government has arranged with the Australian Medical Association that that Association will advise and encourage its. members to charge the fees, that were recently decided upon. We have stability assured for the next 2. years with regard to general practitioners’ consultations and home visits, and that, Australia wide,, is of tremendous value in the working out, of1 our national health scheme.

page 1734

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

page 1734

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Air. Were the terms relating to the leasing of the 24 Phantom aircraft fixed in relation to the amount of work which might fall to Australian industry? If the terms relating to the use of the FI 1 1 aircraft have yet to be negotiated, will the Minister see to what extent the servicing and overhaul specifications and the work which has now apparently been sent to the United States of America might be let out to Australian manufacturers?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I do not have all the details for which the hon ourable senator has asked. I will most certainly have a look at the question and give him a reply at a latter date.

page 1734

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Can the Minister for Civil Aviation say whether an organisation known as the St George and Sutherland Council Assembly, which is a body comprising representatives of local government organisations in those areas, has made representations to him to prevent further intensity, of aircraft movements and extension pf the hours of operation at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and to’ have departure ‘flight paths diverted seawards to avoid the populated areas of the Sutherland Shire? Because of. the millions of dollars which the Government intends spending on extensions to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, which doubtlessly will have the. effect of increasing its potential capacity as far as aircraft movements are concerned, will the Minister also give every , consideration to the recommendations of the local government- organisations. I have named , with a view to minimising as much as is humanly possible the inconvenience from noise and other nuisance caused to the residents of their districts?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have not yet seen a letter from the St George and Sutherland Council Assembly, but the honourable senator may be assured that when I do I will give every consideration to its proposals, and anything that it feels can be done to alleviate this problem and which can usefully be done in the interests of air safety and general convenience I will take up immediately.

page 1734

QUESTION

STUDENT DISCIPLINE

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Leader of the Government in the- Senate inform the Parliament whether the Commonwealth Government and State governments generally have long maintained that student discipline is a matter for the universities alone? Can the Minister give the Parliament an assurance that this policy will be maintained in spite of the repudiation of such policy by the Victorian Government?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The Minister representing the Minister for

Education and Science, in reply to a similar question earlier, said that he would refer the question to the Minister for Education and Science. I think that that is where the matter should rest until the answer is provided.

page 1735

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator DRURY:

– Has the Minister for Health seen the report of Professor Bryan Gandevia of the Division of Thoracic Medicine at Prince Henry Hospital about washing powders containing enzymes? Will the Department of Health examine this report with a view to implementing its recommendation that these washing powders should be labelled ‘Keep out of the reach of children’ because of the threat of respiratory trouble to allergy-prone children?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have not seen the specific report to which the honourable senator referred. However, the general subject matter of any allegation or any comment of that character is essentially one for the State government concerned to determine. The honourable senator will be aware that the National Health and Medical Research Council is an Australia-wide body which has representatives of both the Commonwealth and the State Departments of Health as its members. It gives regular consideration to matters of that character with a view to ensuring that, as far as possible, there is uniformity of approach throughout Australia. Nevertheless, it is still for the State government concerned to give effect to its recommendations. I will ensure that the subject matter which the honourable senator has mentioned is referred to the National Health and Medical Research Council for its examination.

page 1735

QUESTION

CANBERRA: BREAD DELIVERIES

Senator LAUCKE:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior noted the current price war between retailers of bread in Canberra? Is not this situation one in which the elements of the undesirable practice known as leader in g are present? Could not this have severe repercussions on the bread making and bread distribution industries and ultimately depriving the public of bread home delivery services? In this situation can any action be taken to ensure that a continuation of home deliveries is not jeopardised as this is a real service to many householders who do not have facilities for daily shopping?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I would agree with the honourable senator that the home delivery of bread and indeed the home delivery of groceries and other items in general is a service that one would like to be maintained. One has been involved in these matters, through one’s own family and one’s children. The pattern of declining home deliveries to housewives seems to me to be something that we could examine. I do not know anything more about the general situation in Canberra or indeed about the bread situation but I shall try to find out what I can for the honourable senator through the good offices of my colleague the Minister for the Interior.

page 1735

QUESTION

THALIDOMIDE

(Question No. 822)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister studied a report on page 85 of the ‘London Economist’ of 19th December 1970, that the West German pharmaceutical firm of ChemieGruenenthal and the United Kingdom subsidiary of Distillers Co., both of whom were involved in marketing of the tranquilliser thalidomide are continuing steps to aid the child victims of this drug.
  2. What action is being taken by the Australian distributor of this product.
  3. What power does the Minister have to enforce further financial aid to the victims concerned.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am unaware at this stage what action has been taken by the Australian distributor.
  3. I have no legislative power which would enable me to take action in this area.

page 1735

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 1065)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the United States of America Central Intelligence Agency responsible for the financing and equipping of a provincial reconnaissance unit in Vietnam; if so, is the unit better known as the assassination squad.’
  2. Is the Australian Government responsible for a similiar unit in Vietnam which comes under the control of the Australian Security Intelligence

Organisation or does the Australian Government rely on the Central Intelligence Agency to do work required by Australia in this field.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. It is not the practice of the Australian Government to comment on the alleged activities of friendly governments.
  2. The Australian Government is not responsible for any such unit in Vietnam and has no requirement for one.

page 1736

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AID

(Question No. 1076)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was a statement made recently on behalf of the Government which indicated that the amount of Australian overseas aid exceeded 1 per cent of Australia’s Gross National Product for the first time; if so, does the percentage quoted include overseas commercial investments thus indicating a false figure.
  2. Will the Minister provide a table setting out the percentage of Government aid to overseas countries, such figure being properly related to Australia’s Gross National Product by stating only the amount of Government funds so used and excluding private funds which are used in the main for the exploitation of people in underdeveloped countries?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following reply:

  1. At the annual Meeting of the Governors of the Asian Development Bank in Singapore on 15th April, 1971, the Leader of the Australian Delegation, the Honourable the Treasurer (B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) stated that the netflow of resources from Australia to developing countries exceeded one per cent of gross national product in 1970. In making this announcement, the Treasurer did, however, emphasise that Australia has always viewed the practice of measuring aid performance by relating the netflow of resources to developing countries on one hand to figures of gross national product on the other as one of very doubtful validity.

The Treasurer’s statement was based on figures which were compiled for the Development Assistance Committee (D.A.C.) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The D.A.C. publishes information on the total flows of financial resources from its members to developing countries each year. These statistics comprise not only official grants and loans, but also net private capital flows which include both direct and portfolio investments, commercial and trade credits of more than twelve months’ duration. Account is also taken of contributions by voluntary agencies.

All these items are included in the present definition of the ‘aid’ volume target of one per cent of gross national product to which developed countries have been asked to subscribe in the United Nations’ Strategy for the Second Development Decade. The precise wording of the target is as follows:

Each economically advanced country should endeavour to provide by 1972 annually to developing countries financial resource transfers of a minimum net amount of 1 per cent of its gross national product at market prices in terms of actual disbursements, having regard to the special position of those countries which are net importers of capital. Those developed countries which have already met this target will endeavour to ensure that their net resource transfers are maintained and envisage, if possible, an increase in them. Those developed countries which are unable to achieve this target by 1972 will endeavour to attain it not later than 1975.’

Although Australia supported the Strategy as a whole, it recorded the following observation in respect of this paragraph:

Australia supports the targets for donor countries to provide one per cent of the gross national product to assist the development of the developing countries. However, because Australia is a capital importing country and because capital flows are unpredictable, Australia is not able to commit itself to a particular date for reaching the target.’

Besides officially entering this observation, Australia has maintained on numerous occasions that the target is not the most appropriate measure of a country’s aid effort. The provision of official aid is indicative of a government’s willingness to assist development, but private flows other than those of voluntary agencies are motivated mainly by profit consideration and only rarely by official policies designed to assist the economic growth of developing countries.

  1. In compiling statistics relating to official (or government) aid flows, the D.A.C. distinguishes between ‘official development assistance’ and other official flows. The date for official development assistance provide a more acceptable basis for comparisons over periods of time and internationally. Details provided to the D.A.C. of Australia’s official development assistance in relation to g.n.p. since 1960 are:

The table illustrates that Australia’s official development assistance expressed as a percentage of g.n.p. followed an upward trend during the 1960’s. Furthermore, Australia’s official aid effort ranked, according to the D.A.C. among the first three countries in the world in terms of g.n.p. in 1969 as indeed it did in each of the three previous years.

Figures for purposes of international comparison in 1970 are not yet available.

page 1737

QUESTION

CHERRIES

(Question No. 1089)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Did any of the witnesses before the Tariff Board hearing which considered the duty on imported cherries, support a reduction in import duty.
  2. Have large orders been placed overseas since the Board’s report was tabled, and will the Australian crop, now in brine, remain unsold.
  3. Is the removal of import duty likely to result in an estimated loss of over $100,000 to the South Australian industry and the likely closure of process plants.
  4. Have the various producer organisations and the South Australian Government requested the Commonwealth Government to reject the report.
  5. What action, if any, is being taken to protect this valuable industry.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers:

  1. Yes. The Australian Tariff Council requested the Board to recommend duties of the order of 20 per cent General rate on drained cherries.
  2. The placing of orders by a company is a matter of commercial confidence between that company and its supplier.
  3. and (5) The Minister for Trade and Industry requested the Department of Trade and Industry to meet with the various industry sectors to discuss the Report and future market prospects for fresh and brined cherries. Both prior to and during these discussions, requests were made for the Tariff Board’s recommendations not to be accepted.

The discussions and the negotiations between briners and potential users of brined cherries, raised doubts as to whether sizeable alternative outlets were available in 1971 or possibly in the immediately following years. In the light of this information and the pressing need of the industry to clear stocks of brined cherries before next season’s crop, brined and drained cherries were referred on 22nd April 1971 to the Special Advisory Authority who must submit his report to the Minister for Trade and Industry within 30 days of his receipt of the reference.

page 1737

QUESTION

PENSIONS

(Question No. 1135)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Is the recent SO cents increase in pensions paid only to persons in receipt of full pensions; if so, why do persons who are in receipt of partial pensions not receive the increase, and will this anomaly be rectified as soon as possible.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

This matter was referred to in some detail when the Social Services Bill 1971 was before the Senate. The Honourable Senator is referred to page 752 of Hansard of 6th April.

page 1737

QUESTION

PERTH TO MELBOURNE AIR SERVICES

(Question No. 1058)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

What was the passenger load factor on TransAustralia Airlines direct Flight No. 593 between Perth and Melbourne over the past 12 months.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The passenger load factor, based on actual seating, on Flight 593 direct between Perth and Melbourne over the 12 months period ended 16th April 1971, was 72.1 per cent.

page 1737

QUESTION

MEAT

(Question No. 1116)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Have all the recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council, in respect of meat, been carried out in their entirety; if not, which are outstanding and to what extent.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

Not all the recommendations of the N.H. & M.R.C. have been adopted in their entirety. Many have been accepted in part and others, while being accepted in principle by State Governments, have not yet actually been incorporated into legislation. In this regard it should be noted that the Council is an advisory body and neither the Federal nor State Governments are bound to adopt any recommendation made by the Council.

Only those recommendations of the N.H. & M.R.C. which have not yet been adopted in their entirety by all public health authorities have been included below. In my predecessor’s interim reply to your question 488 (published in Hansard on 2.11.70) he listed all recommendations made by the Council relating to primary products. A comparison of that complete list with the recommendations listed in this reply would serve to indicate the overall ‘state of acceptance’ by Governments of N.H. & M.R.C. recommendations.

For the purposes of this answer the following definitions have been used:

Primary Products - Products directly resulting from:

The cultivation of land.

The maintenance of animals or poultry.

Fishing operations.

Meat- Is any edible part of any cattle, sheep, pig, rabbit, goat or bird other than game which is ordinarily used as food by man whether fresh, chilled or frozen.

The recommendations have been listed under the following headings:

Meat and meat products.

Primary dairy products.

Fish and fish products.

Frozen foods.

Residues of pesticides and agricultural chemicals and metals in foods.

Honey.

Antibiotics in primary products. 1. (a) Meat and Meat Products

The Council’s standard has been essentially adopted by all States. The major variations to this standard are:

No State makes reference to the allowance of propylene glycol in fresh and chilled meat

Tasmania and South Australia make no reference to the allowance of alkali metal polyphosphate in frozen poultry.

Several States have adopted minor additions to the Council’s standard.

Standard for frozen poultry

This standard ls included only in the legislation of Tasmania where it has the following variations from the Council’s standard.

It permits only 5 per cent of water as ice (the Council’s standard allows 8 per cent).

No reference is made to giblets.

Chlorine solutions in poultry processing

This standard is included only in the legislation of Western Australia.

Primary Dairy Products

Standard for cream and cream products (not considering various processed creams)

Recommendations by the Council have been largely accepted by the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania vary from the Council standard in the percentage of milk fat required in designating types of cream.

Bacterial Standards

New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have largely adopted the Council’s recommendations. Major variations are as follows:

South Australia has no reference to pasteurisation.

Coliform Bacillis Count - all States (excepting South Australia) have adopted the measures recommended by the Council, in some cases measures adopted have been more stringent.

The reductase test replaces the phosphatase test in Western Australia and Tasmania.

Standard for Skim Milk

New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia have largely accepted the Council’s recommendations. The standards adopted by the States for bacteria, milk fat content, milk solids (not fat) and labelling are at variance with the recommendations but not to a significant degree. 3. (a) Fish and Fish Products

New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia have accepted the Council’s standard in full. South Australia and Tasmania have accepted the standard except that they do not include the allowance for the inclusion in frozen fish of:

Alkali metal polyphosphates.

Ascorbic acid or erythorbic acid or their sodium salts. 4. (a) Frozen Foods

No State has legislation covering foods consistent with the Code of Practice recommended by the Council. 5. (a) Residues of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, and Metals in Foods

Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania have introduced legislation placing a blanket prohibition on residues of pesticides and other foreign substances with the proviso that those chemicals specified in a short list may be present up to permitted concentrations. Many of these permitted concentrations are at variance with the Council’s recommendations.

Queensland and New South Wales have not adopted the recommendations of the Council and have instituted only minor legislation in this field.

Standard for Metals In Foods

This standard has been accepted by all States with the following variations:

The Council’s recommendation to reduce the level of lead permitted in fruit and fruit products from 5.5 ppm to 4ppm has not been included in any State legislation.

Western Australia and. Tasmania make no reference to mercury in food. Victoria and South Australia allow 0.1 ppm of mercury.

South Australia and Tasmania make no reference to copper in cheese.

Pesticide Residues in Food

The Council recommended that steps be taken through State Departments of Health and other available avenues to obtain comprehensive information on pesticide residues on a wide range of foods. This survey has been introduced and is continuing.

Pesticide Residue in the Australian Diet

The Council recommended that the Commonwealth Department of Health and the State Departments of Health should co-operate to conduct a survey of pesticide residues in the local Australian .diet. A ‘market basket’ survey involving an analysis of all food eaten during a sample diet would achieve this purpose. Council recommended the grant of $3,000 for the purchase and air freighting of food samples for the first year of the survey. This survey has been introduced and is continuing.

Diphenylamine

No reference to Council’s standards on diphenylamine is included in any State food and drug regulations. (0 Organo-Chlorine Pesticides and 2,4,5T

The Council’s recommendations on these subjects have been forwarded to the States, but have not yet been incorporated into State legislation. (g) Pyrethrins and Piperonyl Butoxide in Milled Grain

The Council’s recommendation has been forwarded to the States, but has not yet been incorporated into State legislation. 6. (a) Honey

New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have accepted the Council’s standard in full.

The South Australia and Western Australian standards are similar to the Council’s standard except that they contain no reference to the presence of natural sucrose.

Tasmania varies from the Council’s standard in the following two incidences:

No reference is made to the presence of natural sucrose.

The standard states that it shall not yield more than 60 per cent of reducing sugars (National Health and Medical Research Council standard states not less than 60 per cent).

No State makes reference to the allowance of calcium’ sucrose phosphate.

Antibiotics in Primary Products

Antibiotics for Veterinary purposes

The Council’s recommendations on this subject have not been universally accepted by all States.

Marker Dye for Veterinary Penicillin

The Council’s recommendation has been accepted by all States excepting South Australia.

Veterinary aspects of the Meat Industry

Hydatid - The Council’s recommendation on this subject has been referred to the States for action. Education studies are current in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.

page 1739

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AND NORTHERN TERRITORY

So far as the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory are concerned a programme has been drawn up to review all health legislation. In cases where National Health and Medical Research Council recommendations are appropriate to Territory conditions (not being already incorporated) they will be considered in the context of the particular legislation under review. Both territories are substantially dependent on food imports from States and therefore State standards must in practice be accepted.

page 1739

QUESTION

TELEVISING OF FOOTBALL MATCHES

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 5th May Senator Sim asked the following question of the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral:

My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to a dispute in Western Australia between the league and the television stations over the televising of league football matches. It has been reported that an application has been made to the Trade Practices Commissioner on the matter in dispute, namely, arena advertising. Will the Minister ascertain for me as a matter of urgency the facts of the matter?

The Attorney-General has furnished the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commissioner of Trade Practices has advised that a dispute over the televising of Perth football matches from grounds with arena advertising was referred to him by Perimeter Advertisements Pty Limited, one of the disputants.

Having regard to the secrecy provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1965-1969 itwould be inappropriate to disclose the facts of the matter. However, I can say that, in response to the approach by Perimeter Advertisements Pty Limited the Commissioner wrote to the parties concerned. He advised that a consideration of the available material indicated that the dispute should, be dealt with by commercial negotiation between the parties, and that it was not one on which he proposed to take any action.’ cherries

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 15th March, Senator Bishop asked Senator, Sir Kenneth Anderson a question without notice concerning the Tariff Board’s report on cherries and whether discussions could be held between interested parties and the Minister for Trade and Industry to consider further action in respect of the report. On 22nd April, Senator Bishop asked me a similar question but in addition asked whether the representations to the Government had been considered, and if so, what action the Government proposed.

The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following reply:

The duties on brined and processed cherries were removed on 23rd February 197 1,following the Government’s adoption of the Tariff Board report. The Minister for Customs and Excise, expressed the Government’s policy when he said, in tabling the report - ‘The Government has accepted the Tariff Board’s report in the light of the Board’s view that there are alternative new markets for local brined cherries and that there seems to be a reasonable possibility that the brining of cherries in Australia can continue to be a successful operation. A close watch will be maintained on the marketing situation during 1971 and the question of the protection of the cherry industry would be reconsidered as a matter of urgency if alternative markets for brined cherries cannot be found’.

Following adoption of the report, representations were received from and on behalf of both growers and processors requesting the reinstatement of the duties. As a first step, the Minister for Trade and Industry asked the Department of Trade and Industry to confer as a matter of urgency with the industry to discuss the report and future market prospects for fresh and brined cherries. Discussions were held with all sectors of the industry. These discussions, together with further investigations, raised doubts as to whether sizeable alternative outlets would be available for brined cherries during the 1971 season and, possibly, in the immediately following years. In the light of this information and the pressing need for the industry to clear stocks of brined cherries before the next crop in November, brined and drained cherries were referred to the Special Advisory Authority on 22nd April 1971. The Special Advisory Authority must submit his report to the Minister for Trade and Industry within 30 days of his receipt of the reference.

page 1740

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CENTRE, MELBOURNE

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I wish to supplement an answer which I gave to Senator Kennelly on 6th May in reply to a question about parking arrangements provided for in the design of the Commonwealth Centre, Melbourne. I wish to advise the honourable senator that the scheme for the development of the whole area to be recommended to the Department of the Interior and subsequently to the Government fur approval provides for covered car parking facilities for 440 Commonwealth vehicles, 660 visitors’ vehicles and 1,050 vehicles belonging to private long term staff, a total of 2,150.

page 1740

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Byrne) - Is notice of motion No. 1, Government Business, formal or informal?

Senator Wright - Formal

page 1740

CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING AT BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of a communications building- at Bendigo, Victoria.

The proposed work involves the construction of a reinforced concrete frame building, comprising a ground floor and three upper floors, to house exchange equipment. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $1.7m. I table the plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1740

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In a statement to the Senate on 25th September 1969 the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) outlined the Government’s proposals for the preservation of superannuation rights. As then explained, the benefits provided by most superannuation schemes in Australia are payable on the employee’s retirement, for example at age 60 or 65, or prior to retirement only in the event of his invalidity or death. Employees leaving in any other circumstances, for example to take up employment elsewhere, usually receive only a refund of their own contributions, often without interest. That is, they do not receive any superannuation benefits from their employer for the years they have spent in his service.

Because the value of an employee’s interest in a superannuation scheme increases with his length of service, superannuation schemes that do not provide for preservation can operate as a very real barrier to the willingness of employees to move from one employer to another. This barrier to mobility has been a feature of most Commonwealth superannuation schemes since their inception. The Government’s intention is to remove that barrier from Commonwealth schemes so that Commonwealth employees, who have spent a considerable part of their working life in one field of endeavour and who could contribute much more to the community and to their own lives in some other area of Commonwealth, State, university or private employment, will no longer feel compelled, by the fear of the loss of their accumulated superannuation rights, to remain in their employment waiting only for the effluxion of time and the arrival of their date of retirement.

This Bill amends the Superannuation Act 1922-1969 to extend preservation to the 2 retirement benefits schemes established under that Act - the Superannuation Fund and the Provident Account. I intend also to introduce later this day a companion Bill to amend the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1970 to extend the preservation arrangements to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. Because the schemes covered by the two Acts are each quite different it follows that there should be differences between the provisions of each Bill. However, in terms of general principle, the approach being adopted is the same. The rules of other Commonwealth schemes will also be amended to provide for the preservation of superannuation rights in general accord with the provisions of this Bill. When these schemes have been amended preservation of superannuation will be available to some 300,000 contributors to Commonwealth superannuation schemes.

I shall deal first with outwards preservation for employees leaving the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account under the Superannuation Act. Under the provisions of the Bill such an employee will be able to move to an area of Commonwealth employment to which the Superannuation Act does not apply without loss of his accumulated superannuation interest or stake- including the employer share of that interest or stake - provided the period between employment is not longer than 3 months. In addition, an employee who moves to public employment with the States, including State universities, within 3 months of ceasing his Commonwealth employment, will be able to preserve his superannuation rights. As well, an employee who resigns after completing 20 years service and moves to private employment or self employment, or does not engage in any other employment, will be able to take advantage of the preservation arrangements.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was dealing with the Superannuation Bill and had offered to the Senate part of my second reading speech. I shall now continue.

Generally, preservation of superannuation rights under the Superannuation Act will be effected by means of transfer values or deferred benefits. Subject to the conditions I have outlined a transfer value will be payable to a Commonwealth or State super annuation scheme to which an employee moves, if that scheme has acceptable preservation arrangements; in other cases a deferred benefit will be available to the employee. To retain his right to this deferred benefit an employee who has not already completed 20 years service will need to remain in public employment until he does, or he attains the age of 60 years, so that he will not gain an advantage over an employee who continues as a contributor to the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account. A deferred benefit will be payable in accordance with the normal provisions of the Superannuation Act, that is, at any age between 60 and 65 depending on the wish of the former employee. Earlier payment will be made subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions in the event of invalidity before normal retirement or, in the event of the death of the employee, to an eligible widow or children.

The preserved benefit, whether in the form of a transfer value or deferred benefit, will be determined by the Superannuation Board after receiving advice from an actuary and will include the appropriate Commonwealth supplement. The Commonwealth supplement will not be confined to service after the date of commencement of the new arrangements but will cover the full period of membership of the Superannuation Fund. The right to elect for preservation benefits on leaving the 2 schemes has not been extended to a person who has attained age 60. This is because such a person is already eligible to receive the employer contribution in his pension entitlement if he is a contributor to the Superannuation Fund, or in the lump sum payment if he is a contributor to the Provident Account. It will of course not’ be obligatory for an eligible employee to avail himself of the preserved benefit. He will continue to have the right to an immediate cash refund of his own contributions but, as a general rule, it will not be in his interest to take this refund and thereby forgo the right to receive an employer contribution. This, I am sure, will be clear from the following hypothetical examples of the deferred benefits that will be available to contributors to the Superannuation Fund. In providing these examples I should emphasise that each preservation benefit will require an individual assessment and will need to take into account such variable factors as age On entry to the Superannuation Fund, age at exit, whether the person is an age 60 or 65 contributor, and his unit and contribution history. The examples assume that the person has contributed to his full unit entitlement throughout his membership and is now leaving the Fund.

An age 60 contributor who entered the Fund in 1950 at age 20 contributing for 7 units, who is now receiving a salary of $4,500 a year and contributing for 34 units, would be eligible for a deferred pen: sion commencing at age 60 of $1,326 a year. His contributions to the Fund to date would amount to $1,648. In the case of an age 65 contributor of the same age with similar service and unit history the deferred pension payable from age 65 would be $1,321 a year, and his contributions to date, $1,249. An age 60 contributor who entered the Fund in 1940 at age 20 contributing for 4 units, who is now receiving a salary of $5,500 a year and contributing for 42 units, would be eligible for a deferred pension commencing at age 60 of $2,212 a year. His contributions to the Fund to date would amount to $3,780. In the case of an’ age 65 contributor of the same age with similar service and unit history the deferred pension payable from age 65 would be $2,105 a year and his contributions to date, $2,698.

Turning now to inwards preservation, on becoming a contributor a person will have the right to choose to pay to the Superannuation Board any preserved superannuation rights received from his previous employment, including private sector employment, and to obtain credit in the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account for the amount paid. In the Superannuation Fund the credit will be applied in the form of units and the new employee will then contribute only for the balance of his unit entitlement under that scheme. It follows from this that a person who has available to him a preserved benefit in the form of a transfer value from his former scheme but does not choose to pay it to the Superannuation Fund, or has available to him a pension or a deferred benefit entitlement, will be restricted in the benefit available to him. The reason for this is to avoid his gaining an advantage over a person who brings a preserved right with him into the

Fund or one whose whole membership has been with the Fund. In the case of the Provident Account the transfer value will form part of the benefit from that account.

A person who enters the Superannuation Fund less than 20 years before he will reach his selected age for retirement contributes for a lower level of unit entitlement than otherwise. The Bill modifies this limiting provision by allowing a period, during which a person was a member of another superannuation scheme that provided preservation benefits to be taken into account, in certain circumstances, in determining years of prospective service.

The Bill provides that the valuation of preservation benefits on entry is to be in accordance with actuarial principles and practice and requires certain matters to be taken into account. In this way the rights of the employee himself, as well as those of continuing contributors to each scheme, will be protected. There will be no change in existing medical standards for entry into the Superannuation Fund or Provident Account, But if it was necessary for an employee to pass a medical examination to become a contributor to his previous scheme, the requirement to pass a further medical examination to enter the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account may be waived subject to certain conditions being met regarding preservation benefits, the nature of the previous scheme and its medical standards for entry. This relaxation of the normal requirement will be available only if the period between leaving the employment to which the previous superannuation scheme applied and becoming an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act does not exceed 3 months and the termination of the previous employment was not on the grounds of invalidity. Existing transfer arrangements with the schemes of the 6 States will continue on the present knock for knock’ basis.

The Bill includes provisions to facilitate movements between the Commonwealth and universities. A person entering the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account who, as an alternative to other courses open to him, wishes to keep alive and up to date policies under the scheme known as the Federated Superannuation System for Universities - FSSU - or similar schemes will be able to transfer the policies to tha

Superannuation Board. He will pay contributions at least at the level at which he would have been required to contribute had his former scheme continued to apply to him and the Commonwealth will pay the premiums on the policies at the levels appropriate to his Commonwealth salary. If, before attaining age 60, he moves to employment to which FSSU or similar type policy arrangements apply, he will be able to take his policies with him as his preservation benefit; if he does not elect to do so and in all other circumstances the benefit will be that available from the Superannuation Fund or Provident Account.

In accordance with the announcement already made the Bill provides for the benefits of preservation to be available to or in respect of persons who have entered or left the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account since 1st January 1970. I should mention that the opportunity has been taken to remedy defects that have been found in sections 52 and 88 of the principal Act that relate to the rights of an employee who resigns to contest a parliamentary election. When these sections were inserted in the Act in 1942 it was intended, as stated by the then Treasurer, that they should provide cover for such a person in the event of invalidity or death between the times of his resignation and reinstatement in the Commonwealth Public Service. The replacement provisions in the Bill will achieve this.

The main provisions of the Bill are explained in more detail in the explanatory memorandum that I have arranged to have distributed to honourable senators. As Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson said in a previous statement, the Government believes that the arrangements now being made for preservation of superannuation rights in Commonwealth schemes mark an important step forward in the development of Australia. We believe that there are great advantages for our community from an interchange of employees between the Commonwealth, the States, the universities and industry and this Bill and related measures will do much to ensure that the Commonwealth’s superannuation arrangements will not impede this. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 1743

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL (No. 2) 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

This Bill is a companion measure to the Superannuation Bill 1970 that I have just introduced and amends the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1970 to give effect to the Government’s proposals for the preservation of superannuation rights. Because the Defence Forces ‘ Retirement’ Benefits scheme is different from the superannuation scheme, there are 2 important differences between the provisions of this Bill and the Superannuation Bill that I should explain. But, in terms of general principle, the approach adopted in the 2 Bills is the same.

The first important difference is. in the way credit is given for a transfer value paid to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. Under the Superannuation Bill credit for a transfer value paid into the superannuation fund will be granted in the form of units. The DFRB scheme, however, pays more regard to length of service and, accordingly, the payment of a transfer value to the Fund will be recognised by a credit of past service, which will be taken into account when determining the rate of contribution and establishing the period of service for pension purposes. Because, having met the minimum qualifying period of service for pension purposes, the pension of an officer is determined by the age at which he retires, the entitlements and contributions of an officer who declines to pay into the DFRB Fund a transfer value from a previous scheme or who holds a pension or a deferred benefit will be appropriately adjusted in the same way as the entitlement and contributions of a member of the superannuation fund who declines to pay in a transfer value will be adjusted.

The second important difference is the time at which a deferred benefit will become payable in normal retirement circumstances. Under the Superannuation Act a deferred pension will be available from age 60 when an age retirement pension under that Act first becomes payable. Under the DFRB scheme other rank members become entitled to pension on completing 20 years service for pension. For officers, pension is normally payable at the appropriate retiring ages, which range from 45 to 60 years, providing at least 15 years service for pension has been completed. Deferred benefits will be payable in accordance with these principles. For example, an other rank member who is entitled to receive a deferred benefit in the form of a pension and has completed 20 years eligible employment will commence receiving that pension as from the date he would have completed 20 years service for pension had he remained in the defence force. In the case of an officer, his deferred pension will generally become payable when he reaches the retiring age for the rank that he held on leaving the defence force or, if he would not have completed 15 years service for pension at that time had he remained in the defence force, from the time that he would have completed 1 5 years service for pension.

A deferred pension will in any event be payable as from the time the former member attains the age of 60 years or earlier on invalidity or death. The contents of the Bill are explained in more detail in the explanatory memorandum that I have arranged to have distributed to honourable senators. In common with the Superannuation Bill, the Bill provides for the benefits of preservation to be available to or in respect of persons who have entered or left the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund since 1st January 1970. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 1744

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11th May (vide page 1705), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– When the Senate adjourned last night I had questioned the justification for the decision to increase the Ministry by one on the basis that the Senate had no means of making a judgment as to whether this was necessary unless we were given information that a review had been carried out of ministerial responsibilities as they exist. I regretted that this had not been done. I also went on to comment upon the proposal to appoint a number of Assistant Ministers. When the Senate adjourned I was making the point that this decision to appoint 6 or 7 Assistant Ministers would appear to strengthen the power of the Executive over Parliament. I believe this is not desirable. It appears to me on the information that I have on which to make a judgment that Assistant Ministers will in fact have no responsibility as to the running of departments or as to decisions but will have obligations to support the Executive. If my arithmetic is correct, depending on whether 6 or 7 Assistant Ministers are appointed, between 37 per cent and 38 per cent of the Government party members will be committed to an Executive line both in the Party room and in Parliament. This seems to me to be a substantial number. Indeed, it seems that we are reaching a stage at which there will be more chiefs than Indians. I like seeing a lot of Indians around to keep an eye on the chiefs. 1 do not wish to speak at any length. I hope I am making the few points I want to make briefly. One of the great conflicts in any system of parliamentary government - it is not unique to Australia but exists in every country that has a parliamentary system - is the conflict between the Executive and Parliament. Of course, in the early days of British parliamentary history it used to be the conflict between King and Parliament. Parliament has the ultimate responsibility and in the final result the will of Parliament must prevail. Any move that increases the influence of the executive element of government over Parliament or makes it more difficult for Parliament to exercise its will, in my view, is undesirable.

I think these few points indicate my concern at the Bill which we have before us and the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) regarding the appointment of Assistant Ministers. I am bound to say that on the evidence which has been produced for us on which to make a judgment 1 can find little justification for the appointment of an additional Minister, and I must seriously question either the need or the desirability of appointing Assistant Ministers. While I indicate that it is with reluctance that i support the Bill, I feel bound to make the comments I have made about both the Bill which is before us and the statement made by the Prime Minister. I conclude by saying - this is the great problem which Parliament faces and to which Parliament must always be alert - that in the final analysis the will of Parliament must prevail and that if more thought was given to means and methods of ensuring that Parliament functioned more effectively in these modern and complex days and less thought was given to strengthening the power of the Executive, I believe the government of this country would run more smoothly and effectively.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have been listening to this debate with a great deal of interest, and 1 note that all those who have spoken have expressed concern at the passage of the measure, but certainly it is only the Opposition senators who will vote against the proposal. Senator Wood from the Liberal Party expressed his concern about the size of the Ministry and stated that, because he had been assured that some matters concerning the future complexity and structure of the Ministry would be looked at, whilst expressing his concern he did not intend to oppose the measure.

Then we heard from Senator Gair of the Democratic Labor Party, who indicated that his Party would not oppose the Bill. lt was so typical. He said at first that the DLP would not have supported the Bill unless it created a significant portfolio in which some real work was to be done. So apparently the DLP thinks that the new portfolio is a significant one, though I would regard it as a bits and pieces department that is being created merely for the purpose of creating another portfolio. In typical fashion the DLP seems to be having 2 bob each way. The DLP is virtually another arm of the coalition Government, and it appeared to me from the way Senator Gair was expressing his opinions last night that it could be that even he is hoping that he might be given that portfolio. I well remember when, after this announcement was first made, Senator Gair said by way of a Press statement that his Party would be opposing the measure but now he supports it. One can only assume that the other members of his Party have outvoted him in his own Party room, because he come into this chamber last night and said that his Party would not offer opposition to the Bill.

Mention has been made of the amalgamation of certain portfolios. Senator Gair asked why the Department of Housing could not be amalgamated with the Department of Works. It was asked why the Repatriation Department could not be amalgamated with the Department of Social Services. It was asked why the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air and Supply could not be amalgamated with the Department of Defence. This is our very argument. Why can the horse not be put before the cart, and why cannot these matters be looked at before rather than after the creation of another portfolio? This Government has been talking about putting into effect austerity measures. Only last week in another place the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) indicated that for austerity reasons the Government did not intend now to proceed with a promise given at the last Senate election to the people of Australia to establish child minding centres. The Government has decided to ignore this promise on the ground of austerity. Only this morning we heard a statement, again for austerity reasons, that the Executive did not intend to proceed with the further extensions of certain portions of Parliament House. Yet here in this very measure the Government will create another department, another portfolio, which will mean more private secretaries and all the wherewithal that goes with the creation of a Ministry, taking up more space in this Parliament.

In addition to that, provision is being made for the appointment of Assistant Ministers. Who will they be? Who will they assist? What is to be their responsibility to this Parliament and to the people of Australia? Will this mean an increase in the use of ministerial cars and all the privileges that go with being a Minister of the

Crown? Will it mean a greater usage of VIP aircraft? We cannot help but come to the conclusion that this Bill was conceived in the mind of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) after his very narrow election to the leadership of the Liberal Party, because until his election there was no inkling at all that the Government proposed to embark upon this course of action. It is not as though a new arm of government is being formed for the creation of new government policy. It merely entails the creation of another ministerial portfolio and the transference to that portfolio of functions which are already carried out by a number of Ministers.

It has been said that the main function of the new Minister will be to relieve the Prime Minister of a great number of duties so that the Prime Minister can concentrate more on the leadership of his Party and of the Government. But when one looks at these matters one can see that questions other than those which concern the Prime Minister are involved. For instance the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal affairs is involved. The section relating to Aboriginal affairs will be transferred to the new Minister. Some of the cultural responsibilities of this Government will be found within the new department.

Again, there will be a spread of very important matters. What about the Australian News and Information Bureau, which will still be under the control of the Department of the Interior? I notice that from the Department of the Treasury there will be transferred to this new department the Government Printing Office and the Commonwealth Advertising Division. Apparently from the Department of Supply there will be transferred the Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board. It is noted that policy on matter relating to tourism will remain the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry but that the administration of tourism will go to this new bits and pieces department. What a gobbledygook sort of arrangement What a hopeless sort of arrangement it will be as far as the administration of this country is concerned! What about the Commonwealth Film Unit? Why is it not being transferred to this new bits and pieces department to be established if the

Government wants to do something about the arts? What about censorship which is now under the control of the Minister for Customs and Excise?

We believe that this legislation is merely designed as a bait for those within the Liberal Party, or perhaps the Country Party, who might otherwise be recalcitrant back benchers. After all, according to newspaper reports the former Prime Minister was defeated in his own Party room only by his own vote.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is correct

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack says that that is correct, and I accept his assurance. The new Prime Minister, knowing full well that this is a numbers game and knowing that he desperately needs members in his own Party, has decided not only to hold out a new portfolio as a bait for someone who might otherwise be a recalcitrant member of his Party or of the Democratic Labor Party but has decided to create for the benefit of Government back benchers a number of parliamentary Assistant Ministers. I wonder whether the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), the former Minister for the Navy, will receive the new portfolio or will become one of the new Assistant Ministers? I recall that in 1961, after the honourable member for Moreton was narrowly re-elected on certain preferences, he walked into this Parliament and the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, referred to him as Killen the Magnificent. But when the present Prime Minister was narrowly elected to office one of the first things he did was to depose the honourable member for Moreton as the Minister for the Navy. It was only last week in another place that the honourable member for Moreton said that no longer are the knives sharp.

The new Minister will receive the salary of a junior Minister. According to the second reading speech, the Assistant Ministers will have payments made to them to meet out-of-pocket expenses including travelling expenses which are incurred in the performance of their duties. All this means additional expenditure for the Australian taxpayers at a time when, as I have said, the Govern meat is crying out and is pleading that austerity measures be enforced not only in the government sector but in the private sector of the community. Overtime has been cut down in the Public Service. The recruitment intake has been drastically reduced. In all a great wave of austerity is being forced on the Public Service. Yet we see reflected in this measure pressure for the creation of a new portfolio merely to cater for matters already dealt with by other Ministers, and also for the appointment of Assistant Ministers.

The Government is throwing into the air the sheaves of paper it has been writing about austerity and the need to cut back Government expenditure. We know that the expense involved in the creation of a portfolio is not merely that of salary, as appears to have been made out in this Bill. When a new department is created new heads of the department are required, new letterheads have to be printed, new staff appointed and new office premises have to be obtained.

Senator Gair:

– And a new key for the door.

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDAnd a new empire is founded. It is all very well for Senator Gair to come in here and say that these things should be looked at in relation to the amalgamation of departments.

Senator Gair:

– It is all a question of timing.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Gair says that we should look at these matters after another portfolio has been created. Sir, we do not believe that. We believe that it is a farce and a stunt merely to pacify certain back bench members of the Liberal Party. We expected the Democratic Labor Party - the third arm of government in this place - to support the Government, but because we oppose the matter in principle, we strongly express our opposition to the proposal.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– This is an important measure because it involves an increase in the size of the Ministry. Then, of course, there is the ancillary statement by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) as to the proposal to appoint Assistant Ministers. The Australian Democratic Labor Party through its Leader, Senator Gair, has indicated that we support this measure. Senator Gair made one specific point and it was that we supported the measure only after there was a complete reassurance that there were areas of public administration which more appropriately and more competently could be handled providing they were entrusted exclusively to a Minister than if they were dispersed through a number of portfolios. That remains the basis of our support for this Bill, and we rest on that assurance.

I am interested in a number of aspects of this matter. The first is that the new Minister will take under his control some areas which must be considered to be apolitical. That is, by the nature of the areas of administration they are not political in character; they involve science and the arts and things of that nature including the new area of environmental control

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They are political all right. Do not say they are apolitical.

Senator BYRNE:

– I suppose they could be political but they are not exclusively and specifically political.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They have the problem of Socialist realism.

Senator BYRNE:

– I suppose unfortunately that is so. These are areas in which there has been a certain element of ideological penetration which is significant and which requires at least constant scrutiny.

Senator Gair:

– Not partly political.

Senator BYRNE:

– That might be a better way to put it. The other aspect of the matter, of course, is the question of environmental control. This is a matter which has particularly occupied the attention of the Senate. After all, it was at the initiative of the Senate that 2 select committees were constituted to look primarily at this question of environmental control. The other place had not moved in this field but the Senate appointed select committees to inquire into air pollution and water pollution. The Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution brought in a less comprehensive report - because it was in a narrower area - than did the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Senator Rae, who is a Government supporter, was a most valuable member of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. We brought down a report which - [ say this without undue vanity - has been considered a type of textbook report in this area, not only in regard to its substance but also in regard to its format which pioneered a new road in the presentation and form of parliamentary reports. I was gratified to discover that the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse had followed this pattern in the format of its report which was presented and tabled in this place the other day. That Committee presented its report in a most eyecatching format which was intended to attract the attention of those who should be interested in the problem. That was the very idea which attracted the attention of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and that is why we designed our report in that way.

In other words, the Senate has been in the forefront of initiating parliamentary interest in the field of environmental pollution. Part of our report went to the very complex question of the dual responsibility of the Commonwealth and the States in this area of environmental control, that is, the administrative difficulties and more particularly the constitutional difficulties. We pointed out that perhaps the best solution lay within the area of what is now called co-operative federalism in which there should be parallel or complementary legislation by the Commonwealth and the States. That was the basis of our ultimate recommendation so far as the creation of an appropriate structure was concerned. This is the Mouse that has been particularly concerned with the definition of Commonwealth and State rights and has interested itself in this field. It is most appropriate, therefore, that this chamber should be interested in the appointment of a Minister who would have that area of public administration under his exclusive jurisdiction.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Who is embedded in the House of Representatives.

Senator BYRNE:

– That may be so. I am mentioning this because if a new Minister is to be appointed and if one of the major areas of his ministerial responsibility is to be this question of environmental control, as the Senate has been the initiating body in directing and stimulating parliamentary interest in this operation and as the Senate is by its constitution a body of the legislature which has the question of the definition of Commonwealth and State rights within its protection, the new Minister should be appointed to the Senate. It is not for this chamber, of course, to direct the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) as to who shall be the subject of his appointment or from which House he will come but 1 do think that the Senate should make firmly known the view that as this matter of environmental control will occupy the attention of the new Minister, he should come from this chamber.

The second point I wish to make is that quite apart from that compelling reason why the additional Minister should come from the Senate we must consider the increasingly heavy responsibilities that are falling upon Senate Ministers. As the Ministry increases and as the complexity and area of Executive administration diversifies and increases an additionally heavy burden is continually imposed upon Senate Ministers. I have a great solicitude for members of the Executive Government under the Westminster system. They have a very much heavier responsibility and body of duties than have their counterparts under the presidential governmental system. Under the presidential governmental system a Secretary of State, say, in the United States, is required to administer his department and perform other duties of that character whereas under the Westminster system the same gentleman is required to represent an electorate - or a State if he is a senator - to run his department, to appear in the House and answer questions, to present legislation for his department and to present, defend and explain the estimates for his department. Therefore prima facie the responsibilities of the Minister under the Westminster system of government are very much more demanding than those of his counterpart under the presidential system.

When we add to that the fact that under the Australian system we have 5 Ministers in this place who are required to represent 20-odd Ministers in the other place, to answer questions about their own departments, to present their own estimates, to present their own legislation and in addition to present the legislation as it conies from the other place to this chamber for all the other Ministries and to answer questions in relation to the departments of the Ministers they represent, then one realises the tremendously increased burden that is now falling upon the Senate Ministers. In addition, with the development of the committee system, what have we seen over the last few weeks and earlier in this financial year when the Estimates Committees were operating? The Senate Ministers were required, with departmental officers not only of their own departments but also of the departments of Ministers they represent in this chamber, to appear before the Estimates Committees and for hour after hour to undergo the most intensive interrogation from a body of honourable senators in relation to their own ministerial responsibilities and their vicarious ministerial responsibilities for the departments they represent. These things are adding an enormous burden of work and responsibility onto the Senate Ministers. 1 took the opportunity to have some figures taken out to indicate just what are the relative work loads in one narrow area of ministerial responsibility as between the Senate Ministers and Ministers in the House of Representatives. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the other place, even if it were permissible under the Standing Orders, but these figures are interesting. For the first full calendar year for which figures are available, which is 1970, there were two sessional periods. In the sessional period from March to June 1,083 questions without notice were directed to Senate Ministers and in the August to November sessional period 820 questions without notice were directed to Senate Ministers relating to their own departments and to the departments they represent. This meant that a total of 1,903 questions without notice were directed to Senate Ministers in 1970. In the period from March to June 1970 in the House of Representatives 676 questions without notice were directed to Ministers and in the second sessional period from August to November 512. questions without notice were asked, making a total of 1,188 questions without notice. So in the year under consideration Senate Ministers were required to answer 1,903 questions without notice while Ministers in the House of Representatives in the same period were required to answer 1,188. That gives an indication of the tremendous additional burden which is borne by Senate Ministers in their own right and in their role as representatives of House of Representatives Ministers.

I know that the answer to some of the questions directed to a Minister in this place concerning the department of a Min.istery he represents may be: ‘Well, I do not know the answer to that and I shall refer it to my colleague.’ But that does not always happen. The Senate Minister usually from his general knowledge gives some reply to that question and then says: I will refer that question for further details to my colleague in another place whom I represent.’ So I think we can substantially accept that those figures show a fair comparison of the relative work loads borne by Ministers in this place and Ministers in the other place. If that is so it shows that the Ministers in the Senate require some support and assistance or some increase in their membership relative to the ministerial strength in the House of Representatives. With the additional burdens now imposed on Ministers by virtue of the work of estimates committees, standing committees and other committees which may well require their presence, support and perhaps their evidence, I strongly urge upon the Government that any undue increase in ministerial strength in the House of Representatives as against the Senate should be discounted. There is a very strong case to be made for adding to the ministerial strength in the Senate, provided that one accepts the proposition that Ministers should be in this place at all. I think we must accept that as a fact of policital life. Having accepted that, I strongly urge this other consideration.

As I said, it is not for me or for this chamber to dictate to the Prime Minister whom he should select to be the additional Minister contemplated under this Bill or from which House he should come. I merely put those matters before the Prime Minister for his consideration. But if, for some reason, he does not find it possible to increase the ministerial strength in this chamber then the new principle of the appointment of Assistant Ministers might well be the way in which he can relieve the work load on Ministers in this place. Apparently the Prime Minister contemplates Assistant Ministers who will substantially assist members of the Cabinet or, at least, certain designated members of the Cabinet. We have only one member of the Cabinet in the Senate and that is the distinguished Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). If that is the Prime Minister’s contemplation, on that basis we would receive only one Assistant Minister in this place of whatever number might be created. I think that would be a bad principle. In the circumstances if the Prime Minister considers that he is unable to provide the Senate with an additional Minister, at least he might provide the Senate with 2 of the Assistant Ministers, one to assist the member of the Cabinet and one to assist some other senior Minister who, while merely a member of the Ministry, may have a substantial work load or a substantial representative work load.

I conclude on this note. This is not merely a matter of solicitude for the honourable senators who occupy the front bench on the Government side although that is an important consideration. The consideration goes further than that. It goes to the question of the efficient functioning of this chamber. Candidly this chamber is a very much more difficult chamber in which Ministers operate than was the case before and than is the case in the House of Representatives. The Government does not control and is unlikely to control a numerical majority in this chamber for years to come. I am not speaking now of the ebb and flow of the outcome of elections. I am talking of the pattern of elections now discernible in this community. With the emergence of independents of various characters and with the presence - we hope the expanded presence - of the Democratic Labor Party there is going to be in this chamber a completely new complexion which is denied to the House of Representatives. The Senate will have a character in which there is nothing completely politically certain, in the parliamentary sense, and in which Ministers therefore will have to consider with much more care and in much more detail proposals and amendments which may come from various sections of the

House, and it may be necessary to accommodate those varying opinions. These things are not done in the House of Representatives where there is something which we might call the brutality of numbers.

In this developing character of the Senate these considerations are becoming increasingly important. If the Senate in its new character is going to be given the opportunity to develop and to function as we have aimed to have it develop and function by the creation of committees and by the participation of more and more honourable senators in the working life of the Senate, then action must be taken by the Government to equate the ministerial strength in this chamber to the new requirements of the upper House of the Australian Parliament. For those reasons we will support the Bill. We support it because it is giving to the new Minister an area of administration which is extraordinarily important and which the Senate has said is particularly important. Honourable senators will recall that when the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution brought in its report we carried an unusual rider to that report, saying that the report was commended to the Government for urgent consideration. That recommendation was carried unanimously in the Senate.

The Senate therefore has impressed upon the Government the need for the immediate consideration of an environmental report. I enthusiastically support this measure if it means that the views of the Senate are going to be taken into immediate and exclusive ministerial jurisdiction. But there is another matter in this field. Already the Commonwealth has been very laggard in its approach to this question. The Water Pollution Committee visualised what was developing. We inspected the legislative movement in the various States which were legislating to the best of their ability in the fields of environmental control. We hoped that the Commonwealth would move quickly so that we could equate with Commonwealth legislation the legislative movement in the States and that we could co-ordinate the lot and come up with a national plan which would embody the aspirations of the States and the Commonwealth. No Minister had that area under his exclusive jurisdiction. If this appointment will enable that to be done then I think the gratitude of the Senate is owing to the Government, provided that the Minister makes this a matter of urgent consideration.

Today I think a statement was made in northern New South Wales about the control of the basin of the Darling River. The head of a conservation authority - I think a voluntary body - pointed out that because of constitutional difficulties the control of the waters of the Darling flowing from one Slate to another was beyond the constitutional ability of either of the States involved and would require attention by some authority beyond the individual States. Obviously that highlights the need for immediate Commonwealth intervention in this field. That was the view of the Water Pollution Committee - no doubt it was the view of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution - and it was the view of the Senate. I hope our views will be translated into Government administrative action by the appointment of a Minister and by his devotion immediately to this problem as one of the major areas for his immediate ministerial attention. For those reasons we support the Bill. We urge upon the Government and the Prime Minister that he contemplate the appointment of an additional Minister in this place and certainly, alternatively, that 2 of the proposed Assistant Ministers be appointed to this place even though it is beyond the immediate concept of appointing Assistant Ministers only to members of the Cabinet. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (3.13) - Listening to Senator Byrne, who is an old Senate colleague of mine, some 7 or 8 minutes ago when he arrived at his peroration by saying: ‘1 now come to the end of my speech’ I was rather hopeful. Even though the conclusion took another 7 or 8 minutes to reach I think his whole argument was specious. During the last 48 hours in the corridors of this Parliament a colleague of mine from the Government side of the Senate said in his normal saturnine sort of way, in the context of this Bill, that the last effective action which was taken against Ministers of State was when Thomas Wentworth had his head cut off as a result of the action of Parliament. I think this is a rather cruel and harsh judgment on Ministers of State. There are other effective ways of dealing with them. I am informed by people of psychic inclination in this Parliament that if one walks around the corridors in the still hours of the night when Parliament has risen one will find cleaners and other people around here who say that they have seen ghosts.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Archie Cameron?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKNo. These are the ghosts of Ministers who go around making strangling noises as they try to get the bowstrings off their throats. It is not a question of going to the harshness and the problems of the 17th century when Parliament dealt with Thomas Wentworth. There are other systems for dealing with Ministers of State. I rely simply on the psychic experience of the cleaners of Parliament House. I want to make my position regarding Ministers of State perfectly clear notwithstanding the rhetoric of Senator Byrne. I would not have a Minister of State or any Assistant Minister inside this chamber. I think that the Senate is a place where there should not be any Ministers of State.

Senator Byrne:

– You heard my qualification. I said, ‘accepting that principle’.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

Well, as far as I am concerned, whether we go back to the seventeenth century, whether we have to involve ourselves in the middle twentieth century - I do not put it any closer than that - whether people go around trying to untangle the bowstrings around their throats in the still hours in Parliament House or whether they go around like King Charles holding their heads under their arms wondering whether they have been cut off or not, it does not matter. The point is that the House of Representatives is the house of government, and that is where I believe the Ministers of State should all be. I can see Senator Cotton and Senator Wright wincing at this. I am ready to put up with Senator Cotton and Senator Wright but I am not prepared to put up with a bevy of Assistant Ministers in this place.

Senator Withers:

– A bevy or a covey?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– A covey, I think.

Senator Withers:

– Or a gaggle?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– A gaggle is another word, perhaps a whisp of snipe. I reject ‘a pride of lions’.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! I would be obliged if the honourable senator would return to the subject of the Bill.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKDo not worry, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have control of myself. I consider that the Bill before us at the present moment is a matter of minor consideration as far as the Senate is concerned, because the House of Representatives is the house of government. If they wish to debate the parliamentary system in the House of Representatives they can do so, but it is a function and a responsibility of a senator standing in his place here, in the division of constitutional responsibilities which clearly exists between the Senate and the House of Representatives, as Senator Byrne has mentioned, to ensure that at least some expression of opinion about these Ministers of State should be adduced here in the Senate, and I propose to do so. I propose to do it on the basis of the generality of the problem that is in front of us. I do this because, however wearisome it may be to honourable senators who are present now, I wish to take honourable senators back to the rise of the parliamentary function.

The struggle which has enabled Parliament to exist in the twentieth century has been a struggle between the attempted domination of the Crown over Parliament and the determination of Parliament to resist the domination of the Crown. Two factors are involved in this. When power was represented by the Crown, as it was in the formative years of parliamentary growth, Parliament struggled to resist the dominance of the Crown over Parliament. On the other hand, there was an intermediate period in a civil war in England when Parliament became supreme and the Crown was eliminated. Parliament attempted to govern by a committee. By the particular genius of the parliamentary system there has grown up a system of ebb and flow and a test between the dominance of the Crown on the one side and the dominance of the Parliament on the other. When Parliament becomes dominant and attempts to usurp executive power then the process of government fails. On the other hand, when the Crown becomes dominant Parliament becomes a cipher.

I suggest that involved in this Ministers of State Bill which we have before us at the present moment is the very essence of the struggle by which Parliament has risen into the situation where it must rule but not govern. In the context of that aphorism of mine, let us look at where the decision rests, whether the Parliament governs or rules - it is in the context of the Bill that comes before the Senate at the present moment - bearing in mind that the area of government in the bicameral system that we have in Australia is in the House of Representatives and the area of review is in the Senate. Let me go back a bit further. The real struggle for parliamentary rule, as we know it at the present moment, arose in the time of his late Majesty King George III, who made the last struggle in historical terms to assert the dominance over Parliament by the Crown. It was in this struggle that there emerged in the United States of America a new concept of government. That was the Constitution of the United States of America, whereby an attempt was made to separate the power of the executive and the power of the Congress.

For some curious reason, which i shall elaborate in a moment, the problem we have in Australia at the present moment is that we are in an intermediate stage in government where we have hanging over us part of the continuing struggle of the late eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The problem is the equipoise that has to be achieved between government of the Crown and the rule of the Parliament. I am quite willing to support the Bill, because it relates to the House of Representatives - provided we do not get any more cuckoos in the nest here.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Which ones are you picking out, Senator?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I am not picking out anyone at all. Senator

Ministers of State Bill

Wright and Senator Cotton who are sitting on the ministerial benches at the present moment know perfectly well what I am talking about. The Senate has to evolve in a context where it is not grafted into the circumstances and existence of the House of Representatives. I shall deal with the subject that relates to the Ministers of State Bill and the statement that has been made that some Assistant Ministers will be provided. I ask: What is the Crown in Australia in 1971? The Crown is observable and distinguishable in the United Kingdom. It is accepted in the United Kingdom because the Crown performs a positive role in the constitutional procedures in the United Kingdom. Every Minister, whether he be a Minister of the British Labour Party or a Minister of the Conservative Party, which is the present ruling Party in the United Kingdom, observes the dominance and pre-eminence of the Crown as the area of neutrality holding the balance of power in the Parliament in London. But this does not exist in Australia, because there is a new component in the system of government in Australia which, over the last 20 years, is an area of power that is not the power of the Crown as it has been historically understood. It is no good your reeling like that, Senator Wright, whether you are bored with this or not.

Senator Wright:

– I certainly am not. 1 am listening with great attention.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I thought you might not be prepared to accept this. I am glad to have you on my side. There has now emerged in Australia a new concept. The new concept is that there is a power that has now interposed itself between the Crown, as we understand it historically, and the Parliament. That power is the executive government. What is the executive government in this new power that has intervened between the Crown in Australia and the Parliament? This new power that has intervened in Australia between the Crown and the Parliament is what we describe - the phrase is freely used in the Senate chamber but not in the other place - as the executive government. What is the executive government? The executive government in Australia today, if I can give it this definition, is a body which is partly matrix and partly loose and it is a continuing power which is centred in the Public Service. That is the

Ministers of State Bill 1 753 first thing. The next part of this power structure comprises the Ministers who are taken from the Parliament and embedded for the purpose of Government inside the permanent structure of the bureaucracy. This is the executive government. It is not the Crown which is involved in constitutional government in Australia today, as it is historically understood in the United Kingdom at present. It is not the circumstance in which there is a division of power between the executive and the Government clearly demarked by the Constitution of the United States of America. What is involved in Australia today is a new structure altogether.

Senator Prowse:

– Senator, why do you say this is new? Has not this existed since Federation.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– It is a new structure of growth and power which I will explain in a moment. There is a component in this executive structure in Australia today where Parliament provides certain elements which are supposed to govern the permanent component of the executive structure, which is the administration or the bureaucracy. That is drawn from Parliament. That component which is temporarily attached to the administrative structure is the Ministry. But the moment we introduce into Parliament a system by which the ministerial component becomes sufficiently strong to dominate the ruling party in the Parliament then we have married the permanent executive component to an area of parliamentary government where anyone who wishes to maintain the rule of Parliament is defeated.

Senator Murphy:

– That is what has happened here.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

That is what is happening here. Senator Murphy should not be so gleeful about this because I will come back to it in a moment. This is the problem with this Bill because with the ruling Prime Minister and an increase in the Ministry and the appointment of Assistant Ministers, there exists a majority against the ruling party inside the Parliament. In other words, the executive component of government which has divorced itself from the Crown pays little regard to the authority of the Crown. This is demonstrated by the fact that His Excellency the Governor-General felt it 12 May 1971 incumbent upon him at an earlier stage in this new Ministry to draw attention to the fact that the rights of the Crown had to be protected. The facts are that with the growth of the intrusion of the central bureaucracy in manipulating and manoeuvring the Government, the ruling Party today has taken control of Government out of the hands of Parliament and has embedded it in the central bureaucracy which is a marriage between the ministry and the bureaucracy.

These are harsh words, perhaps, but I believe they do not concern the Senate. They concern the House of Representatives which is the House of Government, and if the House of Representatives wants to embark on this system it is all the more important that the Senate does not lend itself to this device because in the rule of Parliament, not the government of Parliament or government by Parliament, if the Senate lends itself to this device, and it acknowledges this device, it is all the more important and vital that the Senate should institute a system by which parliamentary rule can be maintained in this country. Therefore, I make no apologies for these generalities with which I am dealing at the present moment. The institution of Parliament operates under a system that has been devised, and is being maintained and widely supported under which we provide a House of Government, the House of Representatives. But by the marriage of the components of ministerial responsibility in the House of Government and the bureaucracy there exists a new power altogether. It is not the conceptual power of the Crown holding the balance which emerged in the 19th century in the United Kingdom. We have an untramelled uncontrolled power in the House of Representatives which is not subject to any control except by electoral devices and, with some constitutional powers, it is able to control the electoral devices.

Therefore, there is a responsibility on the Senate clearly and unequivocally, if the rule of Parliament is to be maintained, to see that the rule of Parliament is maintained by the exercise of will and judgment of honourable senators who compose the Senate. I am not making this a challenge to the House of Representatives. What 1 am trying to do is illustrate to honourable senators in the clearest and most positive terms I can that emerging in Australia today are elements by which the rule of Parliament can be submerged and prostituted, if it is the will of any Prime Minister, so that we get a marriage between the permanent centre of bureaucracy and the majority in the Parliament which can dominate the ruling party. I have no objection to supporting this Bill because it is a Bill that originates in the House of Government and if this is the path upon which the House of Government, the House of Representatives, embarks and wishes to proceed, it is all the more important that the Senate which is, I believe, the repository of constitutional power in Australia, should make its views known. I make my views known as a senator who understands that the constitutional proprietories of this country can only be maintained by the Senate since the House of Representatives has abdicated its responsibilities because it has not clearly discerned the path upon which it has embarked and has lent itself to the process by which it can achieve this marriage between the central bureaucracy and the Parliament.

I read a most remarkable statement in the Press the other day. Whether it was a truthful reporting of what was said or not, I do not know; from what authority it came or what its origin was, T do not know. But it was reported that the circumstances that caused the pressure of business the other day in the House of Representatives, or in another place, if I may use the proprieties of parliamentary terminology, were that the departmental advisers had not come up with the Bills: and, secondly, as a variation of this, that the Parliamentary counsel were not able to draft the Bills. Whatever the reason for the pressure of business, I do not believe this to be true because it is my information, which I believe can be substantiated, that most of the legislation that came into the House of Government the other day had been prepared and had been agreed to at least 6 or 7 weeks ago. However, that is not the point. The point I wish to make to honourable senators is that the excuse for the circumstances which existed in the House of Government, the House of Representatives, was an excuse that the Bills had not emerged from the bureaucracy. In terms of parliamentary constitutionality, I have always believed that instructions for Bills to be prepared were given by Ministers of State. But there emerges in this significant statement that there is no policy direction from the Minister of State level; instead there is a policy direction emerging from the other end of the tunnel.

Having said that, I shall conclude on what I believe to be an elementary lesson in constitutional propriety as to the function of government of Australia today, namely, that there is in reality no existence of the Crown as we have historically understood it. There has been interposed between the Crown, as we have historically understood it, and the Parliament as we have historically understood it, a new power altogether. That power is the power of the bureaucracy or the power emerging from the needs of individuals composing the Ministry. A temporary marriage of convenience between the infallibility of the bureaucracy and the temporary needs of the people who can be drawn from Parliament is a new and damaging power in the concept of whether Parliament should rule. That is the power of the Executive.

Having given indications that 1 would not pursue that any further I do not wish any honourable senator who sits on your left, Mr Acting Deputy President, to be encouraged by any words that I have said, because there exists another power again, namely, the power of a party caucus that can come to decisions and, as a party caucus, enforce its unilateral decisions on a portion of the Parliament composed of the party’s temporary representatives in the Parliament and thereby attempt to enforce its views on the bureaucracy. I do not put it in any stronger terms than those. I must say that Sir Robert Menzies, who was Prime Minister of Australia, always refused in the Government Parties room the right of a caucus to enforce decisions on it. As he said from time to time, he was a parliamentarian to his boot heels; and he was.

I would be loath, sorry and unhappy if the day arrived when at least one party to the Parliament allowed itself to develop into a caucus. At the same time I deprecate the capacity of another section of the Parliament to vote separately, secretly and hurriedly to enforce its will on the Party and marry itself to the bureaucracy in order to impose its will on the community. I feel very strongly about this. I feel that it is the thin edge of the wedge on the side of politics to which I subscribe and on the Party I support and which I have supported for the whole of my adult life, that there should be interposed into the area of Parliament a means by which the Executive could begin to dominate the ruling Party.

I see the Bill before the Senate in these terms: If there is an increase in the number of Ministers of State, plus the addition of assistant Ministers or however one likes to describe them, the situation which will arise will be a compliment in a curious kind of way to the Socialist concept that there has to be a caucus which will overrule Parliament and dominate it. I am a parliamentarian. I like to think, much in the terms of Sir Robert Menzies, that I am a parliamentarian to my boot heels. But pre-eminently I am a senator to my boot heels. Now I can see with great sorrow and an enormous amount of apprehension that we are moving into an area where there is a new component of power, namely, the convenient marriage of Ministers and the bureaucracy, by which Parliament will be overruled. This can be prevented only by the existence of a Senate that is willing to accept the norms of parliamentary rule as they have grown up in English speaking countries over the past 300 or 400 years, and by learning the lessons of the past. For simple convenience - I put it at no lower level than that - the introduction of this Bill is another and further step towards the prostitution of parliamentary rule. I issue this warning to my colleagues.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Now that we are getting towards the end of this debate I want to be very brief in my remarks. I thank Senator Sir Magnus Cormack for his tremendous knowledge of the history of the constitutional position which he has been outlining to us. I wish that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) had the same knowledge of history as Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has in this regard. I also wish that he would learn the lessons from it. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has told us that there was a parliament in which there was a

Minister called Wentworth, and they cut off his head. If the Prime Minister learned that lesson he would start to improve his Ministry immediately without having to increase it. I hope that the lesson laid down by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack will be taken up very seriously by the Prime Minister.

The purpose of this Bill is to increase by one the number of Ministers that Mr McMahon wants in his Ministry. We have said already that this is a cynical use of power. We do not believe that the need for this measure has arisen out of extra work. I do not want to go over that because I think it is pretty well known to the Australian people that that sums up the position fairly well. If the Government wants to cut down on some of the work that is done by the Prime Minister, senior Ministers and Premiers throughout Austraia, those people should stop going around opening baby shows and dog shows, and appearing at the local market simply because it seems to do them some good somewhere else, and concentrate on the work that they are paid to do. What they do is akin to the manager of a large store or a large office making the morning tea. He does not do it because his salary does not allow him to do things such as that. The salaries that we pay to the Prime Minister and to senior Ministers is to compensate them for carrying on the administration of this country and for doing the thinking and the hard work that is necessary. But every time ohe picks up a newspaper one reads that they are diving in the surf at Manly, posing in an aeroplane or in a kiddies swing, or patting some baby’s head. There is no need for an additional Minister. The Government could very well dispose of two or three. I remember Sir Robert Menzies, in that colourful language of his, being very sarcastic about a lot of Ministers. I will not mention them because I might hurt the feelings of somebody who is occupying one of those positions today. Clearly this measure is not necessary.

Let me turn now to a matter that is not covered by this Bill but which will be mentioned later. I refer to the proposal regarding assistant Ministers. In my memory, the appointment of assistant Ministers has been tried on 3 occasions and each time it has failed. There is only 1 Minister

I can think of who, after 9 years as an assistant Minister, finally became a Minister. That is Mr Swartz in another place. The rest of them turned away in disgust. A person who is appointed an assistant Minister is not sworn in and does not have the powers of a Minister. All the Government is doing is appointing a senior clerk. It will get a much more efficient one by obtaining a trained person from the Public Service.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is the essence of my argument.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, and 1 do not argue with a lot of it. Senator Condon Byrne says that we should have 2 assistant Ministers, one of whom would assist a Minister who is a member of the Cabinet. Let us look at that proposition. The Minister concerned holds one portfolio, namely, that of Supply. How will he get somebody who is nothing more than a senior clerk, not even located in the administrative building, to assist him in that portfolio? Can he assist the Minister in the affairs of Cabinet? Of course not. They are top secret. How in the wide world can he assist the Minister in the running of the Senate which is the Ministers only other duty?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack made 2 other points. One of them was that he had read that the all night sitting and the disgraceful exhibition that went on last week was caused by the Public Service. He said that he had read this but was not sure whether it was true. The Prime Minister has said that he will set up special machinery to examine the position. He has been here long enough, as we all have, to know exactly why this is done. Bills are held up until the final days of the sittings because it suits the Establishment, it suits the Public Service and it suits the Ministers. Even now we know that on 17th August the Budget will be brought down. For example, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) knows now whether there is to be an increase in social service benefits. He could instruct his Department tomorrow morning to start preparing material for the Bills, leaving the amounts blank. The draftsmanship and associated matters could be prepared, waiting for the passing of the Budget.

Ministers of State Bill

The Government does not kid anybody when it says otherwise. Every Minister knows that he could order his public servants to start preparing now. He knows the Bills he will require and they could be presented in the first week of the parliamentary session. That position would apply in 98 per cent of cases, but not for emergency legislation that is required from time to time. When emergency legislation is presented, where is the great delay? A short while ago a tanker was spilling oil into the sea and we put a Bill through in a few hours to cover the situation. There was no problem then with draftsmanship or with getting the measure through both Houses. To say otherwise is just attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of people who do not know the true situation, if there is enough wool left in Australia to do so. It is as simple as that.

Any government can have its legislation put through in orderly fashion if it wants that result. The truth is that the Government does not want that result. It was only because there was an uproar over last week’s events that the chickens are coming home to roost on this occasion. I was completely unimpressed with the closing remarks of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack when he tried to upbraid the Australian Labor Party for its method of caucus deliberations. He tried to tell us that the Liberal and Country Parties are not bound by caucus decisions. Mr President, in the years that you have been here have you known of any occasion when a vote on a serious measure has been taken that the Liberal and Country Party members have not toed the line? Some honourable senators have flaunted their independence at times when we have been dealing with the Bull and Goat Act, the Chicken Act, or some measure which does not matter two hoots. In the past when the Government has presented serious legislation the Liberal Party has not worried about calling a caucus meeting. Sir Robert Menzies would walk down the corridor, flick his fingers, call the so-called rebels out into the passage and roll them as flat as a Persian rug. That was the end of that rebellion.

One picks up information moving around the corridors. I know that when some members of the Liberal Party have

Ministers of State Bill 1 757 bucked in the party room they have been called a bunch of rats. Does this suggest that they have this glorious freedom that is demanded of members of other parties? The only way that a parliament or business can be run efficiently is for matters to be thrashed out firstly by small committees and finally by making a decision as to how it will appear to the public. That is true of business which passes through the Parliament or is conducted by any large organisation. The Liberal Party conducts its affairs in the same way as the ALP, and that will always be the case because it is the only effective way to operate. I am therefore not very interested in the sort of argument advanced by honourable senators opposite on a measure such as the one before us.

The long debate on this Bill has surprised me. 1 did not think it would take so long. What has surprised me more is that most people have spoken against the Bill, including senators of the Liberal Party, Australian Democratic Labor Party and, of course, the Australian Labor Party. The difference is that the Australian Labor Party has spoken against the Bill and will vote against it. Members of the other 2 parties will not.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– Senator Willesee very promptly reminded us at the beginning of his speech that we are dealing with a Bill fo increase the number of Ministers of State by one. The debate has been quite wide ranging and we have been treated to a series of lectures by various senators. For my art. I believe that all honourable senators, from every side of politics, are proud to be senators and of the work of the Senate. We are proud of what it has done and will try to do in the future. However, I am sure that we have different views as to how our work might best be carried out. I do not really think that we profit a great deal by being lectured on what we ought ,r> “‘o totally from the viewpoint of a particular senator.

Let us examine some of the issues we are dealing with now. What is the Parliament’s function? As expressed in the Constitution it has a legislative power. Section 51 expressly provides:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, 12 May 1971 order and good government of the Commonwealth

It is not a power to rule but a power to make laws. Let us get back to the hard core of this particular Bill. Its purpose is to increase the number of Ministers of State by 1. In the last 20 years the revenue and expenditure of the Commonwealth - the areas of Budget balancing - have multiplied by 7 times. In 1950 the ministerial strength was 18. It is now 26. A simple fact of life in the Parliament is that the business of Australia is growing at a very fast rate. Government of itself is a very big business. The decisions made here are of great consequence for all the Australian people. The responsibilities of Ministers, senators and members of the other place have increased greatly. That ought to be acknowledged by everybody. It is certainly acknowledged by me.

The sheer pace of work, the need to make decisions and to get action, and the sheer pressure of events make the work of Ministers, parliamentarians and the Public Service itself much greater. The sheer pressure is there, and it dictates the levels of responsibility and executive action. We need more Ministers, it was properly said by Senator Byrne, to pick up particular areas of responsibility which are beginning to gather themselves together and should properly be handled by one Minister. This will allow the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) more time for policy and Cabinet deliberations.

Looking at these matters quite dispassionately and free from personal prejudice, one would expect such a development when receipts and expenditure over a period of 20 years have multiplied by 7 times. One would expect pressure on the management to be that much greater. One would expect pressure on senior people and members to be that much greater and the pace of events to be that much faster. That is just part of the common sense of life in Parliament, and common sense in any institution. The proposal to appoint Assistant Ministers is consistent with the practice in more highly developed democracies. I have in mind particularly the practice in the United Kingdom of appointing Parliamentary UnderSecretaries. Although the system has encoun tered problems in the past, I sincerely hope that it succeeds on this occasion so that people will receive training in the management principles that must be applied in Parliament.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– There are 12 men in the United States Cabinet.

Senator COTTON:

– The situation in the United States is very different from that in Australia. The proposal that a new Minister be appointed from the Senate will be welcomed, I am sure, by most senators if not by all. Speaking quietly and only for myself, I thank Senator Byrne for his solicitude for Senate Ministers. He compared the workloads of Ministers and noted that Senate Ministers are handling something like 7 times as many questions as their counterparts in the House of Representatives. One could continue these arguments at great length about the Executive taking over the country, and rule by juntas and power groups. That is not a fact of life. We operate under Executive Government as laid down in the Constitution. Any attempt to change that situation would be rebuffed by the Australian people. The Australian people are the masters. The Parliament must approve increases in ministerial strength.

The role of the Parliament is to make laws, not to rule. For my part I do not see any necessity to involve ourselves in histrionics when debating such measures as this one. It is a simple measure. This Parliament is asked to increase the numbers in the Ministry by one. We are part of the Parliament. The responsibilities of Parliament have greatly increased. Anybody who bears part of that responsibility knows how much the load has grown. It will continue to increase in the future. With those thoughts, I commend the Bill to you all.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 24

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1759

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

The PRESIDENT:

– Yesterday Senator O’Byrne asked me, through Mr Deputy President, a question relating to an advertisement in the Press which offered prompt private transcripts of the evidence taken at Canberra hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. I have no knowledge of this matter. Certainly no assistance is given in this activity by the Senate or Hansard. As to the propriety of the advertisement, I decline to comment without precise knowledge of the proposed arrangements for the supply of copies of the Committee’s evidence.

page 1759

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE ATTENDANTS

The PRESIDENT:

– At question time this morning Senator Drury asked whether I had been able to have discussions with Mr Speaker concerning attendants’ rates of pay. I have had discussions with Mr Speaker and the matter is still under consideration.

page 1759

INTERNATIONAL TIN AGREEMENT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May (vide page 1336), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Mr Temporary Chairman-

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Will you ask Senator Cant to resume his seat while I take the point?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Kennelly) - Senator Cant, a point of order is being raised. Will you please resume your seat.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that Senator Cant has addressed you inappropriately. He has addressed you as Mr Temporary Chairman whereas you are the Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I thank Senator Sir Magnus Cormack for bringing it to my notice. I trust that Senator Cant will address the Chair in the correct manner.

Senator CANT:

– Speaking to the point of order, I have before me Senate Notice Paper No. 100 for Wednesday, 12th May 1971, and I find that Senator Kennelly is listed as one of the Temporary Chairmen of Commitees. Nevertheless, I will forgo the orders of the day and address my colleague as Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Will you proceed with the business before the chamber?

Senator CANT:

– Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to establish my position. We are about to consider Australia’s ratification of the International Tin Agreement. I believe that international commodity agreements are good for Australia, provided Australia has a fair say in what those commodity agreements will be. We find that one of the objectives of the International Tin Agreement is to provide an international rationalisation system for the sale of tin. The Agreement is designed to assist in the fair distribution of tin on the world markets and to help to increase the production of tin, especially as it relates to the earnings of the developing tin producing countries. These are admirable objectives, and I will refer to them a little later. The Agreement is for a 5-year period, but it may be extended successively for a period or periods of not more than 12 months. So it could have effect for a longer period than 5 years.

There are 2 ways in which the Agreement can be ratified. The first is to ratify it in accordance with paragraph (a) of article 46 of the International Tin Agreement. Article 46 of the Agreement deals with definitive entry into force. Paragraph (a) states:

This Agreement shall, for the Governments which have deposited instruments of ratification, approval or acceptance, enter into force definitely as soon after 30 June 1971 as such instruments have been deposited on behalf of Governments representing at least six producing countries as set out in annex A holding together at least 950 of the votes set out in that annex and at least nine consuming countries as set out in annex B holding together at least 300 of the votes set out in that annex.

This seems to me a pretty onerous kind of definitive ratification of the Agreement when the 6 depositing countries that are required to ratify the Agreement have to control at least 950 of the 1,000 votes that are available to the producing countries. I think there are only 7 such countries listed in annex A. Article 46 then deals with the amount of tin produced by the producing countries and with those 950 votes. Australia has 32 votes so that if Australia did not ratify, the Agreement could still come into force. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has 49 votes so if it did not ratify, the Agreement could come into force. If any of the other producing countries failed to ratify the Agreement it could not come into force because 950 votes would not be available. Bolivia controls 169 votes out of 1,000. Indonesia controls 93. Malaysia controls 447. The Federal Republic of Nigeria controls 66 and Thailand controls 144. The International Tin Agreement could very easily be upset by one country’s standing out so the 950 votes would not be available to ratify the Agreement.

The second method of ratification is by provisional entry in accordance with paragraph (a) of article 47. Paragraph (a) states:

  1. If the conditions for the definitive entry into force of this Agreement laid down in para graph (a) of article 46, have not been satisfied, this Agreement shall, for the Governments which have deposited instruments of ratification, approval or acceptance or have given notification of intention to ratify, . . . 1 do not know how one can anticipate what a government may do. The paragraph continues: . . approve or accept, enter into force provisionally on the day following the date of termination of the Third Agreement, . . .

The date of termination of the Third Agreement is 30th June this year. The paragraph continues: . . provided that such instruments or notifications have been deposited with the depositary Government: By 30 June 1971 or, if the Third Agreement is extended, by the date of termination of that Agreement; and On behalf of Governments representing at least six producing countries as set out in annex A holding together at least 950 of the votes set out in that annex, and at least nine consuming countries as set out in annex B holding together at least 300 of the votes set out in that annex.

  1. For each signatory Government which has deposited an instrument of ratification, approval or acceptance of, or has given notification of intention to ratify, approve or accept, this Agreement while it is provisionally in force, the Agreement shall enter into force provisionally on the date of the deposit of such instrument or notification.

Even so, the provisional ratification of the Agreement is still controlled by the 950 votes being available. I emphasise that only 2 countries need stand out and the Agreement cannot come into force. This seems to me a pretty heavy onus to carry. Paragraph (b) of article 47 ensures that the provisional ratification of the Agreement is limited, because it states:

If, within six months after the termination of the Third Agreement, this Agreement has entered into force provisionally but not definitively as laid down in article 46, the Executive Chairman shall as soon as possible convene a meeting or meetings of the Council to consider the position. If, however, the entry into force remains provisional the Agreement shall be terminated not later than one year after the provisional entry into force.

Even a provisional entry, if the 950 votes are obtained on a promise of ratification, cannot continue in operation for a period of more than 6 months. These are points that I bring to the notice of the Senate because I think that we should have something firmer in the international marketing arrangements for our products. It has to be remembered that it was not so many years ago that Australia led the world in the production of tin. Then for a considerable period Australia was an importer of tin. We have only just returned to the stage at which we are an exporter of tin. The Opposition thinks that there should be something firmer in these marketing arrangements. Senator Cotton, who represents in this chamber the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), in his second reading speech, stated:

The United States, which is the world’s largest consumer of tin, is not a member. However, it has participated fully in the negotiations and has co-operated with the International Tin Council, especially on matters relating to releases from its present stockpile surplus.

This is an amazing situation. When I look at annex B to the Agreement - I find that the voting rights of the various governments to come to an agreement on this world marketing situation are such that 1,000 votes are allocated to the consuming countries. Of those, 315 are available to the United States of America. Almost onethird of the votes that are available to the consuming countries are allocated to the United States of America. Under article 46 300 votes are required from the consuming countries to bring the International Tin Agreement into operation. The United States, by her own vote, can bring the Agreement into operation providing 950 votes are available from the producing countries. Yet the United States of America is not prepared to ratify the International Tin Agreement. She is able to control it because she has one-third of the votes of the consuming countries. She is able to bring it into force by having the surplus of the votes of the consuming countries. Yet she is not prepared to ratify it. It seems to me that the United States is prepared to enter into negotiations with other world producers and consumers of tin to fix the price at which that commodity shall bc sold on the world market but then reserves to herself the right to stand outside the agreement, which she is capable of influencing, and to buy tin on the world market at prices less than the international agreement price.

What is the position of countries which are producing this commodity and relying on the production of it? I do not refer so much to Australia, because our exports amount to only $12m a year. They are a drop in the ocean in our total overseas earnings. I refer more to developing countries such as Bolivia, Malaysia and Thailand. Bolivia produces 16.98 per cent of the world’s supply, Malaysia 45.83 per cent and Thailand 14.56 per cent. They are subject to an agreement which the largest consumer of tin in the world is able to influence. That consumer is able to bring an international agreement into operation and then reserve to herself the right not to abide by the rules although she has taken part in and exercised a large influence on the making of them. For those reasons I believe that we should be looking at this Agreement much more closely than we have looked at it over the years. If we find that people who are able to go to the negotiating table and to exercise a large influence in arriving at an agreement then want to stand outside it, we should be asking the reasons why they want to stand outside it.

I do not believe that the United States plays the game in any way on the international trade scene. In particular, she does not play the game as far as Australia is concerned. She has heavy tariffs on the importation of many of our goods and is not prepared to admit our base metals - lead and zinc - into the country at all. In this case, to suit her own ends, she influences the International Tin Agreement and thereafter stands outside it. I believe that we should look at this Agreement very much more closely in the future. We should send people to negotiate. We should tell people who want to sit around the negotiating table and influence decisions on world marketing that if they are not prepared to ratify the agreement they should not take part in the arrangements. The Labor Party does not oppose the Bill.

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I have listened with interest to Senator Cant’s comments on this matter. I acknowledge his understanding of the Australian mining industry. His comments on ratification are correct, in that 950 producer country votes are required for ratification. This provision is identical with, or very close to, that which obtained in the previous agreements. It has not prevented agreements coming into force in the past. To a very substantial degree, the effectiveness of the Agreement depends on the co-operation of the producing countries, which make mandatory contributions to the buffer stock and, as required by the Council, undertake export and stock controls. The second reading speech of the Minister responsible for this matter - that is not myself; I merely represent him - states:

The Agreement was negotiated at a conference held in Geneva last year under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development- UNCTAD - and it is the latest in a series of international tin agreements dating back to 1956.

I should imagine that in those circumstances due weight would have been given to comments such as those made by Senator Cant because other people would have had the factors to which he has given expression in this chamber this afternoon in their minds when they were negotiating. Nonetheless, his comments will be taken seriously and will be referred to the appropriate Minister.

In respect of all these international agreements - we have one for grains, one for sugar and one for coffee - the Government always adopts what is called a pragmatic approach; that is, what is the best agreement we can obtain to serve the Australian producers who are trying to make the best arrangements they can make to market their commodities. The Government always pays high regard to the industry’s viewpoint. It is always taken into account. From that it can be assumed that in these circumstances the industry’s viewpoint would have been canvassed thoroughly and that the proposal meets with industry approval as well as with Government approval. I do not think there is anything that I can usefully add.

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

– by leave - I do not propose to make a lengthy speech on this Bill. I rise merely to say that the Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill, which seeks the approval of the Parliament for the ratification by Australia of the International Tin Agreement. My colleagues and I will vote accordingly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1762

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May (vide page 1326), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill:

At the end of motion add - but the Senate is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth are so inadequate as to constitute social injustice and is of the opinion that, unless the inadequacies are substantially remedied in the Budget, it should be rejected’.

In the debate on the Budget for the last financial year - that is 1969-70 - I referred to its grave shortcomings in such crucial areas to the welfare of the Australian people as health, education, public works and services and national development. I said at the time:

The overwhelming, the paramount defect in the management of this country is the disposition of public assets, the abdication of public responsibility for the development of resources.

That is why there is not enough money for medical and hospital care, not enough for education, not enough to maintain our sick, our unemployed and our retired at a decent standard of living, not enough for our roads, our dams and our public works, and not enough for the States or for local government.

At that time, on behalf of the Opposition, I moved an amendment in these terms to the motion to take note of the Budget papers: and the Senate is of the opinion that the Budget is inadequate in that - (a) it increases taxation and health and housing costs for families; (b) it makes no considered and comprehensive approach to the needs of all schools; (c) it ignores the problems of capital cities and regional centres; (d) it defers further development projects and urgent rural measures; and (e) it neglects industries based on Australian natural resources and defence requirements.

The Opposition was not supported by any other Party in this chamber and the amendment was defeated. In August last year, in dealing with the 1970-71 Budget, I pointed out that the Budget represented social injustice perpetrated by an unfeeling Government against those already economically handicapped - the wage earners, the family man, the pensioner. To reduce the burden of income tax and impose heavier burdens of sales tax, excise, telephone and postal charges and receipts duties meant that those least able to afford it were injured the most I further emphasised that increases in interest rates forced up interest on home loans and mortgages and on hire purchase. I drew attention to the neglect of our cities, railways, public services and hospitals. I highlighted the fact that the Budget did nothing to deal with housing and transportation and made no provision for expenditure to combat pollution. If, as the Government contended, we were in financial difficulties which preclude the possibility of meeting the costs of those urgently needed public and other facilities, I showed bow the Government’s spending in such unfortunate ventures as the Vietnam war and the Fill had contributed to this state of affairs. In the past 6 years the Government has spent S 1,800m on the war in Vietnam. In view of all these considerations, on behalf of the Opposition I moved an amendment to the Budget which said: the Senate condemns this deceptive and negative Budget because it fails to meet ‘.he real needs of the Australian people, especially with respect to (a) standards of social service and war pensioners, (b) assistance to schools, hospitals and urban authorities and (c) restructuring of stricken primary industries and because it introduces and increases taxes and charges of a regressive and inequitable nature.

On that occasion also the amendment was lost because the Austraiian Labor Party was not supported by any other Party in this chamber. As a result the Budget went through the Parliament. All honourable senators are aware that the Senate is a necessary element of the legislative process in this community and that no measure of any kind, whether financial or otherwise, can pass into law without the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament. That means that if there is to be some remedy for the unfair treatment of pensioners it is up to the Senate to see to it that the corrective action is taken. There can be no more corrective action than the rejection of the financial measures of the Government which perpetrates injustice.

Following that Budget session we had the Senate elections. The Government which had perpetrated the injustices, which I think were felt by the whole community to be injustices, did not do very well in the Senate election, but it was able to survive in some kind of fashion because of the support that it received from other quarters. On 16th February this year, the day on which the Parliament resumed its sittings, a motion of urgency was moved by Senator Gair, Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. Re had given notice of this motion of urgency in a somewhat unusual way, on 15th December 1970, for the first day of the sitting, which was 16th February 1971.

Senator Gair:

– That followed the Arbitration Commission’s decision on wages and salaries.

Senator murphy:

– That is right.

Senator Gair:

– It was not unusual.

Senator murphy:

– There may be some question as to whether it is proper to give notice so far ahead, but we are not worrying about technicalities.

Senator Gair:

– There is no rule against it.

Senator murphy:

– We do not know whether there is a rule for it, either.

Let us not get caught up in the technicalities of it. Senator Gair used the normal forms of the Senate to move that the Senate at its rising adjourn until the next day, at a time slightly different from the usual time for the puopose of debating a matter of urgency, namely:

The need for the immediate introduction of the necessary legislation to provide for increases in the rates of Social Service Payments - Aged, Invalid and Widows’ Pensions - to a level compatible with the minimum needs of the recipients, tho total inadequacy of the present level of payments having been further exposed and now to be exacerbated by the judgment in the National Wage Case.

That proposition was supported in this chamber by the Australian Labor Party. I spoke on the matter and my opening words were:

We in the Australian Labor Party support this motion.

I dealt with the matters which are familiar to us all, including the unfair treatment of the various recipients of social service benefits. The stated purpose of the motion said clearly enough that there was a need for necessary legislation to provide for increases in the rates of social service payments to bring age, invalid and widows’ pensions to a proper level. That seemed to us to be a reasonable enough statement of the matter and we supported that proposition. However, it is important to observe that when the matter was put in accordance with the procedures of this House, the motion was simply that the House at its rising adjourn to a particular time.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– The honourable senator made that point earlier.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, the point has been made, and made well. The matter of urgency could not be resolved in the way it was put, and so the Senate resolved that we adjourn to a certain time. No operation could be given to the matter of urgency by that decision of the Senate. It had no effect. It was nice that we should say that for the purpose of discussing the subject, which we did discuss, we should go through the technical procedure of adjourning to the next day at a different time, but that was that. The proposition was discussed, using as a vehicle for the discussion a motion that we would meet at 2.55 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. the next day. That was very nice after the 1970-71 Budget had been passed and the pensioners had been given a raw deal. The Australian Democratic Labor Party chose to support the Government’s 1970-71 Budget, and when it went to the polls it supported the Government again. But on the first day of the new session the Democratic Labor Party came into this place and said in effect, in terms to which one could not take exception, that it thought that the pensioners - all of them; age, invalid and widowed - were not getting a fair go and that necessary legislation should be introduced. That motion did not amount to anything. It was a pious and no doubt a helpful expression of views but that was all it was. It could not achieve anything for the pensioners. The next step was that on 7th April a similar motion to deal with the economic position of senior citizens was moved by another member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, who said:

I move:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.55 a.m., unless otherwise ordered. 1 do so for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely:

  1. The grave deterioration as a result of inflation in the economic position of senior citizens dependent on income from superannuation schemes or from the investment of savings accumulated by thrift and sacrifice during their working lives, and the need for urgent appropriate action to relieve their financial situation.
  2. The urgent need for an immediate adjustment of superannuation payments to former Commonwealth employees in accordance with the ‘National Salary Adjustment Scheme’ and for incorporation in the Superannuation Act of provision for regular review of the level of payments.

That matter was debated. The Australian Labor Party supported the proposition which was put forward. The matter was actually brought to a vote. The question was put and a vote was taken. But, of course, the original question was again an inoperative thing. All it did was to provide that the Senate should adjourn to the next day to a time 5 minutes before it normally started. The motion did not even contain the substance of the proposition that was put forward by the senator concerned. That was not his fault because he had followed forms of the House, but this procedure was not getting us anywhere. The matter had been discussed but nothing flowed from it. On that occasion, 7th April, another member of the Democratic Labor Party indicated that 2 weeks later he would raise another matter of urgency relating to social services. On 21st April that senator moved a motion which was debated. Australian Labor Party senators as well as Democratic Labor Pary senators were able to express their concern and, perhaps, their annoyance at the failure of the Parliament to make proper provision for the social service benefits which were being paid in the community. In moving that the Senate should sit at 10.55 a.m. instead of 11 a.m. the honourable senator said:

I do so for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely:

  1. The culpable neglect of the Federal Government in allowing child endowment rates, particularly those for three or more children, and maternity allowances, to deteriorate in real value to such an extent that the family obtains no great assistance from the receipt of such payments.
  2. The failure of the Federal Government to introduce a system of capitalisation of child endowment payments similar to that scheme which has operated successfully in New Zealand since 1959.
  3. The failure of the Federal Government to assist young married couples by updating the amount of assistance given under the Home Savings Grant scheme, the maximum amount of $500 not having been increased since first introduced in 1963, despite the fall in the value of money, the growth of inflation and the rise in building costs, since that year.

The motion was debated and an attempt was made by one of the Australian Democratic Labor Party senators, Senator Little, to gag the debate by moving ‘That the question be now put’. That motion was lost because, by that time, members of the Australian Labor Party had become a little tired of urgency motions, which had no operative effect, being moved on these matters. Certainly the discussions were valuable but the putting to a vote of the simple proposition that the Senate meet 5 minutes earlier than normal was not doing anyone any good at all.

The only way that any good can be done for those persons in receipt of social services is by rejecting measures which the Government brings forward dealing with the finances of the country. In other words the only way to achieve a real result if the Government refuses to do what it should do - and it shows every sign of refusing to do what it should have done over the years - is to reject the Government’s Budget. We take the view that unless the Government is prepared to remedy the position of those in receipt of social service benefits - those who are suffering social injustice - we should reject its Budget. Any reasonable person would say that the Government should be given proper notice that that is the position it faces. If it brings forward a Budget which does not remedy the social injustices which a majority of members of the Senate has said exist, the Government knows what it will face. This is what it should be told. It is not much use passing inoperative motions the effect of which is only to say that the Senate will meet 5 minutes earlier than it would normally meet without going further and letting the Government know that a Budget which fails to remedy these defects will be rejected by this chamber. That is the purpose of the amendment. The Government will be asked to bring in a Budget which remedies the errors, and if if it does not do so it will face the proposition that its Budget should be rejected.

The Senate has had many discussions about the position of those persons in receipt of social services. A wealth of material is to be found in the debates which took place not only on those matters of urgency but also in debates on other matters which have come before the Senate. We are aware that there has been heavy inflation - inflation which was running at the rate of some 5 per cent last year. In the last day or two the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has indicated that inflation is still continuing at the rate of 5 per cent. The pension increase last year represented only a 3 per cent rise. We know that a 50c increase was given by the new Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to the aged pensioners as some kind of prize. Pensioners were treated like children at a school who, when a distinguished person visits that school, are given a half holiday. When the Prime Minister so astonishingly came into office, although he had not been presented to the people, as a matter of signalling his own joy on that happy occasion he decided that pensioners should receive an extra 50c. That, of course, does not meet the parlous position of the pensioners. They are still suffering social injustice.

The attitude of the Government has been revealed best, perhaps, in this chamber by the speeches of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). At the time of the Budget and in answer to questions asked in this chamber he described pensions and social services as being a dramatic continuance of assistance given in the field of social services. The tragedy is that persons such as Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson are sincere. This is what they think the pensioners deserve. They think that pensioners are getting a good go; that this wealthy country is doing social justice to them. That is their stand on the matter and they are sincere.

Pensioners ought to understand that this is what the Government believes. The Government believes that the 50c increase - it is now $1 extra - is good enough for the pensioners. That is its philosophy and that is its genuine belief. The Government believes it is good enough not to increase child endowment. It was last increased in 1967 - and then only by 50c a week for the first child. Endowment now is still only 50c a week for the first child, $1.50 for second child and $3 for third child. That also is social injustice for those with the heavy financial burden of rearing families. Child endowment has shown the worst erosion in real value as a result of inflation. The value of this benefit fell heavily in the period from 1967 to the middle of 1970 by an average of 15 per cent. Only a government with the philosophy of this Government could ignore the legitimate claims of those receiving child endowment, and other social service benefits, for restoration and improvement of those services. Pensions ought to be adjusted automatically in accordance with rises in the cost of living and ought, for example, to be expressed as a percentage of average weekly earnings.

I do not think it is necessary to convince the Senate of the overwhelming case for an improvement in social services. So much has been said in this chamber and so much has been written in newspapers and articles about the poverty in this community that it is not necessary to make up a case. I have moved motions in this chamber for discussion, inquiry and report upon the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. The Senate resolved to refer that matter to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. That Committee has investigated the problems of mentally and physically handicapped persons throughout Australia. We find that in that area social services simply are not good enough.

We know from statements made by many experts and learned people that there are suffering and poverty in this community The number of people affected is estimated variously at between 500,000 and 1 million, and this is not contested. The Government has not said that that is not true. The Government may say that according to its figures, if you take a certain approach to the matter, only 500,000 are suffering in poverty, that is, living at a level below subsistence. No-one in this community should be living at that level yet this is what is happening in Australia, this extremely wealthy country.

Australia is blessed with tremendous pastoral and agricultural wealth, with great secondary industries and with mineral deposits which are the envy of the world. We are living in a period in which there has been tremendous technological progress. Advances in automation and in the application of technology to industry have been unparalleled in human history. If ever there was a period when we ought to be able to provide the minimum of comfort and security to all our people, it is now. We have reached the stage which was dreamed of by philosophers in past times; a stage when society easily is able to produce the material goods needed by our community. In our age there is no difficulty at all in doing this. If anything, we suffer from the problem of overproduction in agricultural products, in fact, in all of our primary industries. What is the problem that we hear of day after day in this chamber? It is: How will we sell these goods? How will we cope with overproduction in food? In secondary industry virtually all we have to do is to press a button. Because of new methods of technology throughout the world, and especially in this country, we can produce material goods. But what is happening in this community? We see mismanagement so gross that some of our people do not have enough to eat. Hundreds of thousands of people are living in poverty. This has been shown by surveys. Some were conducted in Victoria by various voluntary societies and some were conducted by experts in the universities. It became apparent also to the judicial gentleman who conducted the inquiry into medical and hospital costs.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Mr Justice Nimmo.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank the honourable senator. Mr Justice Nimmo also adverted to the problem of the poverty which exists in this community. How is this Government able to justify its management of the economy, of its distribution of the wealth of the community, when in a country which is suffering from overproduction of food we have people who cannot afford to eat enough. They are not eating enough because they cannot afford to as a result of the miserable social services parcelled out by this Government. If ever there was an area which the Government could deal with simply, it is this area. Is there any justification for people in this community - substantial numbers of them - not being able to afford to eat properly?

Senator Greenwood:

– Where do you get your information that substantial numbers cannot afford to eat properly?

Senator MURPHY:

– From the sources I have mentioned - investigations by the voluntary societies, and inquiries by the Brotherhood of St Lawrence and by other bodies. There have been many and the honourable senator should look them up. There was a debate on this subject in this chamber. The honourable senator should turn up the record. The matter of poverty has been partly debated and is on the notice paper waiting for an honourable senator on the Government side to respond. He also will find a lot of material on the existence of poverty in this community. Is the Government denying what has been put forward by these people? I understand that it was not contested that there is a level of poverty in the community which has resulted in people living below subsistence level. They are not getting enough to eat and are living in conditions which should not be tolerated in this community. Senator Greenwood says that this is not true. Is that what he is suggesting?

Senator Greenwood:

– I asked you for the information, and I did not say whether it was true.

Senator MURPHY:

– I told the honourable senator where he could get the information. If he likes to go over to the Legislative Research Section in the Parliamentary Library - it is only a few yards from this chamber - I have no doubt he can obtain a mountain of material on this question. The reports do not deal only with poverty in general; they are analysed and categorised into various kinds of poverty - primary poverty and secondary poverty. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), a fellow member of Senator Greenwood’s own Government, has given definitions on what is secondary poverty and what is primary poverty in Australia. Yet the Minister here apparently is unaware of this and demands to know where is the authority for what has been said and what is accepted throughout the community. It has been accepted by the Minister for Social Services, to his credit.

There have been seminars and great discussions on the subject of poverty. Most of the community, except the Government, is concerned about the matter. But what else could anybody expect under the kind of Government that is running this country. While the Government has in the Ministry people with the outlook of Senator

Greenwood we will continue to have poverty problems. Senator Greenwood adopts the attitude that these problems do not exist. He wants to be shown proof that they do exist. It does not matter to him that another Minister has been saying for some years that they exist and that other people in the community accept beyond question that we have poverty problems and that the social service benefits are inadequate. The Government may not accept the fact that these problems exist, but a majority of the community does. Those people who apply their minds to this matter will find overwhelming evidence that these problems do exist.

The Opposition has not only moved in this chamber propositions concerning poverty in Australia and sought inquiries into the various aspects of social services but it has also been successful in amending certain social services Bills. An Opposition amendment to a recent social services Bill was accepted by the Senate. The Opposition has moved such amendments regularly as these matters have passed through this chamber. It has also moved motions which have dealt with specific measures. The Opposition has not tried to reject some measures because it would not want to stop a benefit which would flow from a particular piece of legislation. There is only one way to force the Government of this country to do what the Opposition and the Australian Democratic Labor Party have been saying should be done. If honourable senators read the contents of the motions the Australian Democratic Labor Party has proposed - I will not worry about trifling differences - they will see that the substance of them is that there should be legislation to correct these injustices and that social services should be brought up to a proper level. The Opposition is saying the same thing. Together we constitute a majority in this chamber and we will constitute a majority when the next Budget is introduced.

The only way to ensure that we will get justice for these people and the only way we will shock the Government into a realisation that it may be forced to an election upon this topic is to pass now the amendment I have moved. It will give the Government formal notice that unless it corrects the difficulties that exist, unless it corrects the social injustices that exist, unless it does right by those persons who are in receipt of social service benefits and unless it carries out the wishes which have been expressed time and again by a majority in the Senate its Budget is going to be rejected. I therefore ask the Senate to agree to my proposition that at the end of the motion for the second reading of Supply Bill (No. 1) the following words be added: but the Senate is of the opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth are so inadequate as to constitute social injustice and is of the opinion that, unless the inadequacies are substantially remedied in the Budget, it should be rejected.

I would point out to the Australian Democratic Labor Party, which agrees that there is social injustice in the community and has been demanding that there should be legislation to overcome this injustice, that now is the time to act. The Senate can give notice to the Government before it formulates its Budget that if it does not agree to remedy these injustices the Budget will be rejected. Now is the time for the Democratic Labor Party to vote with the Australian Labor Party and put this Government on notice. If the Democratic Labor Party does not support the Australian Labor Party it will stand condemned in the eyes of the people of Australia as being a political party that does not mean what it says. The Democratic Labor Party supports the Government at Budget time and it supports the Government at the time of an election and then it comes into this chamber and moves urgency motions, seeks discussions on matters of public importance and says it is sorry for the poor pensioners. But honourable senators know and the people of Australia will find out that it is not prepared to ensure that justice is done by saying to the Government: ‘We will join with the Australian Labor Party and reject the next Budget unless justice is done to people in receipt of social services’.

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

– I have listened with great interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), which was mainly in support of his amendment. It seeks to serve notice on the Government that unless it does certain things in the next Budget the Opposition will reject that Budget. I rise to support the Bill and to oppose the amendment. I oppose it on the ground that I have no reason to be confident that the Leader of the Opposition is as sincere in what he says as he would like people to believe. I question his motive in this matter. In the course of his address the Leader of the Opposition revealed that he was disturbed and upset because I had given notice to the President of the Senate in December of last year that when the Senate met 1 was going to move an urgency motion dealing with age and invalid pensions and social services generally. The Leader of the Opposition half implied that it was irregular to have done this so early. Has any honourable senator ever heard such rubbish before? I did it at an appropriate time. I did it following the decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to grant the workers in this country - wage and salary earners alike - a 6 per cent increase. What could have been a more appropriate time to remember those on fixed incomes and those in receipt of pensions than at a time when all active workers were to get a 6 per cent increase? I dispatched my notice to the President and at an appropriate time the Australian Democratic Labor Party moved an urgency motion in connection with this matter. It also moved a motion in connection with those on fixed incomes - the superannuitants. My Party had the support of the Opposition on both of those urgency motions.

For the benefit of honourable senators I will indicate the terms of those urgency motions. The first one dealt with the need for the immediate introduction of the necessary legislation to provide for increases in the rates of social service payments - age, invalid and widows’ pensions - to bring them to a level compatible with the minimum needs of the recipients, the total inadequacy of the present level of payments having been further exposed and to be exacerbated by the judgment in the national wage case. The DLP connected the national wage case with that motion. The Senate voted in favour of that motion. On 7th April Senator Kane moved the second urgency motion, which referred, firstly, to the grave deterioration as a result of inflation in the economic position of senior citizens dependent on income from superannuation schemes or from the investment of savings accumulated by thrift and sacrifice during their working lives and the need for urgent appropriate action to relieve their financial situation and, secondly, the urgent need for an immediate adjustment of superannuation payments to former Commonwealth employees in accordance with the notional salary adjustment scheme and for incorporation in the Superannuation Act of provisions for a regular review of the level of payments. That motion was also carried in the Senate. On 21st April the Australian Democratic Labor Party moved another urgency motion dealing with child endowment but, because of the action of the Opposition, a vote was not taken on that motion. My Party endeavoured to get a vote on it.

Senator Murphy:

– That is the gag you are talking about, is it not?

Senator GAIR:

– The Opposition has moved the gag on many occasions with a view to getting a vote on its proposals. Therefore the Leader of the Opposition should not pretend to be so pure on this matter of getting a vote on an urgency motion. He would have us believe that it was only a political exercise. The Democratic Labor Party did more than that. We followed it up with a letter to the Prime Minister, attaching copies of the context of the urgency motions initiated in the Senate this year by DLP senators. We also enclosed copies of the speeches of the DLP senators who had initiated these urgency motions. The letter stated:

The texts and the speeches relating to these urgency motions are forwarded to you, now so you will be aware of them when you and your Government are formulating the 1971-72 Budget. I presume that the details of the Budget will be worked out during the coming parliamentary recess.

I would ask that you give sympathetic consideration to the matters covered by the urgency motions as they represent 3 areas regarded by the Parliamentary DLP as warranting immediate attention and action.

We did not allow the matter to remain with a favourable vote in the Senate. We conveyed these matters to the Prime Minister not with any threat but with an appeal for sympathetic consideration and action. What is it that has prompted Senator Murphy and his Party, who have prevented us from getting a favourable vote in this Senate on child endowment? What is it that has prompted their sudden solicitude for the recipients of social services? 1 can come to only one conclusion, particularly in view of their past records in this chamber at Budget time when they have had an opportunity to reject Budgets and did not do so. They submitted pious resolutions, copies of which I have at hand, expressing regret and condemning the Government for not providing in the Budget adequate increases in social services. This is the type of thing they have moved:

At the end of the motion, add ‘but the Senate regrets that the Government has failed to:

increase pension rates sufficiently to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living;

adjust all social service benefits in each year’s Budget to meet the increased cost of living;

That is one amendment they moved. Another amendment was in these terms:

That the following words be added to the motion - but the Senate is of opinion that the Government should be condemned for its failure -

to increase age, invalid and widows’ pensions and other social service benefits to meet, at least, greatly increased costs and prices, and

to make retrospective to the 1st July 1965 the increases proposed by the Bill.

There was no action by the Opposition then to reject the Budget. The Opposition has been content to move pious resolutions and has expected the DLP to support them.

When we moved substantive amendments asking for the withdrawal of the Budget to have it redrafted to provide for these things, we could not get the support of the official Opposition. We have moved that at the end of an amendment proposed by Senator Murphy during a Budget debate the following words should be added:

And the Senate is of the opinion that the Budget should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for-

increases in justice to pensioners of all kinds to compensate for higher living costs; and

no postal increases pending reconstitution of postal administration under a statutory authority.

The Opposition did not see fit to support us in asking for the withdrawal of the Budget because of the social service benefits it provided and the increases in postal charges it contained - an attitude which the Opposition supported vigorously when the matter was raised in this chamber. But when it came to a vote on the issue, what did the Opposition do?

Senator Murphy:

– We voted against it on the last occasion and you voted for it.

Senator gair:

– Members of the Opposition walked out of the House. They “would not vote against it. Can honourable senators and the public wonder why I do not place any confidence in Senator Murphy’s attempt on this occasion to threaten the Government and to threaten to vote against the Budget? In the event of my Party and i agreeing to Senator Murphy’s amendment, what guarantee have I that he will carry through his action and that he will not walk out and take his Party with him as he did when it came to a vote on the postal charges?

Senator Murphy:

– You are misleading the Senate.

Senator gair:

– i am not misleading the Senate.

Senator Murphy:

– Your Party voted for the increases last year and we voted against them.

Senator gair:

– That reminds me that when the Budget was before the Senate last year the Opposition did not vote against the social service section of the Budget. Members of the Opposition did not ask for the withdrawal of it and they did not vote against it until it came to the increases in postal charges, when they voted against the Budget in the interests of publishers and others who were to be affected by the increased postal charges. The Opposition’s attitude was: To hell with the social services; to hell with the pensioners about whom they are crying now! But they took positive action in the interests of the publishers on the matter of postal charges. The records of the Senate will confirm what I am saying.

The record will show that the Opposition has done nothing more than move pious resolutions regarding social service payments over the years. Each year when the Budget has been put before us they have proposed the type of amendment to which I have referred. But there has never been any sup port from the Opposition for our Democratic Labor Party motions for the withdrawal of Budgets - something more positive - and to have them redrafted. It has been content to propose its motions, and now members of the Opposition are asking us to believe that they are the ones who are most concerned with the plight of pensioners. On one occasion since I came to this chamber I endeavoured to get leave to introduce a private member’s Bill dealing with child endowment, and I was refused leave by the Opposition.

Senator Murphy:

– Did I ever refuse you leave?

Senator gair:

– I am not speaking of you personally at the moment; I am speaking about the Opposition.

Senator Murphy:

– How long ago was that?

Senator gair:

– I have been here for only 6 years but I will be here for another 16 years.

Senator Murphy:

– I have been Leader of the Opposition for 4 years, and I have never refused you leave to introduce a Bill.

Senator gair:

– You have not refused me leave but you cannot deny that at the time I was refused leave you did not register a protest at the decision of your Leader. Let me tell the Senate why Senator Murphy has suddenly become concerned about these matters. I can reach only one conclusion. I would like to quote an article which appeared in the ‘Bulletin* of 24th April of this year and headed: ‘The leaders tagging along’. The article states:

After he assumed the Senate Opposition leadership in 1967 Senator Lionel Murphy built up n well-deserved reputation as a parliamentary tactician. Although lacking an absolute majority in the Senate, Murphy was frequently able to weld together a combination of ALP, DLP and Independent - and even occasionally ‘rebel’ Liberal senators - to inflict a succession of humiliating defeats on both the Holt and Gorton Governments. Even when the Government avoided defeat on the Senate floor, Murphy has frequently been able to manipulate a Senate debate to embarrass the Government to the benefit of the Labor Party.

But in the past few months Murphy’s- and the Labor Opposition’s - role as initiator in the Upper House has diminished. It would be unfair - as yet - to say that the 26 Labor Senators have handed over the role of Opposition to the five Senators from the Democratic Labor Party. But they have been fascinatingly outmaneouvred by the DLP twice already this year and are likely to be forced to ‘tag along’ with the DLP again this week.

The DLP has always carried out a form of guerilla warfare in the Upper House, lt is eminently suited for this role. A small, compact party untrammelled by the rigid dogma of the official Opposition, it has been able to adopt a flexible parliamentary posture that allows it to maximise the potential advantage in a situation without first seeking approval from an unwieldy caucus. Meetings of the parliamentary party can be staged in a corner of the Senate Chamber or, if more formal surroundings are required, the near-chamber room of its leader Vince Gair. Instant decisions are possible and have often been made.

But in the past the DLP has had to react to the attitudes of the major groups - the ALP and the Government - and then commit itself to one side or the other (or, as has sometimes happened, come up with what seems to be a compromise’ solution but in reality is framed in a way that no groupings can get a majorty). Last year’s senate election changed all that. The election of the Party’s Federal Secretary, Jack Kane, to fill the sixth Senate spot in N.S.W., meant that the DLP finally had a parliamentary strength of five - enough to allow it under standing orders, to introduce its own urgency motions and interrupt the business of the House. 1 could go on to read the balance of that article but it is not so pertinent as the part that I have read as to why the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Lionel Murphy, has suddenly become excited about his position as the great defender of social service recipients. Let me just put the record right. What I have said bears repeating. The Hansard record will show that when we have proposed resolutions to get some positive action on these matters we have been deserted and the ALP Opposition has been content to propose what must be classified as pious resolutions. The ALP in the Senate has a fixed attitude of opposing just about every worthwhile amendment or proposal ever initiated by the DLP. On the other hand the DLP looks at all legislative proposals on their merits and not simply on their origin as does the ALP. In support of my accusation I propose to give details of 8 instances during the period 1966 to 1971 when the ALP adopted a purely party political approach to the business of the Senate and thereby prevented the Senate from acting in a truly effective House of review’ manner.

The 8 instances, which are not the only examples of ALP obstruction, are: Firstly, the attempt to prevent me from introducing a private member’s Bill to increase child endowment payments on Sth May 1966; secondly, the refusal by the ALP to assist me to introduce an urgency motion on the Postmaster-General’s Department on 20th June 1967; thirdly, the walk-out by the ALP on the Postal Charges Bill on 19th September 1967; fourthly, the opposition to a resolution supporting State aid initiated by my colleague Senator McManus on 25th March 1969; fifthly, the attempt by Senator Murphy to obtain all the credit for the formation of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse on 25th November 1969.

Senator Murphy:

– That is not right.

Senator gair:

– Yes it is.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is not right. It is just grandstanding.

Senator gair:

– It was not until I went to his office and made my protestations that Senator Murphy conceded that we had initiated this, and out of regard for a decision of the Government to appoint a departmental committee-

Senator Murphy:

– I went to a lot of trouble to make sure that no element of competition would enter into that. We each moved a motion.

Senator gair:

– Yes, that was the compromise in the finish.

Senator Murphy:

– I thought we acted very generously towards you on that occasion.

Senator gair:

– However, you attempted it and you apologised to me because you said–

Senator Murphy:

– I did not apologise for anything.

Senator gair:

– You were under direction from your Caucus to do it.

Senator Murphy:

– I did not apologise for anything. I thought we acted very graciously on that occasion. i am surprised that you suggest this.

Senator gair:

– That is true and I stick to the truth. The sixth instance of ALP obstruction is the ALP’s opposition to the DLP amendment to the Address-in-Reply on 11th March 1970. The other two instances are the lack of co-operation with the DLP on amendments to the Homes Savings Grant Bill, as it affected credit unions, on 7th May 1970 and the opposition to the urgency motion “ on child endowment, moved by my colleague, Senator Byrne, on 21st April 1971.

Let me give details of these examples of ALP obstruction and bitterness. On 4th May 1966 I gave notice in the Senate of my intention to seek leave on the following day to introduce a private member’s Bill to increase child endowment payments. The Bill sought to increase the rate of child endowment payments for the third and later children. The Bill had been prepared privately and at considerable time and effort despite the refusal of the then AttorneyGeneral, Mr Snedden, to provide the assistance of the Parliamnetary Draftsman. When I sought leave on 5th May 1966 to introduce my Child Endowment Bill the President formally called ‘Is leave granted?’. To the amazement of everyone the ALP leader at that time, Senator McKenna, called ‘No’. Senator Wright called ‘Yes.’ and stated: ‘Every member has a right to bring forward a Bill’. Senator Wright was correct, for there was no example in recent Senate history of a private member being deliberately obstructed in his attempt to bring a Bill before the Senate. If other honourable senators oppose the contents of a Bill they can vote against it at the first reading, second reading or third reading stages if necessary but it is a traditional courtesy to allow the Bill to be placed on the notice paper. Yet leave was denied to me in my humble efforts to do something for the family man under the heading of child endowment.

The ALP attempt to prevent the introduction of my Bill was not simply an impetuous response. That Party had a day’s notice of the DLP move and surely it was concerned for the welfare of the family man. The ALP’s obstruction was deliberate and evidence of this fact is that the ALP Opposition also voted against the subsequent formal motion to grant leave for the introduction of the Bill. The Hansard record at page 801 of 5th May 1966 will bear out that statement. Amongst those who voted against the motion was Senator L. K. Murphy, the present Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The second occasion when the ALP adopted an irrational and obstinate position was on 20th June 1967 when I attempted to introduce an urgency motion calling for the establishment of a statutory corporation or authority to control the operations of the Postmaster-General’s Department. At that stage the DLP was represented only by myself and Senator McManus. We had not yet received the 100 per cent increase in our representation as a result of the 1967 Senate elections and we did not then have the presence of Senator Kane from New South Wales who was elected only last year. There were only 2 of us and it required the support of 3 other honourable senators to initiate an urgency motion. In an effort to obtain the support of Senator Murphy and the ALP to assist us in raising this matter, I sent a telegram to him on the Sunday 3 days prior to the date on which I planned to move the urgency motion. In my telegram I detailed the text of my urgency motion. On the Tuesday all the ALP honourable senators remained in their seats and refused to support my efforts to initiate a debate on this subject. Once again the attitude of the ALP was planned and deliberate because it had received ample advance notice from me to determine what its attitude would be.

The third example of the irrational attitude of the ALP and its lack of cooperation occurred on 19th September 1967. Honourable senators will remember that in May and June of that year the ALP and the DLP had combined to oppose the increased postal charges. The move for increases was dropped temporarily but was re-introduced in the August Budget. The Parliamentary Labor Party decided to contradict its earlier attitude of opposition to the charges and not oppose them on their re-introduction although a special sitting of the Senate had been summoned by the Leader of the Opposition. At the time I said: ‘It would now appear that the ALP was not sincere in that earlier posture of opposition. Rank and file ALP supporters will find it hard to accept this changed attitude or to understand the logic behind it, because it is clearly an example of inconsistency. This, I am sure, will react badly on the ALP in the coming Senate election.’

Is it any wonder that 1 have no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition generally when I accepted them as being sincere in their opposition to decisions of the Government which would cause increased costs to the working class people particularly and to the public generally? We had support from the Leader of the Opposition and his followers up to the point where they had to stand up and be counted and then they left the DLP to fight out the issue on its own. The same thing happened on the State aid question. Of course, I understood that very clearly because most members of the Opposition are by conviction opposed to State aid for independent schools. They are clear about that but they have changed their policy as a matter of political expedience. They find that they have to be onside or they will suffer at the polls.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Tell us your attitude on this Bill.

Senator GAIR:

– I am telling you my attitude on this Bill and I need no prompting from Senator Cavanagh. He will be fully occupied trying to discover the murderer of Dr Bogle and when he has done that he can come up and let us know just how good he is. For the reasons I have given we do not propose to support the amendment moved by Senator Murphy. I think I have made it positively clear that we could not be expected to go along with him on this issue or on any other issue. We as a party are competent to determine what we will do at Budget time in connection with social services.

I have already informed the Senate that we have taken the opportunity to communicate with the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and convey to him the motions that we have moved here as urgency motions. We have sent him texts of the speeches we have made, and expressed our desire for Government action in this connection. As an amendment to Senator Murphy’s amendment, I move:

I do not think the matter calls for any further statement by me or any further effort on my part. Because of my indisposition I do not find it easy to make speeches this afternoon but I would ask honourable senators to exercise their judgment and make a fair assessment of this amendment. I think they will come down on the side of the Democratic Labor Party. No-one will convince me that Senator Murphy was not stirred by the article in the ‘Bulletin’. He must have said: ‘We have to stop the DLP campaign’.

Senator Murphy:

– I had not heard of it until you read it out in here.

Senator GAIR:

– Do not tell me that. I will not accept that. The honourable senator will want me to believe in Santa Claus next and I have given up believing in fantasies. There is something wrong with his Press Secretary if he has not seen that statement and I am quite confident and satisfied that that is what stirred him into action. Senator Murphy must have said: Well, Gair and his team have taken 2 tricks. They are up with the third. Now they will be getting a good deal of public approbation and approval for their activity, their alertness and their political ingenuity and virility and I will have to get busy. I cannot allow this to go on. I am leading a Party of 26 and here is a Party of 5 running rings around us, humiliating me and humiliating my Party, bringing us into disrepute, destroying our prestige amongst the working class people and destroying the image that we had as the great defenders of the working class people, particularly the pensioners. We have to do something about it.’ So what does he do? He decides that the Opposition will not approve of the gag in order to get a vote on the proposal of the Democratic Labor Party in regard to child endowment. He just frustrated us in that connection. The next thing I heard was when members of the Press called on me and asked me what I had to say about Senator Murphy’s proposal to move an amendment to the Supply Bill to try to box me in. That will be the day when Senator Murphy or anyone else on the Opposition side will box members of the DLP in. We are competent to decide for ourselves.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You wait for the undertaker, he will box you in.

Senator GAIR:

– You probably will not have an undertaker.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I will dry up and blow away.

Senator GAIR:

– They will probably have difficulty in finding your body. Before I was so rudely interrupted I was saying that the Opposition was attempting to box me in and that is why I said at the time that I questioned the motive behind Senator Murphy’s amendment I do not think he is sincere and I would feel very unsafe if I had agreed to support this amendment because when we reached the time of the Budget I would be quivering, I would be waiting and I would be watching all the doors to see members of the Opposition walk out of the Senate. I would have memories of the debate on the increased postal charges when Labor senators went here and there very rapidly so as to avoid the question: ‘Those in favour say “Aye”, those to the contrary say “No”.’ They left the chamber before the question was put because they did not want to be involved. They did this because the leaders of their Party in another place had said that they could not vote against a money Bill. I met several Opposition supporters who were saying: ‘Well, we have been put in an embarrassing position.’ They mentioned the names of their leaders and said that they held them responsible for what they had to do. They were humiliated and I felt a little sympathetic, as I am accustomed to feeling for my opponents. I commend the amendment I have moved.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I think it is regrettable that in the last days of this sessional period the Opposition Parties, instead of considering whether legislation before this Senate should be passed or whether it has particular merits or demerits, are simply using it as a vehicle by which one of the Parties seeks to score off the other. After what the public of Australia has been given in the newspapers over the last 7 days or so I think it is regrettable that now the Senate should demean itself in the sort of dogfight which has been engaged in by Senator Murphy and Senator Gair. I think there is a lot of truth in what the Australian Labor Party has said about the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I think there is an even greater amount of truth in what the DLP has said about the ALP. But it appears to me that the Government is above these political dogfights which the Opposition concern themselves with. After all, the parties in opposition have not the Government’s responsibilities. They can criticise to their hearts’ content in their particular way. As far as the obligations of Parliament are concerned their criticisms carry absolutely no weight.

The fact is that it is the Government which has the obligation to apportion, from the revenues which are available to it, the moneys which should be allocated to the various social objectives which the community wants. The Opposition can criticise. If the example we have heard in the last hour is any indication it is a criticism without any reseponsibility because it is designed simply to score political points against the other party.

In all fairness I must say that the Australian Labor Party is the major opposition party. Necessarily its role is to oppose, to be obstructive and to make what political capital it can. If it makes extravagant assertions like Senator Murphy made when he said that there are a substantial number of Australian people who have not enough to eat, then it appears to me that this is its right, though I suppose a number of people would doubt the basis upon which the honourable senator made that assertion. I do not believe that it is true. I think the Democratic Labor Party, which was somewhat formidably attacked, is entitled to defend itself. The DLP is a party which can claim to be at least constructive. After the resolutions were passed in the Senate earlier this year, today we were told, they were communicated to the Prime Minister for consideration when the Budget is under discussion.

We on the Government side can take some comfort from the attitude of the Democratic Labor Party because today we are assured - as we have been assured on countless occasions - that the Democratic Labor Party votes for measures on their merits. Over the last 6 Budgets the Democratic Labor Party, applying that standard, has supported the Budgets of this Government. Every piece of legislation in the field of social services which we have brought forward has received the support of the Democratic Labor Party. Insofar as that has been a responsible decision made upon the merits of the legislation this Government is satisfied that it has the support of a not insignificant section of the Australian people. But these are matters related to the sparring which has gone on between the 2 opposition parties. The vehicle of the attack is the Supply Bill whereby the Government is seeking extra revenue to carry on the expenditure of government.

The amendment which has been moved to this Bill apart from making some political points seeks to suggest that the Government’s social services programme is inadequate and that the Budget, when it comes forward in August, should be rejected. This is the sort of issue which has been canvassed many times. It is a meaningless amendment, because the real point is what is contained in the Budget papers or the Appropriation Bills which flow from those Budget papers and what is contained in specific measures dealing with social services. The debates on those Bills is the occasion when there should be any expression of opinion as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the measures. Those are the occasions when the Opposition parties, if they are so minded, should be prepared to undertake their rejection. But, as I have said, over the last 6 or 7 years there has not been any occasion when the Opposition parties - had they combined, they had the numbers - have been prepared to do that. We believe that the Government’s record in the field of providing social services for the people of Australia is a record which will stand any objective scrutiny.

Senator Gair:

– lt is out of date now.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Senator Gair suggests that that record is out of date. He can indicate by his vote whether he feels that any other party would do any better than the Government is doing. The point I am making is that government has the obligation to determine among the many priorities competing for government atten-tion which of those objectives should be given prior place. Naturally we would all like to spend more on social welfare and, indeed, all the other activities of government. But I think the desire for increased expenditure in these areas must be limited by the funds available. I think that if one examines the social welfare expenditure of the Government one will find that it already represents a very significant proportion of Commonwealth expenditure. The statements which were part of the Budget proposals of the Government last year show an estimated Commonwealth expenditure for the year of something almost approaching $8,00Om

Senator Mulvihill:

– What percentage of the gross national product does that represent?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If Senator Mulvihill desires to make some point about a figure which has no relevance to the points I am now making he can do so later. I am simply saying that of the $8,000m which the Government had available for expenditure in this current financial year, payment to or for the States and money for their works and housing programmes was the largest item. It accounted for just under $3,000m or approximately 34 per cent of the total amount. The national welfare fund expenditure was expected to, and will, require something just under $ 1,500m or 18.7 per cent of the total. Defence Services were to take some 14 per cent of the total. Those 3 items alone account for over two-thirds of Commonwealth expenditure.

There is a very real limitation to the increases or the extensions which may be made in social service payments. It is all very well for Senator Murphy to assert sweepingly that social services are inadequate but not to indicate specifically the areas about which he is concerned and the types of remedies he would propose. We know from the motions moved by the Democratic Labor Party to enable debates on urgent matters earlier this year that the DLP is concerned about social service pensions and child endowment. If we consider those 2 specific items we know that to give the Democratic Labor Party what it was seeking in terms of an increase of $1 a week in child endowment would cost Australia $185m in one year. That is a large amount of money, which the Government would have to put aside from other areas of expenditure. If we were to increase the social service pension by $5 a week, as some people have claimed we should do, the amount required would be in excess of $250m a year. I have said before, when speaking on this general area, that if the Democratic Labor Party also wants increased expenditure on defence - as i have heard it say from time to time - theo undoubtedly there must be greater revenues available for Government. The ordinary way of achieving that revenue is by extra taxation. Yet I have not heard the Democratic Labor Party urging the Government to increase taxation.

The Australian Labor Party has not condescended to the precision with which the DLP has put forward its proposals. We have the generalised assertion of the character which Senator Murphy made which, as I have said, must have a dubious foundation. We do not know precisely what the ALP would do nor do we have any idea as to where - providing honourable senators opposite were prepared to increase expenditure - the extra funds would come from.. These are matters which represent the problems and the responsibilities which go with the privilege of government. Government makes its determinations and it sets them before the people. Over the years it has successfully defended them before the people at various elections. The Government will continue to do so. Over the years we have had an increasing range of social service expenditure. The major area of expenditure is in the field of pensions which are provided not only for aged persons but also for disabled persons and for the wives and children of such pensioners. Other benefits are child endowment and funeral benefits. Provision has been made in the way of grants to the States for homes for aged people. There have been invalid pensions, a pensioner medical service and an increasing range of grants to the States for the provision of paramedical services, home help, housekeeper services and also for the building of nursing homes for the aged. There have been various pensions for those who are in need for rehabilitation. There have been various provisions made in the way of sheltered employment allowances, sickness benefits and various other concessions not only for telephones but also in the field of student allowances and other general taxation allowances.

These cover but a small part of the general scope of the very comprehensive social services programme which this Government provides. Just to illustrate the progressive nature of what the Government is doing let me indicate the way in which benefits have been introduced over the last almost 20 years for the age pensioners.

Medical benefits for pensioners were introduced in 1951. Also introduced were aged persons income tax concessions and the provision of pharmaceutical benefits. In 1954 the Government introduced the aged persons homes scheme whereby assistance was provided on a $2 for $1 basis for those who were prepared to take the step of providing homes for aged persons. In 1956 television licence concessions for pensioners and an additional pension provided for second and subsequent children were introduced. In 1957 a home nursing subsidy was made available. In 1958 supplementary assistance was granted for pensioners. In 1963 we saw the introduction of nursing home benefits, a mothers’ allowance for widow pensioners with children and a subsidy for the provision of accommodation for disabled persons.

In 1964-65 telephone rental concessions for pensioners and a guardian’s allowance for age and invalid pensioners with children were introduced. In 1967 we saw the introduction of the sheltered employment allowance. In 1968 a hearing aid service and a double pension entitlement for a widow or widower for 12 weeks following the death of a spouse were introduced. There was also a training scheme for widow pensioners. In 1969 there was a subsidy for dwellings for aged persons, a personal care subsidy for aged pensioners, home care and paramedical services. In 1970 there was the Meals on Wheels subsidy. This occurred at the same time as the introduction of the tapered means test. These represent, I would have thought, in anyone’s judgment if he is prepared to look at the question reasonably, a progressive advance which is occurring in the social services area. It is not to say that all that can be done, all that should be done and all that as time advances will require to be done, has already been done.

These are matters which indicate the bona fides of a Government which is constantly concerning itself, not only with what is required in the way of provision of social services but also with what government can provide in the light of the various demands which are made upon the revenue available to it. I certainly feel that social services should always be a matter for review by government when it is preparing its Budget in July-August of each year. I have no doubt whatever that this is what will be done this year, because it is the pattern of what has been happening over each year. In those circumstances, insofar as the Government is obliged to indicate an attitude to these resolutions which have been passing between the 2 Opposition parties, the Government will support the DLP’s amendment because it expresses precisely what the Government will be doing and what the Government has been doing - it will be reviewing its social services in the preparation of the next Budget. But the Government does not support, and will oppose, the Australian Labor Party’s amendment because it represents an attack and a criticism which we believe is not warranted in the light of the programme which the Government has put forward.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The last person who should talk about social services is the new Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood). His performance since he has become the Minister has been to agree to the increase in doctors’ fees which will in turn increase the charges to the poorer people of the community who, when in ill health at the very time they need assistance, find this added burden placed on their shoulders in the way of higher contribution charges to hospital and medical insurance funds. The Minister’s entry into the debate indicates that he is always ready to support his shadow Party, the third Party in the Government coalition, the Democratic Labor Party. All Government members are ready to rush to the standard at any time they are called on. The greatest charade of this Senate is for the DLP to sit on the left hand side of the Chair. DLP senators say that they are the upholders of all things connected with social services and uphold the Opposition yet, constantly down through the years their whole political existence has depended upon their playing cunning stunts and, sitting in the corner for some little time now, having the balance of power.

As a matter of fact, their influence on the Senate can undo a lot of the good that progressive people in the Senate are trying to do for it. They are using the forms of the Senate, under the subterfuge of being in the Opposition, only to expand their own position in the electorate so that four or five people - the excrescence from other parties - can find a place in this Senate. They get up here on every occasion they can, not to do their supposed job which is to oppose the Government, but on every occasion when the pressure is on to run over to the Government side to give support to those who have supported them and put them into power.

They produce a long list of occasions when they have proposed to assist the aged and infirm. But it has always been found that whenever the pressure was on them they have voted for the Government. They have never had any desire whatever to do any other thing but to obtain publicity for themselves. The Australian Labor Party objects to the method that they have been using because they are defeating the very purpose of the Senate and the Parliament - particularly the Opposition - in trying to bring before the Government continually the needs of the community. I would like to ask this question: Why should we ever support the DLP? We would be better off supporting the Government. At least we know the Government’s policy. At least we know that the Government has integrity. At least we know that when they make up their minds and there is a Cabinet decision they will stick to it. But the DLP will say on the spur of the moment: ‘Can we get publicity at the expense of the Labor Party?’ They never attempt to get publicity at the expense of the Government. It is always at the expense of the Labor Party. It is the old story of long knives, revenge and pure political chicanery. They are past-masters at it, so we are not very impressed. The proposition put up by the Australia Labor Party is as follows: . . the Senate is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth are so inadequate as to constitute social injustice and is of the opinion, that unless the inadequacies are substantially remedied in the Budget, it should be rejected.

If the DLP senators had any conscience whatever they would support that resolution. Instead of that they put up a pusillanimous, emasculated, anaemic looking amendment that means nothing. It indicates that they will not reject the Budget. Of course they will not reject the Budget because they are here to support the Government. I would like to refer to the member of the Government who interjected while Senator Murphy was speaking and said that there was not hardship or hunger in the community. Reports of hardship are coming in from all over the country. It is reported that there are pockets of poverty and it is at those areas that we feel this amendment is aimed. Social services are inadequate and the Opposition believes they should be rectified. The Governmnt should be forced to understand the need in our community.

I would like to quote a letter from the Armidale Senior Citizen’s Association, which is a registered charity. It points to one area of suffering that the Government and the Australian Democratic Labor Party do not recognise. I quote this letter to give honourable senators an understanding of what is going on in this so-called affluent society, a society where the privileges and the wealth, of those who are lucky enough to have wealth, are so great in contrast to those who are so much in need. The letter is addressed to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). It says: Dear Mr Wentworth,

My association has instructed me to seek your support for an immediate supplementary Winter pension grant of $13 to help our members over the cold season.

For several winters my association has provided a partial free fuel service to the most needy of its members, and in doing so tried to ease slightly the inadequacy of the age and invalid pension. It has been an exhausting organising effort, compensated by the thanks of recipients for their load of firewood. We are unable to maintain the service, but the need of pensioners seems to increase as the amount of the pension becomes relatively less adequate. We can assure you, of our intimate connection with them, that the dread of the cold as Winter approaches is very real to many of our aged and infirm citizens. It pains our executive members that we cannot help further.

We see the latest increase of fifty cents to be a recognition by the Commonwealth Government that the earlier increase of fifty cents was inadequate. We see in the action of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), by granting this last increase immediately he took office, a belated acknowledgment that on October 1st the pension increase should have been $1 instead of half that amount, and we see in the promptness of the Prime Minister’s response, a sense of urgency to meet nationwide appeals for more compassionate treatment of our pensioner people.

Thus, for 26 weeks from October 1st to April 1st, pensioners subsisted on $13 less than they would have had if the warranted increase had been originally granted. Let us call it a compulsory saving for the pensioner, to be released to meet the rigours of Winter. Your Government may, of course, have this in mind, in which case an early surprise release will earn gratitude and applause.

But Winter is almost on us and my association pleads with you to make the grant, now, as soon as the distributing machinery can achieve it, before the chill of the Winter causes more suffering. A supplementary Winter grant of $13 would have a logical and humane basis, and win the gratitude of all by relieving us of the impossible task of trying to supplement an inadequate pension.

The date of that letter is 27th April 1971, a matter of about 2 weeks ago. It was signed by A. J. Taylor, the honorary secretary of the Association. In the letter Mr Taylor has drawn the picture that exists in very many areas of Australia amongst the aged and infirm, the widows and others. It is a disgrace to a country that claims all the things this Government claims about Australia’s affluence, about the great wealth that exists, about the great discoveries that are being made of natural resources, about our great overseas balances and so on, while hidden in a murky little corner or swept under the carpet are the very great social human problems that are indicated by the tone of the letter I have just recited to the Senate. I feel that the attack that, has been made on the proposed contained in the Opposition’s amendment is - certainly not warranted. The Opposition feels that some great pressure must be applied to the Government to make it realise its responsibilities. During the time that Senator Gair was attacking the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and members of the Government he proved conclusively the complete insincerity of the DLP in every move it makes in the Senate. I include in that criticism Senator Little, Senator Kane, Senator McManus, Senator Gair and Senator Byrne. They are completely insincere.

Sifting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 1778

QUESTION

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

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

– by leave - I move:

That the Privileges Committee have power to sit during the sitting of the Senate this day.

I understand that the Committee is in conclave now and has been since 7 o’clock. It has a small amount of business to conclude, and therefore I put forward that proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1779

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1778).

SenatorO’BYRNE (Tasmania) (8.1) - Prior to the suspension of the sitting we were discussing the Supply Bill (No. 1) which relates to the allocation of funds to carry the Parliament over the early part of the next financial year until the Budget is considered. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Murphy, moved an amendment in these terms:

At the end of motion add - but the Senate ‘ is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth are so inadequate as to constitute social injustice and is of the opinion that, unless the inadequacies are substantially remediedin the Budget, it should be rejected.’

Upon Senator Murphy proposing this amendment, Senator Gair, the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, immediately launched into an attack on both the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party generally. He moved a counter-amendment that the Senate is of the opinion that there should be a thorough review of the inadequacies of social service payments in the next Budget. I do not want to repeat what I said previously, except that we have found, and it is becoming more and more evident - I believe that Senator Gair proved this very conclusively during his speech - that the Democratic Labor Party is completely insincere. It professes to be in opposition to the Government, but on every substantial issue it has voted in support of the Government. It knows very well that the public and the people who read Hansard and listen to parliamentary debates are conscious that the Democratic Labor Party is grandstanding purely for publicity purposes.

The DLP supports the Government on every contentious issue. It appears, and it has been proved, that the only purpose of its existence is to thwart the Australian Labor Party. It is the third party of the Government. Perhaps it takes its place ahead of the Australian Country Party as a supporter of the Government. It uses that position for the purpose of obtaining advantages for itself and receiving the favour of the big business people who support it financially and those other sections of the community which use it as a minority party to gain advantages for themselves. That is all I wish to say on that matter. I believe that the anaemic amendment proposed by the DLP does not mean a thing and it illustrates its insincerity.

The main reason for my entering this debate is to refer to that part of the Bill before us which deals with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, especially Division 136 which relates to bankruptcy administration. Subdivision 1 provides $545,000 for salaries and payments in the nature of salary, and subdivision 2. provides. $45,000 for administrative expenses, making a total of $590,000. I refer to this division because of changing circumstances in our economy in which we have an admitted inflationary trend and in which there is very keen business competition. We have all sortsof complicated price maintenance rings; we have very severe price cutting; we have the growth of monopoly; we have the proliferation of chain stores and supermarkets; we have the effects of mass production in a technological age; and also we have the greater need amongst people for careful bookkeeping and accounting.

Through forces outside their control many of the ordinary people in the community are finding these pressures so great that their financial commitments get beyond them. Of course, because traditionally all the laws are made more to protect property than the person or the civil rights of the individual, so far as I can see - these are changing gradually - a number of people in the community who have the misfortune to meet an economic blizzard which has hit them through these circumstances find themselves in a position where they are unable to pay their debts. The alternatives they have are either to become a declared bankrupt or to make a deed of arrangement. It is on this matter that I want to say a few words. Section 179 of the Bankruptcy Act states:

The Court may. on the application of the Registrar, a creditor or the bankrupt, inquire into the conduct of a trustee in relation to a bankruptcy and may do one or both of the following:

remove the trustee from office; and

make such order as it thinks proper.

The Registrar and his Deputy in the States have complete authority to administer this Act. But I believe that circumstances can arise where a trustee who perhaps has accountancy qualifications can be temperamentally unsuited to carry out this very important Government function. I have had a number of complaints from constituents in the State of Tasmania, particularly those residing in the city of Launceston, about a trustee who has been described to me as being temperamentally unsuited to carry out this function. Some of the people who have come to me have described Hans Jacques de Jong, a trustee under the Bankruptcy Act, as being a very arrogant man who is very haughty and domineering. He is described as being a man who takes a delight in exercising the authority granted to him under the Act and who sets himself out to make the people in the area of Launceston who have suffered the misfortune that I have described feel inferior.

I just want to illustrate what is happening to quite a number of people. I have documents here which show that the person who makes a deed of arrangement has a desire to meet his obligations. He does not want to go through the ignominy of bankruptcy. He believes that, if his estate is divided, all his creditors could be satisfied and that he would have an opportunity to start off afresh without being declared a bankrupt. But in the cases that I have before me the administration of these deeds of arrangement is such that the first claim on the trustee appears to be the administrator’s expenses. I do not wish to give names, but they are available to any honourable senator who wishes to peruse them.

A young man and his family were engaged in a very competitive business. His assets were about $23,000, the total receipts available were about $26,500, but the family is still deeply in debt. The document I have shows that the trustee’s remuneration was $1,369. Although 2 years have elapsed since the deed was entered into the trustee still holds the man’s coin collection. This is a very simple and personal possession but it was seized as part of the estate. This document shows that although the collection of coins is worth about $500, it has been valued at $9.75. If the coins were lc pieces, the collection would be worth more than that valuation. I am also given to understand that the wife of this man had an account in which over the years she had placed all the child endowment so that when the children went to school and there were extra expenses the child endowment could be used to pay them. The money in the account was seized by the trustee , and added to the estate. This man’s widow came to me and gave me examples of the tyranny and distress he had suffered. Unfortunately, he took- his life by hanging himself.

I have details of another case which concerns a man who entered into a deed of arrangement, the implications of which he did not understand. He also would have much preferred being declared a bankrupt to going through the procedure instituted by the trustee. His was a rather small estate, amounting to $3,550. His debts totalled $3,287, but before completion of the arrangement the trustee’s remuneration had amounted to $850 and other commitments and fees were such that the man has become responsible for the payment of nearly twice as much as his original indebtedness.

Another case involves a man who was in the timber industry. His house was sold. Each one of these people has lost the roof over his head. When they entered into a deed of arrangement they expected to be able to pay most of their debts, providing they were given opportunities to work their way out of their indebtedness. Another man said to me: ‘If I had been treated like a human being instead of like an animal I would have made every effort to upholdthis deed. Mr de Jong at no time ever helped me or leaned to me to give me any encouragement whatsoever. He would not give me enough to live on, let alone run a business on. He would not pay the royalty on the logs I was carting, and it appears to me as though he had only one thing in mind, to bankrupt me.’ I have quoted these words tonight because they are the words of one of the people who have come to me in the belief that they have been treated unjustly.

Another case concerns people who were engaged in a small family business. The amount of expenses in which they were involved was such that a thorough inquiry is needed into the principle that the trustee has the first charge on the assets of a person who enters into a deed of arrangement the purpose of which is to help people who wish to meet their responsibilities. Such men should be given encouragement and treated with a certain degree of sympathy. The icy winds of economic circumstances which are blowing today and which are outside their control cause many people to go by the board. The policy of the Government in the restriction of credit and many other factors make necessary a reappraisal of the rather harsh conditions that prevail when a man has the misfortune to fall virtually into the clutches of the laws governing bankruptcy. I feel that the Government is obliged on behalf of all these unfortunate people, and particularly on behalf of the widow of one of these unfortunate men, to institute an inquiry into the circumstances that I have outlined tonight.

I believe that great need will be found for a very careful selection of trustees, particularly from people who come from European countries and who perhaps, through the traditions of those countries, feel that they are superior and that they can exercise authority in the way to which they are accustomed in their own countries. Australians expect a fair go. When a man is down, it is the Australian way to try to help him to his feet and back to his place in the community. I hope that the Attorney-General, whose department is responsible for the matters I have outlined, will have a good look at these cases. I hope that he will have evidence taken or inquiries made from these people as to how they have been treated.

SenatorO’BYRNE- I am criticising the legislation that allows to be selected as trustee a man who is temperamentally unsuited for such an important job of rehabilitating ordinary human beings.

SenatorO’BYRNE- -If you want to put it that way, I am criticising a man because of the number of people who have come to me with very similar complaints about him, all along the same lines. Other people have not come to me directly, but indirectly I have heard of their troubles and I feel that it is my duty to bring the matter before the Parliament.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Not this job, no.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– We are dealing with the motion for the second reading of Supply Bill (No. 1) 1971-72, to which the Australian Labor Party has moved the following amendment, calling for an expression of opinion:

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth are so inadequate as to constitute social injustice and is of the opinion, that unless the inadequacies are substantially remedied in the Budget,, it should be rejected’.

We know that the Budget will be brought down within 3 months. The Australian Democratic Labor Party has moved that the proposed amendment be amended to read: but the Senate is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth should be reviewed in the next Budget.

I intend to be brief. I wish to correct Senator Gair on one or two points he raised this afternoon, because they could lead to misapprehension. He did not deal very specifically with past events. Towards the end of his speech he said that Senator Murphy had moved an amendment on behalf of the ALP because of a newspaper article which stated that the DLP was pre-empting the Labor Party in manoeuvres in this place, and that type of thing. He also said that at no time had we tried to defeat the Budget, but had expressed pious resolutions. He used the term ‘pious resolutions’ several times. I do not wish to rely on my memory in quoting what has been said in the past, because I could make a mistake. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the Hansard report of 26th August 1970 which shows that Senator Murphy moved the following motion: at end of motion add - and the Senate condemns this deceptive and negative Budget because it fails to meet the real needs of the Australian people, especially with respect to (a) standards of social service and war pensioners, (b) assistance to schools, hospitals and urban authorities and (c) restructuring of stricken primary industries and because it introduces and increases taxes and charges of a regressive and inequitable nature.’

I seconded the motion. That seemed to me to be very clear. We wanted the Budget rejected if that was possible. In my own speech in the Budget debate in 1970 I said:

The Australian Labor Party has taken the unprecedented step of asking this Parliament to reject the Budget completely and to go to those people about whom Senator Davidson is worrying and to let them reply. This is the challenge that we throw down. In this place, above all, we have a motley group of people. We have an Independent. Let us see how independent he is. We have a Democratic Labor Party. Let us see how democratic its members are. We have dissidents on the Liberal side of the chamber. They are well known to everybody and from time to time vote against the Government on minor matters. Let these senators come forward now on a major issue and say what they believe in their hearts - that they are supporting a Government that has no right to govern, a Government which time and again, day after day, is proving its arrogance and cynicism towards the ordinary - person in the community. Let those honourable senators come forward and give Senator Davidson his answer to see who shall reply to the Budget.

We challenge this Government. We have challenged it through Mr Whitlam, our leader, and we shall challenge it with every person who sits on this side of the Senate or on the Opposition side of the House of Representatives. If honourable senators believe that the Budget expresses the right fiscal policy, if they believe that the Government can cynically break the promise made in the Prime Minister’s policy speech and the Governor-General’s Speech by not reducing taxation on the lower incomes but increasing it - the reverse of what was promised - and if they believe that the Government can get away with this, their answer is very clear.

I went on further to say that not only would we vote against the Budget papers being printed, because that would not be realistic, but also we would vote against every provision in the Budget. That is the way in which to defeat a Budget. If you knock out only one or two of the supporting Bills to the Budget, the Budget is defeated and there has to be an election. So I do not think that anybody gained the impression that Senator Gair was suggesting, that we did not try to knock back the Budget and that we did not take practical steps, as opposed to propaganda steps, to do so. I suggest that Senator Gair is wrong and that it is clear to any fair minded person who reads those quotations what the Australian Labor Party did in relation to the 1970 Budget, which was the most recent Budget.

I note that the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill received a lot of prominence in Queensland during the last election campaign, and Senator Gair dealt with it at length in this chamber today. He kept reverting to the fact that we were trying to ride into power on. the backs of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and to take its ideas. When we were debating the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill I moved the following amendment on behalf of the Australian Labor Party:

Leave out all words after ‘That’-

Those words were: ‘the Bill be now read a second time’. Had that amendment been carried the Bill would have been defeated and that would have been the end of the matter; there would have been no increases in postal rates, particularly - the iniquitous rates about which we complained. The Government then would have had to introduce another Bill which would have provided for more equitable rates. We believed that the Bill which was introduced did not provide for equitable rates. My amendment continued: . . insert ‘the Bill be withdrawn and that in the opinion of the Senate a Joint Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the desirability and practicability of removing the Australian Post Office . from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board and of establishing a public corporation to manage the business of the Post Office.

Later Senator Gair moved the following amendment:

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

Who was adopting whose words on that occasion? As regards this question of whether we were trying to pre-empt, Senator Gair must remember what happened very clearly because later on when dealing with Senator Gair’s amendment, I said:

If Senator Gair likes to bring his amendment up at any time-

This was after he had moved an amendment to my amendment - tomorrow if he wants to - I give my word that the Australian Labor Party will support him in asking for a committee of inquiry. It is quite simple. In the old words which Senator Gair will know to well: We have the numbers. It is the clearly expressed will of the Senate that we want to hold an inquiry into the future of the Post Office.

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

I quote that because that is the fact. This is what happened on that occasion.

Senator Gair:

– Was that before or after you walked out?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The walk out of which Senator Gair, speaks took place about 5 years ago. We are talking about what happened in 1970. At the last election Senator Gair never adverted to this at any time. He went throughout Queensland claiming that he bad voted against the increases in postal charges. He did not, and it is not true forhim to claim that he did. The facts are contained in the records of the Senate. The debate on the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill took place on Wednesday, 30th September 1970. On 7 occasions Senator Gair voted in favour of the increases in postal charges. It is of no use for Senator Gair to try to yell and use that bluster for which he is so well known. It is dishonest for him to go throughout Queensland during an election campaign and claim that he voted against the increases in postal charges, because I have given the facts. On 7 occasions in a row he voted in favour of increased postal charges in Australia.

Senator Gair:

– You are on the side of the publishers.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Never mind which side I am on. Senator Gair claimed that he voted against these increases in postal charges, but he did not, and there is no way he can go around saying that he did. He had a lot to say this afternoon, but he was completely wrong and he has not been telling the truth before the Australian people. I have referred to the records of the Senate; I have quoted from them. They show that on 7 occasions Senator Gair voted for the increases in postal charges. There is just one final word I want to say because I have to go to another meeting which is trying to finalise a report to bring into the Senate. Honourable senators opposite laugh, but they have committed a question of privilege to the Senate Privileges Committee. If they do n ot want the Commitee to deal wih the question, tha is all right-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– You have misinterpreted the laughter.

Senator WILLESEE:

– If I misinterpreted the laughter, I did not misinterpret Senator Gair, and he is the person with whom I am dealing at the moment. He talked about pious resolutions. He said that the only thing that the Australian Labor Party did was to pass pious resolutions. Let me read to him the amendment which we have moved today. It is as follows:

At the end of motion add - but the Senate is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth are so inadequate as to constitute social injustice and is of the opinion that unless the inadequacies are substantially remedied in the Budget it should be rejected’.

Senator Gair has moved an amendment in which he suggests that social services should be reviewed in the next Budget. Whose is the pious resolution?

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to add a few words in support of my colleagues who have taken part in this debate. I am motivated to do so because of the hypocrisy of the amendment that has been moved by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. Let me quote again the amendment which we have moved:

At the end of motion add - but the Senate is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth are so inadequate as to constitute social injustice and is of the opinion that unless the inadequacies are substantially remedied in the Budget it should be rejected’.

The Opposition’s decision to move this amendment was publicised some weeks ago, and I think that the only statements which were made about it were made by a member of the Government who decided that he would make one as a political manoeuvre - the Government found that it had been out-manoeuvred - and a few words from the Leader of the DLP. But the DLP, in an effort to keep on side with the Government, has decided to move that all words after the word ‘Commonwealth’ shall be deleted and to request that social services should be thoroughly reviewed in the next Budget.

I have been in this Senate for 6 years, less 5 weeks, and on no occasion has the Government in any faithful way endeavoured to alleviate the plight of pensioners. There was an increase in pension rates in 1966, but this was done only as a matter of political expediency because an election was imminent. There was an increase in pension rates in 1968 because there was a fear that there would be an early election. Again it was done because of political expediency and the fear that the vengeance of the people would be taken on the Government if it did not do something to alleviate the plight of the pensioners. There was another increase in pension rates in 1969 because another election was held in that year.

In 1970 an increase of 50c a week was granted. That was in the Budget last year and was supposed to tide the pensioners over until August 1971. No doubt it was intended that in August 1971 some kind of relief should be granted, but this would not have been implemented until October or November of this year. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), who had held office for a few days only, was in a very tight corner and during the debate on a motion of no confidence in the Government he decided, off the top of his head, to grant another increase of 50c a week.

I suggest that, when replying to this debate, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) should say whether this country is facing an economic crisis. About 12 months ago the then Treasurer, who has now been kicked upstairs or downstairs - depending on the way in which one looks at it - to the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that the economy was running hot but that there was no need to panic. The Prime Minister of the day said that the economy was merely warn and that there was no need to panic. It was not very long after this that we were told that, unless stringent economic measures were adopted, this country would face bankruptcy. The first people to suffer were the pensioners. The Government could not give them an increase last year when the Budget was introduced.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– We are not in serious financial difficulties.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I realise that the Government is in serious financial difficulties. One has only to walk into a toilet here to find that only 1 of 2 lights is allowed to burn. If one walks about the passageways at night one sees that only every third light is allowed to burn. Grasshopper mowers are used to cut the lawn in front of Parliament House because it is too expensive to use a big mower. The Captain Cook jet has been running for restricted hours so that the Government can save a few dollars, but that has probably lost this city a large part of its tourist income. The Government introduces stupid measures but does not cut down on its defence expenditure, except that it is trying to reduce salaries and wages of soldiers, airmen and sailors.

Senator Poyser:

– What about the Government’s expenditure on the war in Vietnam?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Government is prepared to expend the same amount on its involvement in Vietnam.

Senator Poyser:

– What about the FI 11?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Today, in reply to a question, the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) reiterated that we had spent almost $3 00m on aircraft that we are not even sure that we will get. The buy-out price on these will probably be $150m. Yet the Government adopts this cheeseparing attitude. A certain decision was taken yesterday. With all due respect to the Leader of the Government, I do not think anybody told him about it because this morning, when he had to reply to a question as to why there had been a cut back in the construction of additional accommodation at Parliament House, he obviously was inadequately informed. The President, in his farewell speech, I thought, made a very moving plea for something to be done about a new parliament house. It is a pretty topsy-turvy economic crisis that the

Government is facing. It is making cuts in all kinds of ways and in ways which hurt the people most, but it is not making cuts in the areas in which it should.

The amendment moved by the Opposition is the type of amendment that should be given serious consideration not only by members of this Parliament but also by every clear thinking Australian. If the Government is not prepared to do as we request by this amendment, it is doing an injustice to hundreds and thousands of Australians who have reached the end of their working lives and who are required to exist on a pittance. Let me refresh the memories of the people as to how much one may expect if one is forced to retire without a parliamentary pension. The age pension, standard or single rate, is $15.50 a week. This has since been increased by 50c a week. No increases were made to part pensions. The weekly rate for a married pensioner is now $14. Those are the 2 standard pensions. In Canberra it is not possible to procure rented accommodation for less than $25 a week for the most substandard accommodation. No working person in Canberra can afford to go on the pension and remain in the premises that he was able to rent as a worker. That situation can be multiplied a thousand times over.

On several occasions I have asked for relief on a zone basis for pensioners who are required to live in remote areas. Tens of thousands of pensioners have spent all their working lives in the remote country areas, where the cost of living is so much higher than it is in the coastal cities, but no relief is granted to them. On each occasion that I ask a question in this respect I get a stereotype reply from the Treasurer saying that the matter will be taken into consideration when the Budget is being framed. We recognise this difficulty in relation to wage and salary earners. We recognise that we should have taxation zones. Inadequate though those zones may be, we do have them. We recognise the difficulty by having wage parities for workers living in different zones in Queensland and other States. But the same principle is not applied to people who are forced to live on fixed incomes - and very inadequate fixed incomes. I remember that during the course of a debate in this chamber only a few weeks ago members on the Government side did not know what the average weekly wage was. A long time ago the Australian Labor Party adopted a policy that the pension should be a percentage of the average weekly wage, and this is something that it has adhered to consistently. Yet members of the Government had done so little research that they did not know what the average weekly wage was. In fact, Mr Acting Deputy President, you will probably remember a couple of them asking for an explanation of it. Now the Government says that it knows exactly what is happening in the community and that pensions are more than adequate.

Earlier in the debate my colleagues on this side of the chamber - and Senator Willesee spelt this out in very clear terms a few moments ago - stated our attitude to the DLP. On no occasion has the DLP - no doubt out of complete political fear - voted with the Labor Party to see that pensions are increased. No matter which way one looks at the matter, the position is the same. Members of the DLP can move these childish sub-amendments or whatever they may like to call them. The amendments are framed for the express purpose of getting members of the DLP out from under so that they are then able to say to their political masters on the Government benches: ‘We saved you again, and you do not have to increase pensions’. Do not let us have all this hypocrisy about the corner Party being the great defender of the working class. It’s members have no more interest in the working class now than they did the day it was formed, when they walked out on the working class. They have no more sympathy for the pensioners today than they did in those days when they walked out. I suggest that the amendment moved by the corner Party is nothing but sheer hypocrisy in order to save the political hides of its members from the wrath of the pensioners if there should be a double dissolution. If we are fair dinkum in our attitude to life and in our attitude to the plight of the pensioners and people on fixed incomes, I strongly commend to the Senate this amendment as the type of amendment about which the Government should be big enough in its heart to say: ‘We will support it and see what we can do in the Budget*.

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

(8.38)- in reply - I make it clear that I am responding to the debate and closing the debate. I would like it to be understood that I am doing that, but I did not want to deprive anybody who might want to speak of the opportunity to speak. Give me credit for that consideration. Firstly, this is a Supply Bill. This Bill will provide supply for Government services for five-twelfths of the next financial year. We need about $l,219m. That sum is. spread over. the departments. When we come back .in August, in the Budget session,, this $1,2 19m will be covered by the Budget when we appropriate for the full 12 months. We will have an opportunity to examine the Estimates and to consider the amounts in detail. The Bill is a procedure to enable its to pay salaries, wages and pensions and to provide all the necessary benefits and all the essential services df government, h» other words, it is a mechanical procedure, interposed in the debate is an amendment moved by Senator Murphy, to which Senator Gair has moved an amendment I feel bound to point out to the Senate that neither amendment seeks to defeat the Bill Both of them, in fact, seek to add words at the end of the motion for the second reading of the Bill. So, we are agreed that we will pass supply; but certain words are sought to be added at the end of the motion, first by Senator Murphy and subsequently by Senator Gair.

Whilst I have been careful to refrain from participating in the interchange of words and expressions between the Opposition Party and the third party - the Democratic Labor Party - I feel bound to point out that it is not really a very serious exchange in which they are engaging. Obviously, on all sides of the Senate we are agreed that we will pass the legislation. I come now to the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. The amendment moved by Senator Murphy reads:

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth are so inadequate as to constitute social injustice and is of the opinion (hat, unless the inadequacies are substantially remedied in the Budget, it should be rejected’.

That refers to the Budget to be presented in August. The Democratic Labor Party has moved an amendment to that. It reads:

Leave out all words after ‘Commonwealth’, insert ‘should be thoroughly reviewed in the next Budget’.

With the DLP amendment, the motion would read:

That the Bill be now read a second time, but the Senate is of opinion that the social services of the Commonwealth should be thoroughly reviewed in the next Budget.

Senator Poke:

– Which means nothing.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

It is an expression couched in more moderate term’s than those in which the expression by the Opposition is couched. In truth, the’ Government finds no difficulty with the amendment to the amendment for the very good reason that we always do what it seeks to have done. The very essence of the Budget is that all matters are reviewed. It has been stated quite categorically from time to time by the Government that when we come to the Budget session we will review all manner of payments, expenditures and services in the social services, repatriation, health and other government agency fields. So, this is an automatic and essential part of a government’s responsibility. Budget time is the time to review these matters. In fact, legislation is brought down in the Parliament and that legislation is reflected upon in this place, votes are taken and approval is given or not given. For that reason the Government and I, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, find no difficulty at all in accepting the words that have been proposed by Senator Gair.

Senator Wood:

– What purpose does that serve?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

It serves a purpose in that it emphasises the point. Senator Wood might argue that it is superfluous. I have said that this will be done anyway. But, in fact, it is an mendment to an amendment and I see no impropriety in it. I see it only as emphasising what the Government will do. To the extent that it emphasises what we will do anyway, it has its value.

Senator Milliner:

– It is a futile exercise.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI started by saying that both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment seek only to add words to the motion to give passage to the legislation. For that reason I see no reason to resist the words of Senator Gair’s amendment. I believe that we are at one on the need to pass supply. Were we not to pass supply, of course, we would have a disastrous situation.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Our amendment refers to the inadequacies of the present arrangements, whereas the DLP’s amendment ignores them.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI do not want to enter into the disputation that occurred between the 2 sections on the left of the Chair. Senator Keeffe admitted that the Opposition had a certain purpose in moving its amendment. This was heard in the corridors of this place, and I think the Press referred to it. It was evident that an amendment was to be moved to the motion for the second reading of the Supply Bill and that it had a purpose. I hear things, too, sometimes. But I do not want to enter into that. I want to get on with the job. I want to have this Supply Bill passed. We have many other Bills to pass. I know that there are some very important matters that honourable senators want to debate. I do not believe that by debtaing this Bill tonight we will achieve anything other than the passage of it.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted in Senator Murphy’s amendment (Senator Gair’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1788

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May (vide page 1341), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– This Bill which is a small measure consisting of 3 clauses only, is very important. It will involve the Government in a commitment for an additional $200m insurance cover, if it is required. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bill. However, I propose to refer to some matters contained in it and also express some thoughts with regard to the operation of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation which I feel will need watching. The Corporation has increased in importance over the years that it has been in existence. In 1956 it was given authority to give insurance cover up to $50m, but this was seen to be inadequate for the amount of business that could come its way in insuring payments for exports. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) informed us in his second reading speech that in 1959 the maximum contingent liability of the Corporation was doubled to $100m, that in 1964 it was increased to $150m, in 1965 it was increased to $200m and in June last year it was increased to $300m. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the cover to $500m.

The Export Payments Insurance Corporation has 2 functions. Firstly, it may take out the insurance cover itself, which, as the Minister said, enables it to guarantee a business transaction of a commercial lending establishment when an exporter is seeking financial accommodation in respect of insured transactions involving deferred payment terms’. This is a very valuable facility possessed by the Corporation. However, it could lead to difficulties, as is pointed out in the Minister’s second reading speech when he referred to claims that have been made recently for insurance coverage of exports to areas which are, to say the least, rather dangerous from an insurance point of view. I instance a recent request for coverage of wheat exports to the United Arab Republic. In view of the happenings in that troubled area of the world, deferred payments in this instance could be a dangerous proposition. One never knows what political changes may take place which might endager payments which are being made over a period of time being met in full. This is one of the possibilities that the Corporation may meet in the ordinary course of its business. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

The Corporation has discharged its responsibilities with both initiative and prudence.

When 1 read that, I wondered whether it referred to the businesslike manner in which the Corporation conducts its business or to the care and examination it applies when looking at some of the propositions that are placed before it. The Minister also said:

It has at the same time ensured that the cost of its services to exporters has been kept to the lowest possible level. In fact, after same 14 years of operation, the Corporation’s excess of premium income over claims and operating expenses has amounted to a bare $238,000.

I have mentioned the difficulty with which the Corporation is faced when it has to cover the sale of wheat to an area where there may be possible instability, but what concerns me is whether the Corporation has the right to refuse cover. Perhaps this is something that the Minister can explain when he replies, because contracts could be entered into by the Australian Wheat Board which then could ask for insurance coverage. Although it might be a doubtful piece of business in terms of future payment, can the Corporation refuse the claim for cover?

As an illustration of how this may work out, I mention a recent case. I am not sure whether the Export Payments Insurance Corporation actually provided the cover but at least there was some insurance cover. The Corporation may have been involved in looking after the interests of the insuring company, if it was not directly involved. The case concerns the freighter S.S. ‘Hanna’ which, was bought by a business house in Taiwan from the United States of America earlier this year. This ship was sent by the owners to Adelaide, I understand, to pick up a full cargo of wheat. When it arrived at Port Adelaide a marine surveyor examined the ship and said that, in his opinion, it was unseaworthy. A second opinion was obtained. Another marine surveyor inspected the ship and he agreed that the ship was unseaworthy. A 60-day permit was issued to enable the ship to be moved to a docking facility where repairs could be carried out. The ship left Port Adelaide but instead of going to some docking facility it pulled into the port of Bunbury in Western Australia and proceeded to pick up a load of ilmenite. The Bunbury harbour master is also a representative of the Department of Shipping and Transport, so that Department became involved. He examined the ship when it was loading and found that the ilmenite was pouring out of cracks in the holds and running into the outer bilges of the ship. It was, in his opinion, unseaworthy and unable to take a cargo. He would not grant it a clearance to conduct this operation and an independent surveyor was flown, I believe from Sydney to Bunbury to inspect the ship. The independent surveyor said that the ship was all right.

This is an important case. Three marine surveyors- responsible people - from their observations, already had condemned the ship as unseaworthy. I am not arguing whether it was unseaworthy. The point is that 3 surveyors had said that it was unseaworthy and, in the end, an independent surveyor approved the ship and its Cargo. It left Bunbury with a full load of ilmenite in reasonable weather conditions and, 2000 miles out in the Indian Ocean, it got into difficulties. It was March and the weather conditions were not bad for that time of the year. The captain and crew were forced to abandon ship and were picked up by another ship that had accompanied the ‘Hanna’ for a period of 24 hours. The ‘Hanna* apparently was insured. This is my point. The ilmenite cargo which was for export was covered by insurance. I feel that this is the sort of danger that may arise in the operations of the Corporation. Is it being forced to cover export commodities irrespective of the conditions? It seems to me that in our endeavour to get export contracts wherever we can, whether for raw minerals or for grain, we are apparently in the habit of taking more risks than we should. This is a serious situation because it is mainly on account of all these extra insurace covers that the Bill seeks to increase the Corporation’s maximum contingent liability from $300m to $500m. If business warrants it, I think that insurance is a good proposition for any operations of this kind but I believe that we must exercise caution. I have not been able to find out the extent to which the Corporation is bound to provide insurance cover, and this is something that the Minister could explain. The Bill demonstrates the way in which the Export Payments Insurance Corporation has grown in value and effectiveness. Up to the moment, it has not been in any difficulty and has been able to meet its commitments through the premiums that have been charged. This is quite good but 1 would like to have an assurance from the Minister as to the operating procedure of the Corporation. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill and will give it a speedy passage.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– I want to make a very brief contribution to this debate. As Senator Wilkinson indicated, the Opposition does not question the desirability of passing this legislation. There is no argument about the tremendous value of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation to Australian exporters in recent years. However there are 2 matters I would like the’ Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) to comment on if possible. The operations of the Corporation at present are restricted to new investments. Any pre-existing investment in another country is precluded, presumably, from coverage under the conditions by which the Corporation operates. In view of the value of the Corporation to export industries I ask whether consideration has been given to extending the cover afforded by the Corporation’s policies to firms already established overseas before the Corporation came into being.

I think Senator Wilkinson touched on the second point I want to raise, and that is the extension of the insurance to a compulsory level over a certain range of products. I realise that in any form of insurance naturally a lot of good risks and bad risks are absorbed. It seems to me that, because of the desirability of extending the activities of the Corporation to as wide a range of exports as possible, consideration might be given to instituting some form of compulsory contribution to the Corporation’s scheme. I realise that this could not be done without a lot of research and consideration of the claims experience of overseas companies and exporters generally. It seems to me that in view of the importance of this Corporation to Australia’s exports we ought to be considering how its activities can be extended, and not simply restricted to new enterprises, as I understand it is restricted, and those firms that desire of their own choice to make ase of the Corporation’s facilities. I hope the Minister- will comment on those 2 points.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - I trust that the 2 honourable senators who have spoken wiM bear with me because this debate was brought on without any possibility of the advisers who are experts in this field being abb to be present. I do not have a great deal of knowledge about this measure as i not in this chamber for the responsible Minister. Both Senator Wilkinson and Senator Wriedt offered comments designed to improve the situation and these should be referred to the appropriate Minister. That is what I shall do. I am not sure whether the advisers who are now present will be able to pick up anything from what I say but if they can we will provide that information. If they cannot do so 1 will supplement the information later. We will take mote of the Hansard report of what was said by my 2 Senate colleagues.

Senator Wilkinson wanted to know whether the Exports Payments Insurance Corporation had the right to refuse to provide a particular cover. In effect, he wanted to know whether it could say: ‘We are not going to touch that risk’. He was concerned also about a shipment of ilmenite from the port of Bunbury in Western Australia which finally got into trouble. He wanted to know the extent of the cover for that shipment, whether Australia is taking undue risks in order to build up export markets and whether we are stretching our insurance limits a bit too much. Senator Wriedt asked about consideration being given to extending the cover and wondered whether we should have some insurance on this basis on a compulsory level.

Those principally are the areas dealt with by my 2 colleagues. Having had very little time to consider this measure, yet having found some interest in it in that short time, I feel I could justifiably take a little of our time to say one or two things about the

Corporation. Its clearly stated function, as set out in the opening part of the Corporation’s annual report, is this: . . to encourage and expand trade with countries outside Australia by providing a specialised range of insurance and guarantee facilities not normally obtainable from commercial insurers. In performance of this function the Corporation is required to pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue sufficient to meet all its expenditure properly chargeable to revenue.

The financial results- are set out on page 17. The report states:

Premium and related income exceeded operating costs and claim payments- by $202,866. This surplus, when added to interest of $315,625 on investments, and adjusted by miscellaneous income and amounts in respect of past years, increased the Underwriting Reserve to $2,400,859.

This next part will interest all honourable senators, lt states:

Over the Corporation’s 14 years in business, operational deficits occurred in 8 of these years and surpluses in 6. The Corporation’s susceptibility to radical change in its financial affairs, due to unforeseen happenings, was particularly evident over the last 6 years - whereas annual net operating costs fluctuated in relation to premium income in only a 4 per cent range, net claims to premium income fluctuated between 16 per cent and 64 per cent.

If one turns to the balance sheet one finds a steady growth in its position. Honourable senators will see what happens. The Corporation’s capita] is invested in Commonwealth bonds. Over the years it makes a surplus and these funds are transferred to the underwriting reserves. The Corporation is helping to insure the exports of Australia for the benefit of the Australian community and operates in areas which many other commercial insurers would not touch because of the risk. To that extent it has, without doubt, been of tremendous aid. It appears that requirements for this type of insurance will increase over the years.

Senator Wilkinson:

asked whether the Corporation can refuse to cover export transactions, such as wheat going to the United Arab Republic. The answer is that it can do so. The Corporation offers insurance only after examining all the factors involved, including the risk factor. The shipment of ilmenite is in the field of marine insurance. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation is not authorised to handle risks covered by commercial insurers. Its job is to step in when no other insurer will touch the job. The particular incident referred to was covered by marine insurance, another field of endeavour, and was not handled by EPIC.

Senator Wriedt inquired about extending this type of insurance to investments already made overseas. Very careful consideration was given to this proposal when the overseas investment insurance scheme was introduced but the Government decided that the Corporation should cover only investments made from 1965 onwards. I am told that the main reason for that decision was the difficulty in assessing the value of the investment. In some cases original investments have been recouped already from the profits.

I could go on at great length, reading some of these things from the annual report, but I do not think I would be aiding the processes of the Senate by doing so as there is a lot of work to be done. I am conscious of the contributions made in this debate and they will be directed to the responsible Minister and to the Corporation. After expressing those thoughts, I ask that the matter be disposed of.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I refer to clause 3 merely in order to have the opportunity of speaking again on this matter. Apparently the main purport of what I was saying did not get through to the Minister. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation has been carrying on business satisfactorily for 14 years and I appreciate that point. However, in the last 12 months there has been a change because in that period we have sent consignments of wheat to the United Arab Republic. This is something quite new and the political situation is difficult. I am concerned about whether this will happen again and, if so, whether there is provision for the Corporation to refuse risky business. The Minister has in part answered my query. I appreciate the fact that he is at a disadvantage in that this Bill was brought on for debate earlier than was intended and he did not have his advisers wilh him. I hope that he will supply me with this information in due course. It will not affect the passage of the Bill.

I wish to comment further on the ilmenite shipment. I presume that it was exported by a company in Bunbury or close to Bunbury. I am not sure whether it was covered by marine insurance. I think a purchase was involved. Therefore it could come under the Export Payments Insurance Corporation or the Corporation could cover it for a company that was prepared to accept the risk on the validation of an independent surveyor that the ship was seaworthy. The part that disturbs me is that it was a risk that neither the Corporation nor such a company would be aware of and the insurer was caught. I am not pressing for a reply now. The Minister can probably give me an assurance that this information will be made available to me. However, it is a matter which I think ought to have been mentioned at this stage. The Opposition will not hold up the actual passage of the Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– My advisers from the Department have informed me that they have some information which may help the honourable senator. If it is not all the information that he Wants, I will see that additional information is supplied to him by the people responsible. I understand the point that the honourable senator has made. I have looked back into the accounts and have found that in the financial year ending on 30th June 1970 there was a net operating surplus. So in that financial year some of the problems that concern him about the potential higher risk of wheat shipments to countries that have been having some internal troubles were not manifested in the accounts. Despite these shipments the Export Payments Insurance Corporation still succeeded in that financial year in maintaining an operating surplus.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Will they be long term payments to the United Arab Republic?

Senator COTTON:

– Yes, I imagine that will be the case. I am a little reluctant to canvass in the broad the commercial risk; to do so might reflect to some extent upon the internal stability of a particular country. For reasons which would be quite apparent to honourable senators, I will not comment on this aspect. The point raised by the honourable senator has been of interest to me quite apart from my representation in this chamber of the Minister for Trade and Industry. I will read the note I have been handed and then see whether I can find out something else. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation covers only the risk of non-payments by overseas buyers of goods. It does not seem as though this question was involved in the ilmenite shipment. I think the honourable senator also was concerned about the possibility of a ship which was operating under a clearance from some person in the shipping area not being satisfactory and of losing its cargo, and that EPIC might be drawn in because of that association.

Senator Wilkinson:

– And losing the ship, too.

Senator COTTON:

– Further inquiries will have to be made. I will make those inquiries.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1792

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May (vide page 1 347), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– The adjournment of the debate on this Bill was moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) after an argument as to whether leave would be granted for the second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), to be incorporated in Hansard instead of being delivered by the Minister for Civil Aviation. At the time of this argument I asked how many pages there were in the second reading speech. I wanted to know this before I would give my approval to its incorporation. As Senator Willesee is not present in the chamber, I propose to go ahead with the debate on the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the. Parlia ment for the ratification of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention of the International Wheat Agreement 1971 and to repeal the Acts which were involved in previous wheat agreements. This Bill is a very short one. It has only 4 clauses. It oversteps the last Bill passed by the Senate, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill, by one clause. However, it is a much more important Bill in view of the matters brought up in the Agreement.

I wish to look first, at some of the remarks contained in the Minister’s second reading speech and to comment on and emphasise some of the points made in it. The International Wheat Agreement has been a very important agreement to Australia over the years. It has determined largely the price that we receive for our wheat in overseas sales. Until a couple of years ago there was no problem in this regard because the. overseas demand for wheat was considerable and was commensurate with the supply available. In the early years of the agreements that were entered into the Canadian top quality wheat was the only one given a price. The prices of the other types of wheat were open to negotiation, based on the estimate that had been already put on the price of the Canadian Manitoba wheat as the top quality grain available. In 1968 the International Grains Arrangement was entered into, as a result of which 14 grades of wheat were given prices. It was unfortunate that just at the time this agreement was entered into the world reached a stage of over-production of wheat and under-consumption in the importing countries. This created a number of very serious difficulties, and the International Grains Arrangement broke down in a very short time. This was very unfortunate, particularly as far as Australia was concerned. This problem is something that the various countries which met this year to set up a new agreement were faced with.

We find that in the Agreement which has been reached there is no provision for an actual price. The situation will be watched very closely’ by the committee which has been set up. Provision has been written into the Agreement that if it becomes advisable for a price fixing mechanism to operate it will be given serious consideration. But as far as I can see, all that the Agreement requires is that the various signatories from time to time give notice of all the transactions which are offering and those into which they have entered. This will be a continuous operation.

I refer now to the new Food Aid Convention, which is the other part of the Bill. There are fewer signatories to the new Convention than there were to the old Convention, but the amount of wheat that Australia has agreed to provide as food aid remains at 225,000 tons. If I may refer now to the various articles of the Agreement I particularly want to point to one or two facts which I think are of considerable interest. There are 1,000 votes held by the countries which are exporters and 1,000 votes held by countries which are importers. There are only 13 exporting signatories, whereas 48 signatories are importing countries. One interesting feature is that the European Economic Community is both an exporter and an importer so it has a double vote. The EEC controls 252 of the 2,000 votes. Canada controls 280 votes based on the amount of wheat that it normally has for export. The United States has the same number of votes. Australia has 100 votes. lt is interesting to see the considerable power that could be exercised by the European Economic Community, the United States and Canada in the operation of the Agreement. I think I should read article 21, which is the one to which I referred because it contains the provisions for an examination of prices should any factors arise which make this more possible than it is at the present moment. Article 21 reads:

In order to assure supplies of wheat and wheat flour to importing members and markets for wheat and wheat flour to exporting members at equitable and stable prices, the Council shall at an appropriate time examine the questions of prices and related rights and obligations. When judged that these matters are capable of successful negotiation with the objective of bringing them into effect within the life of this Convention, the Council shall request the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to convene a negotiating Conference.

This is the only reference to prices in the articles. The Food Aid Convention makes a new operation possible. It provides that consideration may be given to allowing a country which is unable to provide the wheat it has agreed to provide under the

Convention to substitute rice. This provision has been suggested on a number of occasions, I believe, but this is the first time that the Convention has incorporated an agreement that consideration will be given to this possibility. It means not that countries will be able to substitute rice for wheat but that consideration will be given to allowing those countries unable to meet their grain quota to supply rice in lieu of making a payment in money.

The ‘ Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We regret that it has not solved the international wheat problem. There are a lot of t’s uncrossed and a lot of i’s und06ted as far as the wheat grower anywhere in the world is concerned, but it would appear from the discussions that have been held that this Convention is the most reasonable and satisfactory way of reaching a conclusion on a very serious problem. We do not oppose the Bill.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I am delighted that this Bill is not raising controversy, and I do not intend to add any controversial note to the debate. But I would like to say that it is of tremendous relief to the wheat growers of Australia to know that the 1971 International. Wheat Agreement has been successfully negotiated. Lots of doubts have been cast upon it, but it is very much on the lines of past agreements with the one exception that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) has pointed out. No definite agreement has been reached on price. It will be remembered that a rather complicated pricing arrangement was entered into under the last Agreement and that it broke down because it was impracticable.

The Minister pointed out in his second reading speech the very good reason why it was not practicable to introduce a definite pricing arrangement into the Agreement this Bill seeks to ratify. The reason is that the. Canadian grading system, including traditional Canadian grades such as No. 1 Manitoba, will disappear and presumably it will be some time before the relative values of the new Canadian wheats will be established on world markets. Therefore it was not possible to retain .the old basis relating wheat prices to the price for No. I

Manitoba. The Agreement is to my mind a very satisfactory agreement and reflects great credit upon all those countries which gathered together in a civilised way to - determine the progress of this great and important internationally traded commodity. We note that this new Agreement includes- major exporters and importers such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Brazil. It is a better Agreement because these countries have entered into it. I am happy that it has been concluded on these lines, and I am delighted that there will be no controversy on the subject of this Bill.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

The other matter to which I refer is contained in that part of the Minister’s second reading speech which states:

It was against this background that the recent negotiating conference was held in Geneva. Those exporting countries which considered they had been disadvantaged by the operation of the Inter national Grains Arrangement were reluctant to accept new commitments with respect to prices under any new agreement.

May I take it from that that although there were particular reasons which outlawed the price mechanism in the new agreement there will apparently be no price mechanism at all in future agreements in view of the attitude of the countries referred to by the Minister in his second reading speech? Are we to take it that in future the international price of this grain will be determined by international control over supply and demand and that any proposal in the future to write in a price mechanism control formula related to varying qualities of wheat has permanently, been abandoned? If the Minister would be good enough to reply to those questions I would indicate that the Democratic Labor Party supports this Bill.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– 1 am very pleased that all parties in the Senate support this new International Wheat Agreement. There have been international wheat agreements of some type or other since 1949. Throughout that period we have that stability within this very important industry. I was interested in the general comments of Senator Byrne with regard to price. It is true that under the last International Grains Agreement the price structure broke down because of quite a few factors and we finished with a world surplus of wheat. The result was that consuming countries were producing a lot of their own supplies and some of the consuming countries became exporters. We finished up with great problems of world surpluses and a certain amount of very keen competition - I will not say undercutting - and the price structure did break down.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Plus the back biting.

Senator YOUNG:

– The honourable senator said that; I did not. Nevertheless there were problems and it is unfortunate that the price structure collapsed. But even so, stability remained . within the industry. Honourable senators will recall that last year the then Minister for Trade and Industry, Sir John McEwen, accompanied a delegation overseas to have discussions with some of the partners in the International Grains Arrangement. As a result we saw stability coming back into the industry and the undercutting being prevented. This new agreement is to some extent based on that type of arrangement except that today there are far more countries involved than there were previously. Even though there is no price arrangement within it we do have a situation where countries will co-operate with each other, whether they be buyers or sellers, thereby avoiding wherever possible chaos within the industry- because there will be consultations and co-operation to help maintain stability, if at all possible.

Senator Byrne:

– Te maintain price stability.

Senator YOUNG:

– To maintain the stability of the product and: to prevent a surplus, and therefore pike is affected indirectly. 1 point oat that Senator Byrne asked a question of lae. Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) concerning the price arrangement lor the future. The Minister in his second reading speech said:

It is necessary ls stress that despite lack ot agreement in Geneva ob price objectives, all the major exporting countries are agreed on the need to obtain stable and remunerative prices for their sales of wheat. In feet, the agreement specifically provides that when it is judged that prices and related rights and obligations are capable of successful negotiation, the International Wheat Council shall arrange a further conference with the objejctive of bringing them into effect within the life of the agreement.

That is the situation and if it is at all possible it will be done.

Senator Byrne:

– That is a formula for price control, not merely price control flowing from quota control.

Senator YOUNG:

– Yes. Nevertheless the world wheat situation today is one that is still not extremely bright but I must say that it is far better than it was. As at March of this year Canada had stocks amounting to 931 million bushels. Last year at the same time Canada had 1,197 million bushels. In the United States of America as at March there were stocks of 957 million bushels. Last year that country had stocks of 1,098 million bushels. On the Australian scene the figures given relate to the period from 1st December to 30th November because that is at the end of the year and just before the new harvest deliveries come in. Last year as at 1st December we had a carry-over of some 265 million bushels and it is estimated that by 1st December this year we will have a carry over of some 180 million bushels.

It is encouraging that there has been some decline in world surplus stocks of wheat. The situation looks brighter than it did last year but nevertheless it is still necessary for all major producing countries to have quota systems.. This is something which emanates from agreements such as we have in existence because there is respect for the agreement between the producing countries. Both America and Canada last year increased their quotas but Australia is still maintaining its quota levels to limit production. It is .pleasing to see that within both the producing countries and the consuming countries there is agreement whereby there is co-operation throughout. I hope that we will maintain stability within the - wheat industry even though there is a surplus of stocks today.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– In reply - The purpose of this Bill is to obtain the approval of Parliament for Australia’s ratification of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention of the 1971 International Wheat Agreement. It is the seventh agreement in a series. It replaces the International Grains Arrangement of 1967. It comes into force on 1st July 1971 for a period of 3 years, subject to the approval of this Parliament. The Wheat Trade Convention is designed to further international co-operation in world wheat problems. It continues the machinery of the International Wheat Council with the following main functions: To maintain a continuous review of market conditions, including price fluctuations; to arrange consultations in a situation of market instability and to seek mutually acceptable solutions; to collect and disseminate information on prices, sales and freight rates of wheat. The Wheat Trade Convention differs from earlier agreements in that it contains no pricing provisions because these were not able to be obtained.

However, it specifically provides for the Council to examine questions of prices, purchase obligations and supply commitments with the objective of bringing them into effect within the life of the new agreement. The pricing provisions of the IGA have not in effect been operative since March 1969 -that is when they broke down. However, prices are currently at or about IGA levels and as my colleague Senator Young reminds us there is a tendency towards a decline of accumulated stocks. The Food Aid Convention provides for aid by affluent countries to developing countries. It basically continues the provisions introduced under the 1967 Food Aid Convention except that there is a new programme with a total of 3,974,000 metric tons compared with 4,259,000 under the old agreement. The United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway are no longer involved. In exceptional circumstances contributions can be made in the form of rice in limited amounts on request. Sales on credit terms of 20 years will be eligible to be counted against aid commitments. Our contribution remains unchanged at 225,000 tons. The United States, European Economic Community, Canadian, Japanese and Argentinian contributions are also unchanged. Senator Wilkinson referred to Article 21 of the Agreement which does insert an amendment dealing with prices, related rights and obligations and obviously is intended, if the situation makes it possible later on, to enter a price factor into the scene. This will be able to be done under the Article. But the general purpose of this legislation is simply to emphasise that the new Agreement will continue the machinery of the International Wheat Council with, first of all, regular reporting of all commercial and non-commercial transactions, continuing reviews of the world wheat market and consultation aimed at dealing with any situation of market instability. The major consideration is the assurance of continued co-operation and consultation between major importers and exporters of wheat. It should preserve the orderly international marketing of wheat which, as we are all very well aware, is so terribly important to Australia. The voting patterns would be those one would expect in a situation with the European Economic Community being a large importer of wheat as well as a producer of wheat products and Canada and the United States of America being large producers. That is the sort of result we would get in a situation like this because those countries are large operators in wheat.

Senator Byrne had some concern about the price provisions. I think I have made this clear already, but there are some extra notes I have which I hope will clear it up for the honourable senator and for . anyone else who is interested. There arc no specific provisions under the Agreement providing for. international controls over the supply of wheat. This was considered at the conference but found not to be negotiable which, I think, is clear to us all. The Agreement provides the machinery for reporting and consultation with a view to dealing with every situation of market instability caused, for’ example, by oversupply! It is of significance that under the old agreement when the price situation broke down and they continued on without any’ such consideration being enforceable the prices today are much the same as they were. So it looks as if the consultative process, or getting together process, and the kind pf co-operative, machinery in use has worked, fairly effectively.

Senator Byrne:

– Does that mean that in future agreements no attempt will be made to write in a price mechanism?

Senator COTTON:

– No, it does not say that. Article 21 of the Agreement provides:

Prices and related rights and obligations

In order to assure supplies’ of ‘wheat and wheatflour to importing members and markets for - wheat and wheat-flour to exporting members at equitable and stable prices, .the Council shall at an appropriate time examine the questions of prices and related rights and obligations.

So it has given itself the opportunity to do so. Looking ,at the thing from a practical point of view I would imagine that one would get to the stage where, it was impossible under the old agreement to maintain a fixed price situation. The negotiators of the new Agreement found they could not negotiate, a fixed price position but the position of price is much the same as it was. The consultative process has maintained it and this new Agreement provides for a price situation to be brought up again and enforced if this is thought to be negotiable. That, I think, would be the reasonable situation. So I think that with those comments I would have covered the outstanding points that have been raised by my colleagues.

Bill read a second time’.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I would like to make a point which I think the Minister would agree to. Under the new arrangement which has been entered into with the eventual ratification by all of the countries concerned the importance of this operation will, I understand, be that all transactions will be recorded and the information distributed to all signatories. Is this not the important feature of it? I assume, because there is no price determination, that this will include the price which is paid for wheat sold by an exporting country, so there will be no under the counter dealings and all will be above board. This will make for a better spirit of negotiation between importers and exporters.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I am grateful to the honourable senator for raising that point because it does elucidate the matter a little further. Yes, all these factors must be made known, including the purchasing, the selling, the price arrangements, the credit arrangements and the freight arrangements. As the honourable senator says, there will be nothing under the counter so that all parties will know the whole situation. This is true consultative machinery with, I think I can say quite truthfully and bluntly, all the cards on the table.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1797

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May (vide page 1341), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I have consulted with the Opposition representative who has said that the course I am about to suggest is convenient to him. If it would be convenient for the Senate as a whole I suggest that there be a cognate debate on this Bill, the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill and the State Grants (Universities) Bill with separate questions being put on each Bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - There being no objection, the course will be followed.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– These 3 Bills are most important in their nature. They relate to States grants for the purposes of education. They are the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Bill, the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill and the States Grants (Universities) Bill. The Opposition does not intend to oppose any of these Bills. They were debated quite extensively in another place by my colleagues in the Labor Party and although I think an occasion of this nature could properly be used for one to express one’s view on the nature of education, one’s philosophy on education and one’s Party’s views as to how the education of this country should be conducted, because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that we are almost at the end of the sessional period I do not intend to detain the Senate at any great length in debating these matters. I will just address a few remarks to each of them.

The first Bill to which I will refer is the States Grants (Universities) Bill 1971 because I think the issues involved in it are the simplest of the three. This is a simple technical Bill providing for additional grants to be made to the States in order to provide for the extra sums which are now required by the universities in view of the salary increases which have recently been granted to academic staff. The salaries paid to the academic staff of Australian universities may seem to some to be quite high, but when they are compared with salaries paid to people in many other walks of life in which comparable qualifications are required they are anything but excessive. The Opposition is of the opinion that it is proper that high salaries be paid to academics. It is a very unfortunate state of affairs if, for example, an academic lawyer would have available to him a substantially lower income than that which he could expect if he were out in private practice. The same may be said for an academic engineer, an academic architect or an academic scentist. It is our view that there should be highly qualified people in the universities. In fact the most highly qualified people in the professions ought to be those who are instructing others in the disciplines in which they are efficient and engaging in the free research into these disciplines within the universities. We do not oppose the Bill. We support its passage.

The next Bill to which I wish to refer is the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Bill. The Opposition is of the opinion that the grants which are being made available for pre-school teachers colleges although rather meagre at least are significant in the sense that this is a major break-through in the training of pre-school teachers. In the past it has unfortunately been the case in this country that unlike a number of advanced countries pre-school teaching has been either non. existent or, where there have been pre-school institutions, they have often been little more than child-minding centres.. The Opposition is of the opinion that pre-school education is of great importance. There are 3 main branches of education, pre-school education, school education and tertiary education. It is very difficult to say that one branch is more important than another. For that reason the Australian Labor Party has as its policy the establishment of a preschools commission to consider the needs of pre-school education. Perhaps one would feel rather happier in welcoming this Bill - even though the amounts promised by way of State grants for the training of pre-school teachers are rather small - were it not for the fact that the Government before the last Senate election undertook to establish pre-school centres throughout Australia. Apparently it has now gone back on the undertaking which was given at that time. Despite the fact that we do have this Bill before us which is going to provide some small measure of training for preschool teachers, it may well be that the number of institutions in which these people, once trained, are able to practise their abilities as pre-school teachers are going to be indeed limited and, in the view of the Opposition, totally inadequate. However, I do not wish to labour this point. We believe that provision should be made by the Commonwealth for the training of pre-school teachers. We are not opposing the Bill.

In many respects the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill 1971 is one of the most complex of Bills because it makes special provision for a particular type of tertiary education and that is the sort of technical education which is given at a tertiary level but at a non-university level. In the past it has often seemed that Australia has been sadly lacking in technical training. Frequently it has been , found in this country that when major enterprises have opened businesses here and engaged in industrial undertakings not only have they provided the capital but also at the managerial and supervisory level .they, have provided the staff. One. of the reasons for this is obviously because there have not been enough people with adequate technical training available in this country. There cannot be any doubt that one of the most important reasons for the very dramatic advances which were made in the latter part of the 19th century and the earlier part of the 20th century in Germany and in the last several decades in Japan has been the intensive, systematic technical training which is available in both those countries. The industrial pre-eminence of Germany and Japan can be largely attributed to the excellent technical training provided. It is the hope of the Australian Labor Party that Australian technical training will reach the same level. Australia has substantial resources available.

It would be unfortunate if we were to be dependent not only upon foreign capital but also upon foreign technicians in order to make use of the resources in our country. One of the purposes of the Bill, as outlined by the Minister, is to facilitate the mobility of technically trained people so that people who have been trained in one branch of technology may be able to change to another branch of technology when the demand for their services is not felt in the industry in which they are working. This is desirable, and we support it. However, we believe that technical training should be looked at from the point of view of the overall needs of Australia and not the day to day needs of private entrepreneurs who are looking for employees to engage in some particular skilled activity.

Only recently criticism came from one of the senior academics associated with the Wollongong University College, to the effect that the university college was being used merely as an appendage to big business, that people were receiving technical’ education at the Wollongong University College merely to be trained to take up positions with certain big enterprises which require their services, and that there was not an overall plan covering Australia’s requirements for engineers.

Senator Byrne:

– j thought that one- of our problems- was that some -of our doctors of philosophy and doctors of science were unable to secure employment in their disciplines in Austrafia.

Senator wheeldon:

– I am sure that this is a problem, too. Senator Byrne has raised the fact that there are people trained to the level of doctorate who . are unable to obtain employment in Australia. I do not doubt that. -This is. a problem which I would not dispute. I think that this problem would arise in any country. There would be certain people whose inclinations would take them into a particular field of study or discipline and there would not be employment for them. This would seem to be a matter largely for high level vocational guidance.

Senator Byrne:

– What I meant was that there does not seem to be that undue demand by private industry for these highly qualified men. They have to seek overseas employment. That was my impression.

Senator WHEELDON:

– This is a matter on which I am not in dispute with Senator Byrne. I am referring really to a different matter. The type of thing I have in mind is that we should be looking forward and making an overall plan as to needs in the future for Australia - whether it be the mining industry, some special applied branch of engineering technology or whatever else it may be - rather than having some company approach a technical college or a university college and say: We will need so many technicians of a certain type’. In that case the university would be acting almost as part of a mass production process of turning out technicians for some company. I know that there are difficulties involved in this but it is my opinion and I think it is the opinion of the Australian Labor Party - I gather that Senator Byrne does not disagree with me on this - that what we should be looking for is an overall plan covering the long term needs for Australia so that 2 objectives will be satisfied. One of them, is that we are not unnecessarily training people who will be unable to find employment. The other objective is probably even more important than that, namely that we do not have important fields of activity for which we do not have trained people.

Senator Byrne:

-That seems to be the position. As I say, there is a demand for a lot of these available services.

Senator wheeldon:

- Senator Byrne is making the point that it appears at present that there are’ some fields in which we are under provided with trained Australians and others where we are over provided with trained Australians. I certainly would not disagree with that. It should be our purpose to develop a state of affairs in which we avoid both problems as far as possible. The other matter to which I wish to refer again very briefly relates to the nature of technical training. There cannot be any doubt that highly valuable purposes are served by the existence of technical colleges and institutes of technology. Here I am speaking perhaps purely privately. I believe it would be a tragedy if technical colleges were to become merely some sort of craft schools. I realise that it is not within the ambit of the Bill as it is constituted at present to deal in any detail with these matters. A problem has been found at various universities. In the faculties such as science, and particularly applied science, instructors have discovered that very frequently their students are unable to cope with the course presented to them because they are unable to express themselves adequately in English. Somebody may be quite erudite in some complex technical field but his command of English and his ability to express himself is so poor that although his research and his knowledge of the subject may be adequate, what he writes is almost incomprehensible. This is one problem which should be overcome. As well as looking for technical training we should be looking for some well rounded education. Science technology has now reached the stage where it is impossible to have what was once the Renaissance man, the man who was an authority on the arts, history and the humanities and science and technology simultaneously.

At the same time we should be aware of the sort of problems to which attention has been drawn by people like C. P. Snow. We should guard against a situation where we have 2 cultures. We do not want to have one group of people who move in the field of liberal arts and the humanities and another moving in the field of science. Although a man is an economist he may have some knowledge of history, philosophy, law and politics but not have the slightest idea of how an internal combustion engine works, let alone how one sends a cosmonaut into space, and vice versa. We do not want to have people highly adept in various technical skills but having no knowledge of the history of their country, law, philosophy or literature. It would seem to me that one of the weaknesses of the institutes of technology quite frequently is that there is an undue emphasis on the purely technical education without at the same time there being provision for a broader and more general education in the humanities. In the same way it may be said that in many universities within the humanities and within faculties of arts totally insufficient attention is being given to important aspects of science and technology of which any reasonably educated person should have at least some general knowledge. I have nothing further to add. As has already been indicated, the Opposition is not opposing any of these Bills. I appreciate the action of the Minister in bringing the 3 Bills on together so that the time of the Senate is not prolonged in debating each Bill separately. The Opposition will not oppose any of the Bills now before the Senate.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party supports these 3 Bills and congratulates the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) for saving the Senate’s time by bringing them on together. In the essential fact of spending money on education they are identical, but in the different ways in which they propose to make grants to the States they each have a slightly different purpose, although all deal with education. The DLP supports the idea of a better education system and always has. Indeed, we can look back on a system that has been immeasurably improved in our own lifetime. At one time a person was very fortunate if he went to school beyond the age of 14 and 15 years and the possibility of a university education for anybody who belonged to what might be broadly described as a working class or middle class family was almost non-existent. But within one generation we have reached the stage where almost anybody who has the capacity is entitled to and gets tremendous assistance to have a university education that may take him through to his early 20s before it is required that he should obtain useful or gainful employment

The DLP stands for that but it is a little worried that in spite of the tremendous leap forward we have made in a generation in this field it is obvious that a very small minority of the young people today are unappreciative of what has been done and tend to abuse and destroy the opportunities that are being made available to them. I am amongst those people who are horrified when they see photographs in the newspapers of places like Monash University, which was built quite recently - lovely buildings - at great Government expense, with slogans painted willy-nilly over the walls and government property destroyed. The cost of the damage is estimated to be $500 or $1,000. The students who have destroyed this public property which has been created for their use, the use of their generation and the generations to follow them then get a placard and scrawl on it: ‘More money for education’. They then go out, march up and down the streets and complain about the generation gap and the fact that people do not understand them.

I repeat that this is the attitude of a very small minority but, as this problem has been deepening and becoming more complex as the years have gone by, we feel that the time is over-ripe when governments must take some action, in the interests not of the older generation who have made quite considerable sacrifices to provide these opportunities but of the generation that is receiving the opportunities and those who will succeed them, to see that whatever problems young people feel they have they respect the property that is available to them for the purpose for which it was created - the education of students. This property is not theirs to destroy, because generations will follow who will also have the right, we hope, to use the facilities that we are providing.

I maintain that this generation gap which is supposed to be responsible for so many ills does not really exist. I find no evidence to substantiate this amongst the members of good families who keep close together. I thought that there was a far greater generation gap when I was a young person when young people were supposed to be seen and not heard. Today members of families share their conversation; they share their knowledge; they share their interests with each other. The exception is in isolated cases where somebody - perhaps a parent - is falling down on his job. In my view, it is from these sources that we get this small vocal, noisy and noticed element that is giving the mass of young people a very bad name in the estimation of the older generation. The vast number of young people do respect the chances they have and are appreciative of the opportunities that are opening up before them to help them deal with the complexities of life in this modern age. We say to the Government that the time is long past when toleration of extremism is the solution to this problem. We believe that the opportunities for education must be granted only to those who accept them and who prove that they have the responsibility to make use of them in their own interests and in the interests of the nation.

I agree with what Senator Wheeldon said about the education of children merely for the use of big business. I have never approved of that. But I think one can become over-enthusiastic and rather fanatical until the stage is reached where as has happened, some academics say that nobody should be educated for anything that is at all practical, that people should be educated for whatever they want to do. But we do live in an integrated community where no man is an island and each is dependent upon his fellow man. It is quite useless for us to send thousands of young people to the university to become philosophers or poets if nobody wants to employ philosophers or poets. Ii we did that, we would only be building up great tragedies for young people who may spend 3, 4 or 5 of the most important years of their life studying something that does not assist them in the general responsibility which we all have, namely, to earn a living for ourselves and for those who happen to be dependent upon us in order to see that a generation follows us. I suppose that fundamentally that is the primary responsibility of each and every one of us. I do not think that any individual should be able to drift off as an island on his own and say: ‘I do not care if nobody wants to buy my philosophy after I have learned all about it. That is what I am going to be’. Then there are complaints because in our integrated society he finds himself living at a much lower level than the level he aspires to and certainly at a much lower level than a more practical person who accepts his primary responsibility to fit in with the scheme of requirements, not only of his own desires, but also of the desires and needs of his fellow man.

We are among those people who counsel against extremism on every side. We certainly do not approve of our young people being trained only in technical skills that can be useful to big business. We certainly should discourage the young people who wish to concentrate their attention in areas in which it is obvious there will be a shortage of employment and a low standard of remuneration as compensation for years of study and a long period spent in acquiring the knowledge or skills that they have. In the field of education a philosophy is developing that because we spent too little for too long on education, it is necessary now only to spend more money on education and the problem will be solved. Of course, that is a falsehood. If the money is misspent and energy is misdirected our educational system will be no better than it was before we increased our expenditure on it. By the same token, if we spend money on the provision of facilities for young people, to be used in their interests and the interests of following generations, and those young people destroy the facilities, again we will have achieved nothing merely by spending money on education.

I have placed those thoughts and philosophies before the Minister to indicate our views on expenditure on education. We approve of the Bills before the Senate, but we think h is high time that more attention was given to solving some of the practical problems and to< ensuring that money is not misspent or- facilities destroyed by young people who may be over-enthusiastic about a particular cause at a particular time, In supporting that cause they may think they have a. right .to destroy property that is not truly their own but is only for their use and the use, if they would only “realise it, of their children and their children’s children. If the trend continues it will be very bard to get our organised society to continue to accept the responsibility of raising the capital necessary to provide even more facilities and even better education to *be generations that are to follow us.

Senator WRIGHT:
New South WalesMinister for Works · LP

– in reply- It is gratifying to bear the speeches that, have been made in relation to these 3 Bills insofar as they relate to the Commonwealth’s contribution to education and an acknowledgement of the improvement that has occurred over the last 15 or 20 years. It might be appropriate to remind the Senate that the Commonwealth’s direct expenditure on education has risen from $54m 10 years ago to $3 12m in the current financial year. It is also appropriate, in view of what Senator Little has been saying, to cite the figures with regard to the various scholarships and allowances, expenditure on which over the same period has risen from appxoximately $8m to $44m annually. I believe that that figure alone should reinforce the responsibility we should all accept to see that that increased expenditure goes for assistance-

Senator Little:

– Costs have also risen tremendously in that period.

Senator WRIGHT:

– But the variety of scholarships, the number of scholarships and the relative value of scholarships have all been increased. I was just briefly making the point that as the vote this financial year for scholarships alone is $44m it reinforces the submission made by Senator Little that we all should accept responsi bility for ensuring that the money is used for the purpose of obtaining scholarship from our student population and not larrikinism.

We are discussing 3 Bills. The States Grants (Universities) Bill is, as Senator Wheeldon said, simply a Bill to adjust the academic salaries of university staffs, so far as the Commonwealth’s contribution is concerned, in order to permit the salaries to be upgraded in line with other salaries. The Eggleston Committee recommended that there should be an automatic adjustment of academic university salaries when the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission grants increases under the metal trades award or in the national wages case. We have been supporting universities, in a very significant degree, ever since the early 1950s.

With regard to the aspect to which Senator Little referred, I believe that it is encouraging, firstly, to note that the student population is accepting its responsibilities this year in a more responsible degree than it did last year or the year before that. I believe that in the statements which have been made by responsible figures in university government - notably Professor Zelman Cowen, who is the ViceChancellor of the University of Queensland - one sees that there is a much greater appreciation of the responsibility of university government to ensure that access to scholarship by purposeful students is not frustrated by a minority section of staff and a minority section of students who would wish to be modern messiahs without any knowledge, and political revolutionaries as a substitute for studentship. I believe that it was particularly heartening to hear Professor Zelman Cowen remind all universities that they had no Alsatia that was immune to the law; that the obligations of law enforcement applied to law officers on university campuses as they do to any other public institution; and that it was in the interests not only of the state law and order but also of university government that there should be a peaceable, orderly discharge of teaching facilities in every aspect of university affairs.

The second Bill is the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Bill which merely provides for a re-arrangement in the time programme to suit the exigencies of the State departments which are responsible for the expenditure of the various sums of money which were voted for the period ending 30th June 1971 and which are to be expended in the period ending 31st December 1972.- The third Bill is the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill. It deals with technical training facilities. In that respect I take on board, I hope, an understanding of what Senator Wheeldon said with regard to the importance of technical training at the present time. However, I would remind him that years before his advent to the Senate the Murray Committee’s report alerted Australia to the need to bring its training in the fields of technology up to the standard of the requirements of the time and the rapidly growing methods in technology. It has been in that spirit that since 1964 the Commonwealth Government, initiating this policy of assisting technical colleges, will by 1974 have devoted $106m to this item of educational assistance. That, I think, indicates the degree of importance that the Government attaches to training in technology those people who wish to have particular skills and training available to them for employment.

I hope that we never develop a theory whereby the whole of the population lives by a dollar-earning budget. I know that it is necessary for each of us to earn his or her living, but if we make the dollar, as some of the remarks to which we listened might imply, the sole criterion of our pattern in life, we will miss a lot of the beauty of life because man does not live bv bread alone.

Senator Little:

– I hope I did not convey that impression.

Senator WRIGHT:

– No.

Senator Little:

– Quite the opposite. One cannot ignore it, but it must not be the only feature.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I want no controversy. I just take leave to state in a different way perhaps the same idea to which I listened in a different sense. Insofar as it might be suggested that this is the full reach of the Government’s performance in regard to training facilities, I remind the Senate that on 1st February the then Minister for Education and Science, Mr N. H. Bowen, adverted to the fact that there was available for consideration the report of the Australian Tripartite Mission to study methods of training of skilled workers in Europe - a report of most valuable content, the subject of which is the central theme of an international seminar in Canberra this week. The Government will, according to its budgetary requirements and the circumstances in which we have to move, listen to the requirements that come out of that report as a subsequent matter for consideration. I thank the Senate for its consideration of the measures.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1803

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL TRAINING) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 May (vide page 1343), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1803

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 May (vide page 1344), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1803

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May (vide page 1 343), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– This Bill is an interim measure which has been introduced by the Government to continue the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement which was introduced into this Parliament in 1966 and which is due for renewal this year. I understand that because of the troubles that occurred within the Liberal Party - the deposing of one Prime Minister, the appointment of another in the reshuffling of ministerial positions - a conference that was to have been held earlier this year did not take place. The result is that the agreement which should now be before us to cover the period decided upon - it would probably be a period of 5 years - is not before us. So, we are merely continuing the Agreement that was made between the Commonwealth and the States in 1966 for the purpose of providing moneys by way of loan to the States for the construction of houses and for allocation to housing co-operatives. We now find that we are to continue, probably for another 12 months, under the old Agreement with which some States certainly are dissatisfied. I can say that Victoria is very dissatisfied with the present Agreement, for many reasons which I will enumerate as 1 proceed with my speech.

The new Agreement should now be given very serious consideration. I hope that the remarks I make tonight will be considered when the Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States is being finalised and the legislation is being presented to this Parliament for ratification. The Australian Labor Party will not oppose the extension of the 1966 Agreement in terms of the Bill now before us. But 1 move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill:

At end of motion add - “but the Senate, whilst welcoming the advances provided in the Bill, is of opinion that the Commonwealth should establish an appropriate instrumentality to bring about co-operation and co-ordination with the States and local authorities to:

ensure that planning authorities are established or developed;

ensure that all lands vested in the States or Commonwealth will be retained and that private rights to such lands is limited to leasehold;

identify a number of appropriate sites for new cities and co-operate in their development;

assist in shim prevention and renewal; and

assist appropriate bodies to carry out comprehensive urban improvement and develop- ment*.

We, as a Party, believe that the matters referred to in the amendment are very essential and should be considered in depth when the Commonwealth and State Ministers meet to discuss the new agreement which, no doubt, will be initiated within the next 6 to 12 months. For a long time the Australian Labor Party has considered the problems not only of housing people but also of the environment in which they live. All honourable senators will be aware that Senator Mulvihill has taken a vital interest in this subject. He will speak in more detail than I propose to do on the environmental problems because I wish to address myself mainly to some of the problems which exist in the States under the present Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. I shall refer also to the problems that face the States as a result of the interest rates which are now imposed upon them.

I hope that by outlining some of these problems the Government will realise that if it is to be able to carry out the programme for which the housing agreement was initiated it will have to put into effect the plans which were initiated by the Labor Government in 194S. At that time the Labor Government lad down a broad principle that the Commonwealth would assist the States by way of loans to provide housing for people in the lower income groups at a weekly retal which was the equivalent of not more than one day’s pay. This principle has gone by the board completely because of rising costs, and the suggestion of being able to provide housing on this basis for people in the lower income groups has become a joke. In Victoria the Housing Commission has entered the field of building houses for sale. It makes these houses available only to persons who can properly be described as being in the middle income group, that is, persons who earn $75 or more a week. Those are the only persons who are now eligible to purchase a Housing Commission home in Victoria. The Commission has had to apply this condition for the simple reason that persons earning less than that would not be able to meet their commitments in paying off the house over a period of 45 years, which is the maximum period allowed.

Information which I obtained directly from the Department of Housing shows that in the last 18 months the interest rate charged to the State by the Commonwealth on loans for housing has risen from 4.4 per cent to 6 per cent. Honourable senators will be aware that the interest rate on advances made by the Commonwealth to the States for housing is 1 per cent below the long term bond rate and, under the housing agreement, can be altered at will by the Commonwealth Treasury. I know that my State of Victoria is very keen to negotiate an agreement which will provide for a stabilised rate of interest for the whole period of the agreement, I believe that it will be arguing for a rate of 4 per cent, which was the rate formerly applying. No honourable senator who thinks seriously about this matter can believe that the construction of homes for rental and purchase by people in the lower income groups will have an inflationary effect. The present system of fixing the interest rate payable by a State to the Commonwealth is virtually useless.

We have now reached the position where a loan to the State at 6 per cent means a tenant or purchaser will be paying the equivalent of 7 per cent. Examples which are currently available in Victoria show that a house costing $10,848 which is available for rental from the Housing Commission and on which the money was made available at 4.25 per cent has an economic rent of $14.20 a week. If the finance for that house attracted the rate of 6 per cent interest the economic rent would be $17.50 a week. This is far more than one-fifth of the salary of a low income earner and the direct result of the 1.75 per cent rise in the interest rate has been to increase the rental by about $3.30 a week. On a purchase house which was available from the Housing Commission for $11,180, the monthly repayments, at 4 per cent interest, were $48.77, but with the new interest rate of 6 per cent, which becomes 7 per cent to the’ purchaser when administrative and other costs are added, the monthly repayment will be $64.51.

The situation now is that the State Government in Victoria is supplying an extremely small percentage of the housing that is required and the low income earners who are waiting for homes are in a desperate position. Persons seeking rental homes from the Housing Commission in country areas have to wait from 1 to IS months but in the metropolitan areas of Melbourne the waiting period is 20 months. The waiting period for homes in country areas has decreased alarmingly during the last few years because the problems in the rural industries have accentuated the population drift to the cities. Most farmers are short of the necessary finance to enable them to keep going. This has had an effect on almost every country town and city and the result ‘ is that in some country areas the waiting time for rental houses is only 1 month and there are no applicants for such homes. In city areas the waiting period is 20 months. This is not the whole story because in the suburban areas of Melbourne a person must have 5 or more children to be eligible for a rental house. High rise flats, which are mushrooming around the centre of Melbourne in particular, are available but the situation is not much better because there is a waiting time of from 12 to 15 months for 3-bodroom flats and 9 to 12 months for 2-bedroom flats. These figures were made available to me last week, on 6th May, so they do not represent a situation that may have existed some time ago. This is the present position.

According to the information with which I have been supplied there are 52,400 people waiting for either a purchase or rental home in Victoria. This figure is based on the fact that 14,900 families are waiting for all types of units and it allows for 3£ persons to a family, which is low when we consider .the conditions of eligibility to secure a rental home. So, about 52,500 people are waiting for housing accommodation from the Housing Commission of Victoria. This number is equal to the population of a city of the size of Ballarat. These people are waiting for the accommodation which is provided under arrangements between the Commonwealth and the State. There are 4,613 applicants waiting for accommodation in lone person flats and Darby and Joan units, accommodation built by the Commission - sometimes by the municipalitiesin co-operation with the Commonwealth.

Despite the efforts made oyer these many years we have not gone even close to taking up the lag in housing that occurred initially due to the war years. Therefore I believe that any new agreement on housing entered into by the Commonwealth and the States has to be on a new footing. We have to face up to the situation. Unless the Commonwealth and the States reach a basis of agreement that will enable land to become available to the States at reasonable prices, and unless money is made available to the States at a reasonable rate of interest, young people in Australia will not, in any circumstances, be able ‘ to get their own homes. I refer the Senate to articles that appeared this week in -the Sydney *$»’ about the value of land in the Sydney Metropolitan area. Honourable senators who have been reading these articles would have been shocked to learn of the situation that exists there. In yesterday’s issue cf *at newspaper it was stated that one speculating company alone held some 13,660 bouse building blocks. These are on the perimeter of Sydney. Although that company denies that it is going to hold those brocks in order to make big profits, the fact is that it will do just that. I will quote briefly from this article to show the estimation of this company in relation to the availability of land. The article states:

This would mean that couples will have to pay $10,000 tor land at Mount Druitt or up to $18,000 around Liverpool and Blacktown districts in 2 or 3 years time.

Senator Gair:

– What date is that article?

Senator POYSER:

– This was published yesterday, 11th May. If this prediction is true the people who are holding this land at the present time are going to be multimillionaires, and the State Government will have to look further and further away from Sydney to obtain cheap land on which to spend the money that it receives from the Commonwealth for home building purposes. It is predicted that in 2 or 3 years time a block of land will cost $18,000.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is that at Mount Druitt?

Senator POYSER:

– No, that is in the Liverpool and Blacktown areas. The estimate for the Mount Druitt area is $10,000 a block. What chance has any young couple of moving into that field.

Senator Prowse:

– Is that the only place in Melbourne where they can obtain land?

Senator POYSER:

– I am talking about Sydney and am referring to an article in the Press. I am using this as an example of what happens as a result of the State Government not being able to move into the housing field, as many governments wish to do. Following on from that article, in today’s issue of the Sydney ‘Sun’ there is a statement by the President of the Royal Institute of Architects, Mr R. A. Gilling; who advocates a massive government takeover of housing land on Sydney’s fringes. This man clearly realises that if this does not happen and if land prices are not controlled in some manner the whole position will become chaotic within 2 or 3 years. He said that with, the way things are going people will not be able to afford to buy land. He said:

The State Government should act as a land broker and absorb all the strategic developing areas. After intense individual planning for each community it could sell the land to developers. Because the .Government would pay reasonable but not ridiculous prices to acquire properties, land prices would be stabilised.

Those views are supported by Professor Denis Winston of the University pf Sydney. This newspaper article states:

Only price control can check the sky-high land prices in Sydney’s outer suburbs. This is the view of Professor Denis Winston.

He called for a full inquiry by the State Government into the present system of private land sales. Professor Winston is professor of town and country planning at Sydney University.

But Sydney is not the only place in which land exploitation is going on at present and it is not the only place in which young people are finding it tremendously difficult to purchase a house at a reasonable rate of interest. 1 know from my own personal experience as a director of a housing co-operative society in Geelong that there is a waiting list as long as one’s arm of the names of people who are trying to obtain loans for the purpose either of purchasing a house that is already constructed or of building a home. These people have to wait 7 or 8 years before they come to us for this purpose because it takes them that long to pay for the block of land that they have had to purchase. It is common nowadays to see land that is not in the most plush areas of the community but in the outer suburbs fetching up to $6,000 and $7,000.

Young people are finding that both husband and wife have to work for many years just to purchase land on which to build a house. I believe that the Commonwealth Government will have to get around a table with the State Ministers for Housing and endeavour to get back to the basic principles that were laid down when the agreement was initiated in 1945. I spoke earlier of the agreement that was established for the provision of homes for the lower income groups. This is no longer possible for any State government mainly because of the interest rates that are being charged.

I believe that the States could provide cheaper housing and the facilities that are required in housing areas if under the agreement they could get a reasonable rate of interest which was stable and on which they could plan. It is obvious that much larger amounts of money will have to be made available to the States if they are to keep within cooee of building the number of homes and flats that they are building at present because over the last 3 or 4 years general housing costs have increased by about 25 per cent. There has been a larger increase in general land costs. This means that if the plan is re-negotiated only on the basis of what already exists we shall fall further and further behind. At present the Victorian Government, in order to get out of its problems, is not building many houses in normal suburban blocks in the outer areas. It is moving into high density flat construction in the city area, which I believe is not the type of accommodation that lends itself to the proper bringing up of families.

I have spoken previously in this chamber of the problem of high density housing and the fact that facilities and amenities cannot be provided in these areas. This fact has been confirmed by the Melbourne Apex Club, which carried out very extensive investigation of the recreation facilities of high density residential areas in inner Melbourne. Honourable senators who are interested in this problem should obtain the results of this investigation and see for themselves the problems that are associated with these immense concrete jungles that are now being built to house the people who I believe should be strategically housed in areas where the family will be a unit in its own right once more and not a unit amongst a great mass of concrete where home life no longer exists. I sincerely hope that the matters I have mentioned tonight will be very seriously considered when the conference takes place for the renewal of this agreement. I hope that very serious consideration will be given on that occasion to the interest rates that are charged.

Debate interrupted.

page 1807

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710512_senate_27_s48/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant