Senate
18 August 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

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

page 43

PETITIONS

Education

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

Whereas -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936- 1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received and read.

Education, Science and the Arts

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I have a petition from 573 citizens of the Commonwealth which, honourable senators will be interested to know, was forwarded to me by the Young Democratic Labor Association of Victoria. I present the petition, which reads:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

In any advanced community the arts and associated amenities, serious or comic, light or dramatic, must occupy a central place, and should be available to and be encouraged to be appreciated by every citizen.

There is an urgent need for a thorough public inquiry into all the economic problems involved in the development of the creative and performing arts in Australia, with particular reference to the Media of Television and Radio.

Your petitioners most humbly recommend that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Cause the Standing Committee of the Senate on Education, Science and the Arts to conduct a searching inquiry into the state of the arts in Australia and make recommendations thereon that will encourage the development of all forms of cultural and artistic development in Australia.

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

Petition received.

The petition is in the same terms as one which was received yesterday and forwarded to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. I ask for leave to move that this be done also with this petition.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

There being no objection, leave is granted.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the petition be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts.

page 43

NOTICES OF MOTION

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales-

Leader of the Opposition) - I give notice that on the next day of silting I shall move:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Education, Scienco and the Arts the following matter:

All aspects of television and broadcasting including Australian content of television programmes.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

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

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report the following matter:

The effects of estate, succession, probate, death and like duties imposed by both Commonwealth and State governments on -

The revenues of the respective governments (having regard to cost factors involved in their collection);

Economic circumstances of individuals and communities and the social consequences of levying such duties and taxes.

page 44

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Yesterday 1 asked the Minister for Air a question about a house in Morrison Street, Swan View, Perth, used by the Royal Australian Air Force. In reply he stated that the house was no longer required and was to be handed back to the State Mousing Commission. I now ask the Minister whether he can say that the house has been relinquished because all Air Force personnel have been suitably housed and this particular house represents an excess of available accommodation over demand. The Assistant Manager of the State Housing Commission in Perth, Mr Britton, was reported in the ‘Daily News’ on 11th August as having said:

  1. . the Air Force won’t pui a family in there because nf an Aboriginal family next door.

Can the Minister say whether that reason is correct? If it is not correct, will he issue a statement denying what Mr Britton said? Finally, will the Minister say whether it is the policy of the RAAF to regard Aboriginal families as unsuitable neighbours for Air Force personnel?

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

– Yesterday the honourable senator asked me a question about this matter and I gave him information on the points he raised regarding an Aboriginal family living in the house next to 33 Morrison Street, Swan View. I told him they were incorrect. I said then that the Air Force had had this house available to rent for some time and had not used it. 1 made inquiries of the Air Commodore at Pearce RAAF Base and was told that he has one married man who is not drawing temporary accommodation allowance, and who had been martied only last Saturday, available to live rsl that house. Therefore, as I said yesterday, we have informed the Department of the Housing that we have no further use for the house.

page 44

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, concerns the existing duty on wine. Is it a fact that clearances of wine for local consumption fell by 8.9 per cent in the September quarter of last year compared with the same quarter in 1969, by 8 per cent in the December quarter, by 10.5 per cent in the

March quarter and 17.2 per cent in the June quarter this year? Is it a fact that these percentage reductions constitute a setback of some 5 million gallons of wine sales? As the inexorable effect of this situation will be extreme hardship for thousands of grape growers throughout Australia, and in the light of the relevant statement in the Budget Speech that ‘the problems currently affecting some growers in the industry are well recognised and will be kept under review by Commonwealth, State and industry authorities in conjunction with the Australian Agricultural Council’, I ask: Will urgent consideration be given to the abolition of this crippling excise on wine?

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

– One could tell from the chorus that there is a number of wine drinkers - 1 am one - in the Senate chamber. I read the Budget Speech again at lunch time. I read with extreme interest the comments in that Speech on the problems, referred to by the honourable senator, of the Australian wine industry and the grape growers associated therewith. I was interested to hear the various quarterly figures, as he expressed them.

Senator Poyser:

– What do you intend to do about the position?

Senator COTTON:

– Senator Poyser would be quite aware that what I intend to do about the position is to draw to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Customs and Excise, the honourable senator’s comments and to point out to my colleague that the figures do show a decline, as the honourable senator said. No doubt he will consider those comments in the light of the Budget comment by the Treasurer.

page 44

QUESTION

CUSTOMS ACT: PENALTIES

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise been drawn to an article in the Hobart ‘Mercury’ of 17th August headed ‘ “ Savage “ fine for duty dodger’? Is the Minister aware that a magistrate in the Hobart court allegedly said: ‘Some penalties under the Customs Act were not only unduly severe, they were “ savage “ ‘? Does the Minister agree with the magistrate that it was regrettable that he had no option but to impose the $50 fine which is provided under the Act? Will the Minister examine the Customs Act, as suggested by the police magistrate, Mr Solomon, and inform the Senate whether it is considered necessary to amend the Act.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I would not be able to agree or disagree with the magistrate. I would not know what he actually said. I might appear before him one day and he might become hostile. What I can do is to draw the attention of the responsible Minister to the comment in the Hobart Mercury’ and suggest that the penalties might be examined by the Department of Customs and Excise if it sees fit.

page 45

QUESTION

STORM DISASTER

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It relates to the storm disaster at Kin Kin in Queensland last Sunday. Will he advise what assistance, if any, the Commonwealth can give to the Queensland Government to help the people who have suffered damage and loss in this disaster area?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The procedures in relation to matters of this nature are denned quite clearly. The basic responsibility for all matters within the States rest with the States themselves. At Premiers’ Conferences and Australian Loan Council meetings financial assistance and ordinary revenues are provided for the States. In certain circumstances, such as where a State considers that some extraordinary injury has been done or that a calamity has occurred, there is a line of communication between the Premier of that State and the Prime Minister, seeking special assistance. As I indicated yesterday, in answer to a question asked by Senator O’Byrne about unemployment in Tasmania, the situation is that normally such experiences would be the responsibilities of the States and would remain so but where a Premier of a State considers that a storm, tempest, calamity or disaster has caused a situation out of the ordinary the communication is from the Premier of that State to the Prime Minister, seeking the Commonwealth’s intervention to provide assistance. Therefore the responsibility would be on the Premier of Queensland to do that very thing if he thought it appropriate.

page 45

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I preface my remarks by indicating that I am concerned that the Government has been grievously at fault in not giving the Australian Parliament an opportunity to debate the implications to this country of Britain’s entry into the European Common Market. To my knowledge, there has been no formal debate in either House of Parliament in recent years, although the moment of decision was at hand. On 13th May 1970 I asked whether the Government would prepare and present to . the Parliament a White Paper on the implications to Australia of Britain’s entry into the Common Market. The reply I received was that the matter would be referred to the Minister for Trade and Industry. On 9th June 1970 I again asked whether the Government would present a White Paper. I was informed that the question would be referred to the Prime Minister. On 18th June I again raised the matter and was informed quite definitely that the Government did not intend to prepare a White Paper on the subject. On 23 rd February this year I asked whether the Government would provide the Parliament with an opportunity to debate the question and was informed by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that it was not considered that the moment was opportune for such a debate. In view of the statement attributed to the Deputy Prime Minister arid Minister for Trade and Industry on his return from recent discussions on the Common Market in Europe and in the United Kingdom that there does not seem to be very much reaction by way of consideration of Australia’s circumstances either in the United Kingdom or Europe, does the Prime Minister or the Minister for Trade and Industry consider that Australia’s position has been prejudiced by the failure to discover the views of the Parliament on this .matter of such critical importance? Will the Prime Minister now consider laying down a White Paper or otherwise giving an opportunity for Australia’s views to be heard through the Parliament on a matter of such historical and profound significance to the nation?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I do not challenge at all the historical recording of events in this place.

Senator Gair:

– You cannot dispute them; they are accurately recorded.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

That implies that I would dispute them if they were accurate and I am sure the honourable senator does not mean it that way. That is a fact of life. The truth remains that the United Kingdom Government itself is still in the grip of disputation which is taking place throughout the nation over the proposals for British entry into the European Economic Community and, if I understand the situation, will not take a definitive decision on it until some time in October this year when there will be a special line vote in the House of Commons. In the meantime, of course, Australia’s point of view has been put to the United Kingdom by the Minister for Trade and Industry, and not so very long ago.

Senator Byrne:

– The Government’s point of view.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– It is obvious that the honourable senator does not want to hear the answer. I will not burst myself if he does not want to hear it. I am all for peace. I will put the questions on notice if that is to be the attitude. The fact of the matter is that we could have a debate here, if the Government wanted it, on the basis of a White Paper and 1 made representations before to the relevant Minister and got a reply. 1 am prepared, to do that again. I feel bound also to remind Senator Byrne that if he wants to have a debate in this House, in his own right as a senator he can under the Standing Orders initiate a debate.

Senator Byrne:

– There is some responsibility on the Government, surely.

Senator Keeffe:

– It will not accept any responsibility.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I do not think I need say any more.

page 46

QUESTION

CTV1L AVIATION

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether he has seen a published report entitled ‘Airline Policy and the Public Interest in Western Australia’ which has been widely distributed in

Western Australia and which states a case for the rejection of an application by Trans-Australia Airlines for permission to operate air services within Western Australia and between Perth and Darwin: Has the Minister been advised that the precise nature of the TAA application is not a matter of public knowledge? Will the Minister make the precise nature of the TAA application available to the public in view of the inference that Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has knowledge of it? Will the Minister authorise TAA to prepare and distribute its case for entry into Western Australian air services and the Perth-Darwin route in order that the residents of Western Australia will be fully informed and be able to make a judgment from balanced information?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Not only have I seen the published report but also I have had a copy sent to me. I have before me an application by the Australian Airlines Commission to operate the services mentioned by the honourable senator. The point he makes that Trans-Australia Airlines would be entitled to make out ils own case is a good point. I shall take it up quite seriously.

page 46

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he recalls a proposition being put in this Senate which suggested that the Government should immediately give consideration to varying the terms of eligibility for a social service pension so that certain primary producers who found themselves without income and without financial reserve could, on application, be included in such a scheme. Does the Minister recall that this matter was originally suggested to the Senate in relation to producers who had lost all, due to conditions which applied to certain producers of pears in the Goulburn Valley area of Victoria? I ask the Minister: Can it be accepted that the Government either did not look at this proposal or, if it did, decided against any action? Will the Government reconsider that original suggestion so that those who are at the present time being forced to leave their farms due to economic conditions may be assisted to remain on their properties, and so save the ever increasing drift to capital cities?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I say quite categorically that any proposal which is put in the Senate, from whichever honourable senator it comes and whatever the merit, quality or grey area which it involves, is processed and sent to the appropriate department for examination and evaluation. The points that the honourable senator raises in relation to some aspects of social services with particular relations to primary producers and to the pear industry would in the normal course of events have been examined. Because the proposal does not appear in the Budget which was brought down last night that is not to say that it has been completely abandoned or disregarded. There would be various areas in which it could be examined. I only say to the honourable senator that yes, the proposal would have been referred along with all other submissions by honourable senators and would have been examined. The Budget debate is due to start in this place next Tuesday or Wednesday. For the rest, I add the simple statement that the whole gamut of the problem of the primary producing industries of Australia is reflected in one way or another in the Budget and will be reflected in the speeches on the Budget when we have them in this place.

page 47

QUESTION

MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. In view of the recent experiences of his predecessor in negotiations with the Hospital Contribution Fund of Australia and the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia on membership contribution rates and the subsequent comments by the New South Wales Minister for Health, Mr Jago, and myself that all funds should consult their members in such critical negotiations, will the Minister legislate for fund democracy which, in the case of those 2 funds, is non-existent?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator asks me to give a judgment on the very important issue of the democracy that exists within the various funds, whether they be hospital contribution funds, medical benefits funds a Hibernian Society fund or any fund.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I mentioned only 2 funds.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I see. The proposition is that there should be democracy in some funds and not in other funds? Is that the proposal?

Senator Mulvihill:

– No. These 2 funds are the worst. Others are better.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI see. Then one gets into a matter of judgment of how good or how bad they are. But that is by the way.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator was keeping it non-religious.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator Keeffe to remain silent. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is answering Senator Mulvihill.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

This is a very serious question and it deserves consideration by those who want to obtain information. I am grateful to Senator Mulvihill for posing the question. I was appointed Minister for Health on Bank Holiday and it took me a few days to discharge my responsibilities as Minister for Supply. It is a matter of major policy to which I want to give consideration. I would have some reservations at the present time as to the legality of Commonwealth intervention in the matter but I will look at it - I will look at it iri the same light as I am going to look at other issues and questions associated with the Health portfolio.

page 47

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

- Mr President, undeterred by the Minister’s recent statement to Senator Mulvihill I ask the Minister for Health the following question: Is the Minister aware that a coroner, Mr Pascoe, was reported in the Melbourne Age’ of 4th August as criticising the system by which people obtained sleeping tablets and other tranquillisers and saying:

The number of tranquillisers and sleep inducing drugs prescribed to some patients is perhaps one of the greatest factors in the increase of suicide in the State. Many doctors preferred to prescribe drugs in smaller quantities, but were forced to prescribe in lots of 23 so that their patients can get them on the free list. This left the person who had a tendency towards suicide with a means to carry out this urge. Perhaps it would be better if these drugs were taken off the free list.

Those are the words of the coroner. Will the Minister indicate whether the position is as stated by the coroner and if so what action is proposed to be taken?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONA cutting. I feel bound to say, on this matter was sent to me. I deliberately set about to get answers from my Department. The statement in the context it was published appears to be inaccurate. Information supplied to me by the Department says that it would appear that the coroner’s reported reference to the prescription of certain tablets in lots of 25 relates to the higher strength sleeping tablets for which 25 is the maximum quantity that can be prescribed as a pharmaceutical benefit. There are also lesser strengths of sleeping tablets available as pharmaceutical benefits as well as the tranquillisers which the coroner is also reported to have mentioned. The maximum quantity of these which can be prescribed at the one time as a benefit is higher than 25. Contrary to the statements by the coroner the maximum quantity of any item need not be prescribed in order that the drug may be provided as a benefit. That is completely contrary to the judgment made by the official in the coroner’s court. The explanatory notes in the schedule of benefits which is circulated to all medical practitioners 3 times yearly state:

The quantity of the prescription by a medical practitioner should be that which he believes is necessary for the proper treatment of his pal len provided the maximum quantity is not exceeded. Repeats may be in quantity up to the maximum.

I feel bound to say in fairness to the coroner that the report may be abridged; it may have created a wrong impression. But to the extent to which the article appeared in the Press it appeared that he had a wrong understanding of the situation.

page 48

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development: As the annual report of the River Murray Commission 1968- 69 states that it engaged the Snowy Mountains Authority to carry out in close co-operation with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria an investigation into the economic feasibility of installing a hydro-electric plant at Dartmouth and that the Snowy Mountains Authority report of 1969- 70 states that this report was issued in December 1969, will the Minister inquire and inform the Senate: Firstly, why is this report still not available to the Parliament; secondly, was the cost of the. study shared by all parties to the River Murray Commission; and thirdly, was a recent statement by the Victorian Minister for Water Supply, Mr Robert Dunstan, that the cost of such a plant would be $9.1m based on this report?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked me a question about a potential hydro-electric scheme on a potential Dartmouth Dam. 1 think he will agree that it is really necessary for me to refer it to the responsible Minister. The honourable senator needs a detailed answer to his question and I shall try to get it for him as soon as possible.

page 48

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

Senator DAVIDSON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Has the Minister received any report on the recent pollution of portion of Spencer Gulf in South Australia? if not, will he obtain information on this pollution, including the area of activity in which his Department can move? In view of the seriousness of Ihe pollution and the possible precedents involved as far as other coastal areas are concerned, will he obtain full details of this case for the Senate?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I will refer to the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts the matters which have been raised by the honourable senator; but I will do so stating now for the information of the honourable senator that the executive role of the Commonwealth in this area is limited very much by its constitutional powers. The function of the Commonwealth is to liaise and co-ordinate with the various State bodies, and steps to that end are well under way.

page 48

QUESTION

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Senator WILLESEE:

– Is the Minister for Health aware that there are 72 questions directed to him and still unanswered on the notice papers of both chambers - more than for any other Minister? Can he say that the change of holder of this portfolio will result in a noticeable improvement?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The answer is yes.

page 49

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the world monetary crisis seems a long way from any form of solution, with dealings in most nations’ currencies still not being permitted, and as this can have serious effects on Australia’s external trade, especially if any nation decides to devalue its currency, can the Senate be assured that any possible repercussions likely to affect the value of the Australian dollar will be guarded against and that a full statement on Australia’s position will be made to this Parliament without delay?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Yesterday i was asked a question which adverted to this matter and I was able to indicate that both the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade and Industry had made statements to the effect that at that stage i! was still premature and too early to give a definitive appreciation of the implications to the Australian economy with particular reference to primary industry. Inherent in that was a statement that when the position was clarified the Parliament would be informed. When the Parliament is informed, it will be by way of a statement which will be open to debate in this place.

page 49

QUESTION

BEACH EROSION

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities. Did the Minister make a statement at the recent Port Moresby meeting of the Australian Tourist Council that he would convey to the Prime Minister a request from that Council for special Federal aid for the development of tourist resorts? Could he equate such a request with the plight of the Gold Coast City Council and shire councils on the north coast of New South Wales which need such urgent funds to enable them to combat serious beach erosion? Would such local government requests in tourist areas qualify for such aid?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator directs his attention to the problem of beach erosion on the Gold Coast and in the northern part of New South Wales. I think those of us who know that part of New South Wales and Queensland will understand the problem about which he is talking. He suggests that there is a remedy for that by reference to a comment which apparently was made, although I have not seen it, in Port Moresby by the Australian Tourist Council and the agreement of the Commonwealth Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities to direct that request to the Australian Government. I am sure that the Minister will have done what he said he would do. He will have directed that request to the Government. What I will do is pass on to the responsible Minister the honourable senator’s comments on the things he has asked about and my own views on them.

page 49

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Some time ago it was reported that an additional member was to be appointed to the Tariff Board to enable a member to be free to deal with by-law admissions and dumping. When is this appointment likely to be made?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I can remember the reference to which the honourab’e senator has directed his attention. I know very well his great interest in matters of tariffs and trade. I should think that the appointment would not be very far off now, but I have nothing more specific than that. 1 shall certainly find out for the honourable senator because I agree with him thai this is important. It was a good proposal and I am sure it received everybody’s support. All I can do is find out for the honourable senator as fast as I can.

page 49

QUESTION

ACRYLIC TOW

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is the Minister aware of the enormous increase in the flow of acrylic tow crude materials into Australia in the last 10 years? Has the increase been from 1,827,817 lb in 1959-60 to 13,221,455 lb in 1970-71? Is it a fact that 1 lb of acrylic tow can be spun into the equivalent quantity of yarn that comes from 2 lb of greasy wool? As most acrylic tow is imported from the United States of America and is duty free, whilst the United States has a duty of 25 ic per lb on wool, will the Government give consideration to the imposition of protective duty against this strong competitor of our wool?

Will the Minister explain why the duty on yarn manufactured from acrylic tow was reduced from 40 per cent to 20 per cent? What increases have occurred in the inflow of this yarn since the duty reduction? Why is the raw material allowed in free of duty whilst even the 20 per cent duty applies to the manufactured product?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– That is a series of most interesting questions which I shall direct to the responsible Minister. Listening to the honourable senator with great care I could not help thinking to myself that the Australia-United States trade patterns are of great importance to this country and that the imbalance of trade between ourselves and the United States was quite a little bit worse in the last year than it was 10 years ago. I have an interest in the matter which the honourable senator mentions and I will see that his questions are directed to the Minister.

page 50

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator DEVITT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Ministry for Primary Industry. Is the Minister in a position to confirm that the problems of the Australian wool industry stem substantially not from overproduction but from a paucity of markets and that in effect there is not a surplus of wool? Can he further confirm that the current going price for wool in the Soviet Union is in the vicinity of 300c per lb? Is it not a fact that we are largely in the hands of one buyer who by reason of our own national attitude is able virtually to put his own price on our wool, a price which if continued would bankrupt every wool producer in the land? Do we still persist with the outmoded approach of requiring the buyer to come to us rather than going out and selling wool where countries like Union of Soviet Socialist Republics cannot produce alternatives to wool which they obviously need in substantial quantities and which they would buy if reasonable trading arrangements were negotiated? May we expect a change in wool selling attitudes which would free us from the present restrictions and fetters which are so seriously detrimental to our national interests?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– What the honourable senator says in the main has been the problem of the wool industry for many years now but a large group of growers and others connected with the industry would not agree with all of what the honourable senator has said. For many years it has been the problem of the Government to get the sections of the industry together to look first of all at marketing and then at promotion of wool. I believe that over recent years the Government has been successful in its efforts to get the industry together in order to do something about the marketing of wool. Probably the ultimate in wool marketing is the acquisition of the clip but at the present time that is not suitable to all the growers in this country. However, I. shall have a further look at the long question that the honourable senator has put before me, and if I can get some further information I shall give it to him.

page 50

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. It concerns the committee established by his colleague to review the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Can the Minister tell me who is represented on this committee and the terms of reference prescribed for this review? In view of the industrial unrest that is ravaging Australia, particularly South Australia, and the fact that an irresponsible militant minority group within the trade union movement has cost the wage earners something like S56m during the last 12 months, will the Minister ask his colleague to exert every effort to bring these deliberations to a speedy conclusion so that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act can be strengthened and upgraded to give adequate protection to all parties and help to restore industrial peace to Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The Committee to which the honourable senator referred in his question is constituted by the Employers Federation Policy Committee, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and 2 Commonwealth Public Service organisations, the Commonwealth Council of Public Service Organisations and the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations. The terms of reference of the Committee are, in the general, terms of a review of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, a fairly comprehensive subject matter which will involve an examination in some depth seeing that oo really fundamental review of that legislation has been undertaken for about IS years. I will bear in mind what the honourable senator has said about the need for exposition, but having regard to the width of the subject matter I am not able to share any great optimism in that respect.

page 51

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Civil Aviation, relates to the future of Adelaide Airport. 1 ask: ls it a fact that in recent months proposals have been initiated by the Department of Civil Aviation to interested persons regarding some extensions of the Adelaide Airport which would interfere with trust lands under the control of the West Beach recreation trust body? Have there been petitions and complaints by organised residents in relation to the noise factor and also in respect of zoning proposals in the area which would affect city councils and those councils that have complained? ls the Minister able to state whether the proposals are in fact definite and are still to be pressed by the Department of Civil Aviation and the Minister? Will the Minister also consider at this stage stating the intentions of his Department and the Government in respect of a second airport outside the metropolitan area of Adelaide which will accommodate the increase in air traffic occurring in South Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I shall try to answer the honourable senator’s questions in the order he asked them. I am aware of his interest in this matter. I have arranged in the last month for senior officers of my Department to be in very close touch with the Minister assisting the Premier of South Australia in order to discuss the whole future of airports in Adelaide and throughout South Australia. Perhaps the honourable senator will be pleased to hear that there is very close co-operation between the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government on all these matters. The general comments that have been made for some time about Adelaide Airport really had their origin in a proposal made in Adelaide for the diversion of a road. This was first referred to by former Senator Toohey when he was with us last session.

I had hoped to visit Adelaide myself to study some of the matters during the last recess, but I did not get there. However, I am still planning to do so at the earliest possible convenient time. The present state of knowledge of the matter is this: There is no proposal to extend Adelaide Airport. The airlines, in reaction to public demand, are assessing certain aircraft as possible additions to their fleets. Those assessments in turn may necessitate certain additional airport requirements at a selection of the major airports throughout Australia and Papua New Guinea. Adelaide Airport is one of them.

In order that the airlines and the Government may properly assess the several alternatives it is necessary to make at least preliminary studies of relevant airport developments and appropriate costs. At present nothing more than that is involved in Adelaide. Should there be conclusive arguments in favour of extending the airport to the south-west - 1 am informed that at present this is very much in doubt - it would be necessary to acquire additional land in that direction. However, even at this preliminary stage it is evident that in the event of any additional land being required to the south-west, any loss of recreational reserves would be counterbalanced by land being made available from within the present boundaries of the airport. It is not proposed to provide a north-south runway.

I think the honourable senator will understand that the second airport matter has to be thought about in the long term and in that respect we are in touch with the South Australian Government authorities. But this is a long way ahead and has to be considered in the light of the difficult terrain of the Adelaide plain and the concentration of population in the city of Adelaide requiring air services. Many senators from South Australia, from both sides of the chamber, have an interest in this matter. After I have been to Adelaide, if nothing else comes up before then - in which case I will inform the honourable senator accordingly - I will bring him up to date with what I and my Department know about these matters.

page 52

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator MURPHY:

– In addressing a question to the Minister for Health I refer to the patients’ contribution under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme which has been increased from 50c to $1 per prescription. Presumably the Government’s justification for this is as a sanction against over-use or abuse of the scheme. Is it proposed to do anything for considerable groups of sufferers such as diabetics and those suffering from blood pressure and other ailments, where it is critical that they have the drugs in question and where there can be no suggestion of over-use or abuse of the scheme, but where, because of the necessity for constant treatment with drugs, there will be a heavy financial burden amounting in total to millions of dollars?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Insofar as it is proposed to increase the charge payable by patients under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme from 50c to $1, this is a Budget matter. It will be necessary to amend the Act to vary the charge; consequently, the increase will not become applicable until the Act has been amended by applying to it the normal processes of the Parliament and the amending Bill has received royal assent. Later today 1 will be issuing a statement to make it abundantly clear that this is a budgetary matter which will come under scrutiny and which will be debated in this place. At that time I will be a much wiser Minister and much more capable of discussing the subject. I feel bound to point out in the interim that the charge of 50c under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme was introduced as far back as 1960 and the same charge has continued since then.

It is proper to point out also that about 60 million prescriptions are made up each year under the scheme. I remind the Senate that pensioners have been exempt from the charge and that the exemption will continue. Pharmaceutical benefits are free to persons in possession of a pensioner medical service entitlement card. I point out also that the charge of 50c, which subject to the Parliament’s passing an amending Bill will be increased to Si, represents only the first part of the total cost of a prescription. 1 do not think any honourable senator would challenge that once we accept the concept that it is desirable that everyone other than pensioners should pay something towards the cost of each prescription that they receive-

Senator Georges:

– We do not accept it.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe honourable senator uses ‘we’ very freely, but he has always been very free in that respect. The fact of the matter is that it is Government policy which has been in vogue since 1960.

Senator Georges:

– There should not be a charge.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

This is not an across-the-table debate. I am answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition and I am attempting to answer it in the spirit in which it was asked. We do not need help from Senator Georges. The fact is that once we accept the concept of a payment by persons other than pensioners we have the situation where we must agree that if a charge of 50c was valid in 1960 a charge of $1 would be valid in the current economic position. When we come to debate this matter in the next several weeks the Leader of the Opposition will no doubt bring forth the point that in certain areas relating to particular diseases or complaints consideration should be given to some concessional allowance. In the meantime I shall look at the points raised by the honourable senator.

page 52

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it correct that Australia was promised by the British Government that there would be a period of adjustment for exports of primary products from this country to Britain after Britain entered the European Economic Community, or was it that Britain undertook to place such a proposition before the conference at Brussels? Is it correct that the undertaking, whichever one it was, was not honoured? If this is so, has it been brought forcibly to the notice of the United Kingdom Government that it defaulted in this undertaking?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIt would not be for me to talk in categorical terms about the negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and the

Australian Government about Britain’s projected entry into the European Economic Community. It is true - all of us recognise this - that Mr Rippon of Britain came to Australia and expressed views to the Australian Government, and that the Australian Government expressed its views to the United Kingdom Government. Indeed, the Minister for Trade and Industry was in England and Europe several months ago - perhaps less - and in the name of the Australian Government expressed Australia’s views in relation to Britain’s projected entry. I can only direct the question to the Minister for Trade and Industry for a more particularised reply. I repeat that the United Kingdom has not yet entered the European Economic Community. Such entry requires the approval of the parliament at Westminister. The matter has been listed for debate in the House of Commons and it is my understanding that the final decision will not be made until some time in October this year. Having given that background, 1 will refer Senator Lillico’s question to the Minister for Trade and Industry for a more detailed reply.

page 53

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral been drawn to an article which appeared in the Melbourne ‘Observer’ on 1st August 1971 alleging, firstly, that secret terror groups at Melbourne’s Monash and La Trobe Universities are directed by a highly paid officer of the Australian Broadcasting Commission; secondly, that the ABC man is employed as a special projects officer in the luxurious third floor offices of the ABC in Melbourne, and thirdly, that (he man works for the ABC under the name of Jon Cassidy? Has the Minister investigated these allegations? If not. will he do so and, in any event, report urgently to the Parliament on this matter? Who recruited Jon Cassidy as an ABC employee?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I saw the article to which the honourable senator referred which appeared in a Melbourne newspaper but I am unable to say whether the Minister I represent saw it. All I can say is that I will direct the attention of the Postmaster-General to what the honourable senator has said and will ask him to investigate the matter. Nevertheless, it will be appreciated that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an autonomous body. As to whom the Commission employs and the circumstances under which employment is undertaken, these are matters which fall within the Commission’s charter.

page 53

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Senator LAUCKE:

– 1 direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In view of the heavy dependence of South Australia on the wafers of the River Murray through the whole gamut of the State’s water needs, and the critical situation which in present circumstances would confront that State in a year of drought in the water sheds of the River Murray, can the Minister inform the Senate of the present position in respect to negotiations for the construction of the proposed Dartmouth Dam?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I well understand the problem referred to by the honourable senator. In many ways 1 am a South Australian. I lived in the shadow of the Murray Valley alongside the River Darling. I know what water means in that area and I know what drought means in that area. Many people do not know this but I do. I know the critical importance of that river system to South Australia. I sympathise fully with the honourable senator and I shall ascertain for him as much information as I can.

page 53

QUESTION

PROSTHETICS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Have there been recent discussions between the Department of Social Services and the Repatriation Department over mutual relations in the field of prosthetics? ls the Repatriation Department insisting on exclusive rights in this field of activity? Will failure to reach agreement result in the valuable work now being performed by the Department of Social Services in this field being discontinued?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– As I am acting in a representative capacity only, I am unable to answer the honourable senator’s question. I suggest that he put it on notice.

page 54

QUESTION

PERTH AIRPORT

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Civil Aviation aware of the inconvenience occasioned to users of the Perth airport due to the poor quality of the public address system, particularly when there is a fairly high noise level within the terminal? Will the Minister take steps either to rectify this matter or to supply arrival and departure boards so that the public will know when aircraft are departing or arriving?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think there is some merit in providing arrival and departure boards at Perth airport. It is a large airport. The volume of air traffic is expanding. I will have that matter taken up immediately. I am not aware of the poor quality of the public address system. I shall direct some inquiries about that. I expect to visit Perth in late September. If the situation has not been rectified by then, I will make a powerful speech against those responsible.

page 54

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF WORKS

Senator CANT:

– Has the Minister for Works seen Press reports of the royal commission of inquiry into the collapse of the West Gate bridge? Was that report critical of the consultants, Maunsell and Partners? Has the Commonwealth presently in engagement Maunsell and Partners as consultants on works proceeding or planned? If so. is the Minister satisfied that they are competent consultants? Has the Commonwealth previously engaged Maunsell and Partners as consultants? If so. does the Commonwealth intend to engage them as such in future in view of this report?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have seen abbreviated Press reports of the report of the royal commission on the West Gate bridge disaster. It is true that Maunsell and Partners were associated with Freeman, Fox and Partners in the design and consultant engagements in that enterprise. I have had the great advantage of having been sent correspondence from Maunsell and Partners, some excerpts of the report and some definition of the contractual arrangements and the area of their responsibility. My present understanding is that very little of the culpability that was found by the royal commission is attributable to Maunsell and Partners. It is true that on a number of occasions the Commonwealth Department of Works has consulted that firm about important projects. As at present advised I see no reason to have any misgiving about the competence or integrity of that firm.

page 54

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the AttorneyGeneral indicate whether attempts to recruit additional staff for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel have been successful and whether any additional officers have been appointed? If the attempts have been unsuccessful, what steps are being taken to overcome the problem of an insufficiency of parliamentary draftsmen?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– As Senator Milliner indicated by the character of his question, advertisements seeking additional staff for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel were inserted in newspapers in the past 3 or 4 months. I regret to say that at present no appointments have been made as a. result of those advertisements although there is a possibility that one engagement may be able to be made. Of course, this problem is a worldwide problem and Australia is in no different position from other countries. It is very difficult to obtain legally qualified persons interested in applying for and undertaking work in parliamentary drafting. However, it is a matter to which I have given early attention. The matter is under consideration and I am hopeful that I will be able to take some steps, limited though they must be, to improve the position which at the present time, as I see it, does require improvement.

page 54

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral a question in somewhat similar vein to that which he was just asked. In view of the extreme importance of the filling of those offices to the efficient functioning of this Parliament as well as of the various departments of state, can the Minister indicate with a little more precision what really is the hold-up in this matter? As I understand it, before the Estimates Committee a few months ago it was indicated that only half of the positions were filled and some 14 out of 27 were vacant. The suggestion has been made that the trouble is that the. Public Service Board is declining to agree to salaries which would be sufficient to attract persons to this extremely important office. Will the Minister indicate whether there is some substance in the suggestion that the reason he cannot get proper applicants is not only because of a shortage of people wanting to do this work but also because there is not enough pay being offered? If that is the position, is any step being taken to offer salaries which, though they might not be as high as those given, apparently with alacrity, to Qantas pilots, nevertheless should be sufficiently high to attract people to carry out work which is essential to the operation of this Parliament?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The points which have been made by Senator Murphy in his question are part of a very complex problem. As I understand it, the basic problem is that there is a volume of drafting work which must be performed but it is not able to be performed with the expedition which the Parliament in the past has required and which in the future I expect it would require because there are insufficient parliamentary draftsmen. 1 am unable to say precisely what number of the establishment remains unfilled but it is a significant number. Efforts have been made to obtain parliamentary draftsmen but, as I said in response to Senator Milliner’s question, this Ls a problem which is not peculiar to Australia and it is not easy to get parliamentary draftsmen. Undoubtedly one may assume, though possibly it is speculation, that if persons were paid remuneration which was comparable with what legally trained people could obtain outside the Public Service that may have some effect on recruitment. This is an area in which I am giving consideration at the present time. The Public Service Board has been approached with regard to a reclassification of positions so that there would be higher paid positions available. At the present time I am not able to say what is the outcome of that approach to the Public Service Board. 1 can only repeat what I have said. I appreciate the interest that honourable senators are taking but it is a matter to which I am giving my personal attention.

page 55

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the

Minister for External Territories. Can he inform the Parliament whether the Commonwealth committee inquiring into localisation and the retention of permanent overseas officers has reached any decision to date in relation to the Public Service of Papua New Guinea? If a decision has not been reached, when is it likely to be reached and when will the public in Australia and Papua New Guinea be advised of the findings?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 am in a position to inform the honourable senator that the committee has reached its conclusions which have been the subject of consideration by the Government. A statement by the Minister for External Territories may be expected at an early date.

page 55

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CARS

Senator POYSER:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior whether it is a fact that Sir Robert Menzies and Sir John McEwen have each had allotted to them a Commonwealth car for their personal use? Is it also a fact that the drivers of these cars carry out no other duties even when they are not required by Sir Robert and Sir John and that this principle applies even when Sir Robert and Sir John are absent from Victoria or Australia? ls ex-Prime Minister Mr Frank Forde provided with similar facilities? Who are the ex-members of this Parliament who receive facilities and privileges? What privileges and amenities are provided?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I certainly do not know the answer to that question. 1 shall have to find out from the responsible Minister, lt would be fair to comment that both Sir John McEwen and Sir Robert Menzies have rendered extremely distinguished and great service to this country.

page 55

QUESTION

BANNING OF CHEMICAL TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to an important petition which was presented yesterday by a Government senator. Senator Rae, in relation to the necessity for banning the use in warfare of all chemical toxic substances thus bringing Australia into line with international opinion and the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Will the Government take note of the fact that a Government senator has presented a petition protesting against the weapons used by Australia and her allies in the Vietnam war? Will it accept this change of heart as further evidence of the far-reaching desire in Australia for us to sever immediately our connection with this inhuman method of warfare? Is it not true that such an amazing change of attitude by a Government senator who has, in the past, defended our involvement in this conflict effectively illustrates the majority attitude in Australia today?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIt is my understanding that yesterday a number of petitions in identical terms were presented by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. It is not for me to sit in judgment on a petition. I think the petitions were referred to a committee.

Senator Murphy:

– No, not that one.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIn any event it is a matter of examination of the proposals of the petitioners in relation to an interpretation of the Geneva Protocol. To try to level a personal imputation in some unhappy way against an honourable senator in relation to petitions which were presented, as Senator O’Byrne has done, on the eve of his departure on a mission of the Parliament is most unfortunate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Does the honourable senator support it?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe twist comes again. Honourable senators opposite could not lie straight in bed when it comes to some issues.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator is touchy today.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONHonourable senators try to give implications on a matter in a subtle way but when we bring it out in the open they do not like it. There is a clear implication in the question that there is something sinister in some honourable senator who has, as he is obliged to do, presented a petition to the Parliament.I reget that that has been said.

page 56

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. May I have the temerity to mention Vietnam and indicate my approval of the Government’s decision to withdraw

Australian troops from Vietnam. Will the Minister assure the Senate that while these troops are being withdrawn no overzealous commander will undertake any action or manoeuvre which might lead to the death or injury of any of these men? In case he is tempted to brush off this question will he specifically deny that the recent deaths and injuries to our men in Vietnam resulted from training in action missions which need not have taken place?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– We have reached an extraordinary state in the affairs of the nation if we are going to start directing in the Senate of Australia the battle proceedings of our troops overseas. I could think of nothing more calculated to put them as risk than that and therefore I regard the question as a stupid question.

page 56

QUESTION

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation and refers to the use of Tullamarine Airport, which is a great credit to the designers and everyone concerned with it.I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to some things that I have seen myself and have heard from other people who have travelled through, and who have personal experience of, this airport. Would the Minister investigate whether closed circuit television screens will be installed in the Trans-Australia Airline section of the Tullamarine terminal as have been installed in the Ansett section? Also, could a direction be given to ongoing passengers of where to find their departure lounge if there is a delay between the time of their coming off a plane and going on to another flight? Could the quality of the television screens be improved to project the flight numbers and times of departure in larger characters because at the moment they are very difficult to see? Further, pending the installation of closed circuit television screens in the TAA section, would the Minister ask the Department of Civil Aviation to provide an information officer who could be clearly identified so that people could ask their way, how to get out of the airport and how to find their departure lounges?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– First of all, I would like to share the credit for the Tullamarine

Airport with my learned friend and colleague, Senator Wright, the Minister for Works. I indeed agree that it is a beautiful airport and a first class terminal; it is highly functional. Secondly, the Department of Civil Aviation is aided and assisted by senators and by members of the House of Representatives who draw to its attention operational problems and areas for improvement. Accordingly I am grateful to the honourable senator. I shall have the matter investigated as to why the Trans-Australia Airlines end of the terminal does not have the same facility as the Ansett end in regard to closed circuit television screens. Also. I shall find out what is happening about directions for ongoing passengers who are to use the departure lounges. I shall see what I can find out about the quality of television screens and the size of lettering thereon. Also I shall see - and this would be a function of TAA and not the Department - whether, pending any closed circuit television proposal for information. TAA might think of providing an information officer.

page 57

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. Has the Minister been made aware of the fact that the residents of Norfolk Island have set up a committee to investigate the future government of the island and relationship with Australia? Will the Department of External Territories assist and advise this committee? Is there considerable dissatisfaction among residents of the island with Australia’s relationship with the island? Has such dissatisfaction been caused through the Department’s method of presentation of a company ordinance for the island and the Minister’s unfortunate statement on radio that this ordinance would be enacted despite local opposition?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is well known, I think, that there is some concern in Norfolk Island arising out of the passage of the recent company ordinance. At the moment I do not recall whether or not residents of the Island have set up a committee. But I have no doubt that in the whole of the solution of any problems that are there the residents can be assured of the utmost co-operation and assistance from the Department and Minister for External Territories.

The PRESIDENT:

– I remind honourable senators of two things: First, question time has already occupied an hour and 15 minutes, and, secondly, there are a great number of questions on notice for which answers have been provided. Delayed answers have been the subject of complaint already in the Senate. Bearing that in mind I call Senator Keeffe.

page 57

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICAN SECRET POLICE

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Can the Minister inform the Parliament how many South African secret police operate in Australia? Can he also advise whether the secret police are attached to the headquarters of the Australian Security Intelligent Organisation or whether they operate independently? If they come into the latter category, in which State or Territory are the South African secret police stationed?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I say, in answer to the honourable senator’s question, that there is no basis known to me for supposing that there are any South African secret police in Australia and I would doubt very much whether anybody could find any such basis. I certainly am unaware of what the honourable senator has asked about. In regard to the question as to whether there are any attached to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, I will adopt the practice of my predecessors and say that I will not answer questions as to the operations or alleged operations or activities of the Organisation.

page 57

QUESTION

PAKISTANI REFUGEES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With your permission, Mr President, I will preface it by reading a telegram that I have received since coming into the chamber. It reads:

Our representative West Bengal reports one hundred thousand children will die in 3 weeks and general worsening refugee situation. Request you urge Australia make substantial new aid grant.

Harris, Community Aid Abroad,

Melbourne

Is the Government aware of the enormity of the human tragedy of these people?

Will he recommend to Cabinet that an immediate $10m grant be made to the Indian Government to help it alleviate the sufferings of these unfortunate victims of the Pakistan civil war?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I think we all know with great regret the dimensions of the tragedy to which the honourable senator has referred. The Government has made available Sim for assistance and that, I believe, has received approval from the Government of India. The request for further assistance will be transmitted to the Minister for such consideration as he can give to it.

page 58

UNITED KINGDOM IMMIGRATION

page 58

QUESTION

LEGISLATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the. Minister representing the Prime Minister allay any existing fears that, as a consequence of the new United Kingdom Immigration Bill and that country’s probable Common Market membership, Australians entering that country in the near future could have less freedom of movement as regards employment in the United Kingdom than citizens of Common Market nations?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

As I indicated earlier today, the position in relation to the British Government and the Common Market is still, to an extent, fairly hypothetical, although I feel bound to say that when it comes to a decision of the Parliament - and thai may be made in October - it no longer will be a hypothetical point that the honourable senator is raising. But, be that as it may, I indicated in answer to the honourable senator on 30th March this year that Australia’s High Commissioner in London has been in touch with the British Home Secretary on the British Immigration Bill. The Government, of course, is keeping a close watch on developments, through our High Commissioner in London. But, as I said in that answer what the British Government decides to do in regard to persons entering the United Kingdom is really a matter for itself, that is its decision. Nevertheless, we are keeping ourselves informed on the situation. If any information becomes available to me 1 will be only too happy to make it available. So. if the honourable senator likes to pose another question sub sequently or to communicate with me, I will try to keep him informed of what I know of the position.

page 58

QUESTION

PITCAIRN ISLAND

Senator POYSER:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. Is it a fact that the islanders of Pitcairn Island are virtually cut off from civilisation as ships are reluctant to call with supplies because of the French nuclear tests conducted in the Pacific area? Is it also a fact that their plight is becoming desperate and that the descendants of survivors of the Bounty’ mutiny who are living on Pitcairn Island will be forced to leave their homes permanently? Has the Norfolk Island Council invited these citizens to settle on that island? If so, will the Government give every possible assistance in helping the Pitcairn [slanders to settle on Norfolk Island, if that offer is accepted?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Last night I was listening to the adjournment debate and I heard some complaint that this question had not been answered yesterday. That enabled me to anticipate the honourable senator, which 1 do with the usual good will. I wish to inform him that Pitcairn is British territory and the welfare of the Pitcairn Islanders is the responsibility of the British Government. The British High Commissioner in New Zealand is the Governor of Pitcairn. If the British authorities were to request us to give assistance, the honourable senator can be assured that any such request would meet with sympathetic consideration. I wish to add that the French bomb tests in the South Pacific, against which the Australian Government has protested repeatedly, interrupt shipping for only a short period during actual firing. I am not aware that shipping to Pitcairn has been affected by the bomb tests. Shipping to Pitcairn is a problem in the normal course of events because of the island’s isolation. With regard to the suggested consideration to facilitate the passage of Pitcairn Islanders to Norfolk Island, I shall transmit that suggestion to the Minister. I am sure, for favourable consideration.

page 58

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister for Air inform the Parliament whether the

Royal Australian Air Force crash launch at Townsville was used on Sunday, 8th August 1971? Can the Minister advise whether the launch left Townsville at approximately 7.30 a.m. and returned at approximately 6 p.m.? Can he also advise whether the launch was used on a pleasure trip, and the names of the passengers? Can the Minister advise whether economies are being practised by the Department of Air, consistent with the dangerous economic state of the country as stated by the Government? Can he also advise the cost of keeping the crash launch at sea for approximately 1 1 hours?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator asks me about something that happened at a Royal Australian Air Force base.I will certainly have to make an inquiry into it. I shall do so and give him the information obtained.

page 59

QUESTION

OIL AND GAS

(Question No. 965)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

What is the total amount paid to date by way of royalties due to the Commonwealth on the production, at well-head value, of (a) oil, and (b) gas, in the off-shore areas of Victoria.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have here a great collection of files in relation to answers that have been tendered, many of them during the recess. I cannot find the answer to Question No. 965 at the moment. I shall look for it later and answer it if I can pick it up.

page 59

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

(Question No. 1084)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does the Federal Government acknowledge the necessity of decentralisation of industry and population?
  2. What is the current situation of a report to be made on the matter of decentralisation by a Commonwealth and State Government committee?
  3. When can meaningful decentralisation be expected to commence in this country?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister hasprovided the fol lowing reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Whilst questions concerning location of industry and population within States are primarily a State responsibility, the Commonwealth Government has consistently demonstrated its interest in decentralisation, both by its collaboration with State governments in the work of the Commonwealth/State officials’ Committee on Decentralisation, and in the various measures which the Commonwealth itself has instituted and which facilitate decentralisation. These measures range from assistance to the ‘naturally decentralised’’ rural industries, for example by marketing schemes and by assistance in financing specific capital projects, through to more general measures such as the petroleum price equalisation scheme.
  2. Most of the individual studies being coordinated by the Committee have been completed, and preparation of the Committee’s general report is in hand.
  3. I am not sure what the honourable senator intends by the term ‘meaningful decentralisation’. I can say that the question of future decentralisation policies willbe a matter for further consideration by Governments when the Committee’s report has been presented.

page 59

QUESTION

PARKING AT CANBERRA AIRPORT

(Question No. . 1040)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Is the extended time parking area, which is reserved for airline travellers at Canberra Airport, frequently used by tourists and other visitors as a short term parking area?
  2. May vehicles be left for a week or more in the 2 hour limit area without penalty?
  3. Do Department of Civil Aviation officials have any authority to control parking at the airport? If not, will they be given the authority and when?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Quite probably. Airport car parks, in Australia and overseas, generally operate on a ‘firstcome’ basis as no other procedure is really possible. An airport terminal is a public place and many categories of people wish, and have a right, to use or visit it. They are no specific areas reserved for airline passengers. An elderly or infirm friend of an air passenger needs parking conveniently close to the terminal as much as a normal air traveller. As for tourists, Canberra Airport is a place of interest and (hey are not discouraged from visiting there.
  2. At present, yes.
  3. The power to control airport car parking is exercised through the Airports (Surface Traffic) Act. The Department has been investigating the problem of car parking facilities at Canberra and, among other measures being taken to improve the situation, it is expected the provisions of the Airports (Surface Traffic) Act will be implemented at Canberra early in the new financial year.

page 60

QUESTION

UNION AMALGAMATION

(Question No. 1064)

Senator KANE:

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

  1. Is the Government fully informed as to the purposes of the amalgamation of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society of Australia and the Sheet Metal Workers’ Union of Australia?
  2. What will be the total membership of the amalgamated union, its total income and the total amount of the political fund?
  3. How many members of the Communist Party or parties belong to the national staffs of the three unions, including the Federal office and State offices; and what are their names?
  4. What percentage of the membership of the. three unions voted in the recent ballot dealing with amalgamation, who counted the ballot, and was the ballot counted by persons actively supporting one side, or persons representing both sides?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. According to ‘A Handbook of Australian Trade Unions and Employees’ Association’ published in 1970 after a survey by D. W. Rawson and Suzanne Wrightson of the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, the total membership of the new union should be approximately 150,000. 1 have no information as to likely income or funds.
  3. Several officials of these three unions have from time to time declared themselves to be Communists.I have no information beyond this.
  4. Separate ballots were held by each union in respect of its own members. The ballots and the counting of votes were conducted by officials appointed in accordance with the respective union’s rules as registered under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The following figures were released by the unions of the numbers who voted in connection with the proposed merger:

Based on the numbers indicated in (2) above, these figures represent approximately 22 per cent of the potential combined membership.

page 60

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1086)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Are most young men, who have obtained deferment of national service call-up in order to complete university and other higher education courses, called up immediately they fail an end of year examination, and after two years national service, a high percentage do not resume their studies?
  2. Can the Minister advise if the Government is prepared to examine a scheme whereby such young students can be given greater latitude in their endeavours to complete their studies or, alternatively, in appropriate cases, can their callup be deferred indefinitely?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Temporary deferment of call-up for national service is granted to students or trainees to enable them to pursue, and, if at all practicable, to complete the primary qualification being sought at the time of registration for national service, before they are called up. This deferment may be continued in respect of further studies or training they may undertake where it is a normal progression of the primary qualification and is necessary to their chosen career. Continued deferment is dependent upon the course being pursued without interruption and satisfactory progress at a rate which would in normal circumstances be expected of a diligent student. Reasonable allowance is made for some lack of success and if a student fails some or even all of the subjects attempted in one year his deferment is not necessarily cancelled; but, if progress with the planned course is generally unsatisfactory or the educational or other authority concerned does not permit the student to continue in the course, there is no alternative to discontinuation of the deferment and steps taken to proceed with call-up. The student deferment provisions cannot be isolated from the cardinal national service principles of universal liability and equity as between all registrants, both students and non-students, or from the firm policy of arranging call-up at the earliest practicable stage after registration. As at 30th June 1971, 14,140 registrants were either deferred or being considered for deferment on account of the studies or training they were undertaking. It is a measure of the attitude of these men that the great majority of them are expected to complete the primary or other qualification in respect of which deferment was granted before they are required to be called up. It should also be noted that post-discharge vocational training is available for national servicemen when desirable for effective resettlement. This includes financial assistance for the purpose of resumption of university or other studies. There is no provision for granting indefinite deferment or exemption to particular students or trainees because of the studies or training they are pursuing. No single group can be isolated as a special category having unique claims to the special consideration which would be involved.

page 61

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS CONFERENCE

(Question No. 1109)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts upon notice:

  1. Was a Commonwealth/States Aboriginal Affairs Conference held at Cairns last week and were all sessions of the Conference conducted in camera?
  2. Will the Minister advise if it is possible for such conferences to be held in public in future and can representation at such conferences be widened to include delegates from Aboriginal and Islander organisations who could act in the capacity of advisers?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.

    1. The meeting at Cairns was the annual meeting of Ministers comprising the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council, which is preceded by a two day meeting of the Standing Committee of Officers. The Ministers have not considered it appropriate to make the meetings public conferences. Arrangements for consultation with representatives of Aboriginal and Islander communities have been established in the States and the Northern Territory, and in the months preceding these annual meetings Aboriginal organisations are able to present their views to Ministers.

page 61

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH HOSTELS

(Question No. 1107)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Are the rules and regulations covering the management and use of Commonwealth Hostels a classified document; if not, where can a member of the Parliament obtain a copy of them?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I regret that I am not supplied with a copy of the answer to that question at this moment. I will supply it, if possible, before question time finishes.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, with your concurrence 1 request that answers to questions Nos 1180, 1189, 1193, 1194, 1195 and 1197 standing in my name be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– You addressed a question to Senator Wright, the answer to which was not supplied. Would you be agreeable to having that also incorporated?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I would like the answers read to the questions addressed to Senator Wright and Senator Cotton.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have been through these documents very carefully and I have not seen the answer. I am informed that it cannot be found. It seems to me that the numbering of the questions as shown on the list is defective because I have had supplied to me an answer to question No. 1081 by Senator Georges which does not appear in the list at all.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will have that looked into tomorrow.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Senator Georges asked that the answer to question No. 1191 be read. On his behalf I therefore ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration:

  1. Has the Minister seen a press report to the effect that a black United States citizen has been refused permission to say in Australia for another year despite the fact that he has special skills and guarantees of employment?
  2. Did the Minister recently publicly state that it is his responsibility to ensure that the rules are observed and further divergence from them will not be allowed; if so, what is the precise nature of the rules which the Minister referred to?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have received an answer from the Minister for Immigration which runs into 3 pages. Although Senator Georges requested that the answer be read, he is not present in the chamber and I ask for leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GREENWOOD:

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

The honourable senator subsequently advised that his question referred to the case of Mr Theodore Williams who was admitted to Australia on 26th June 1969 to join the cast of the production ‘Hair’.

Mr Williams’ entry for temporary residence was approved in accordance with rules which require that persons seeking visas to enter Australia for periods of temporary residence to work in Australia as entertainers must be able to produce evidence of firm arrangements for their employment in this country for the period of stay sought.

Invariably, such persons are sponsored by an Australian theatrical agency or an Australian entrepreneur and sponsors must guarantee to ensure that the entertainer is to be employed in accordance with the relevant Australian awards and that he will leave this country on the completion of his approved stay here.

Such applications are usually the subject of consultationswith the Department of Labour and National Service So that it may be established that the appropriate award conditions are to be met and that the admission of the entertainer concerned will not adversely affect employment opportunities of local entertainers. The views of the appropriate union are generally sought unless the application is one involving an entertainer of particular standing.

Provided the arrangements are found to be satisfactory, approval may be granted for the issue of a visa authorising temporary entry for the period of stay sought, normally up to an initial maximum period of 6 months. Extensions of stay may be granted, where acceptable arrangements are made for further engagements, but normally the total period of temporary slay should not exceed 12 months.

Mr Theodore Williams cameto Australia on 26th June 1969 to join the cast of ‘Hair’ and was granted a temporary entry permit for 8 months. Authority was later granted for Mr Williams to remain here for a period considerably in excess of the normal maximum period of 12 months.

Mr Williams subsequently applied to stay for a further period to undertake other engagements, basically as an entertainer in clubs, hotels and similar venues, but also to perform elsewhere, including a period of week-end work with the New South Wales Division of the Arts Council of Australia. This application was not approved. Nevertheless Mr Williams left the cast of ‘Hair’ to accept alternative employment. He was therefore asked to make arrangements to leave Australia by the end of April 1971.

Later it was decided that he could defer his departure until 30th June 1971 and he left Australia on 28th June 1971.

The rules governing the entry of persons for periods of temporary residence are quite reasonable and their administration is no more stringent than in most other countries; and less severe than in many. This is evidenced by the case of Mr Williams who was permitted to stay for a considerable period of time beyond the period normally allowed.

Because of the growth of licensed clubs, New South Wales has become one of the most attractive areas in the world for the employment of individual entertainers. Quite substantial numbers are admitted for periods of temporary residence in accordance with rules described above which provide for precautions to be taken to ensure that the entry of overseas entertainers does not adversely affect employment opportunities for local artists. The vast majority of overseas entertainers who perform in Australia willingly comply with the rules but some do seek to stay for extended periods. In such cases unless special factors are present it is considered that firm action is necessary if the rules are to be maintained.

page 62

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1121)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. What companies hold petroleum prospecting licences (a) onshore; and (b) offshore in the Papua New Guinea region?
  2. What companies have applied for but have not yet been granted (a) onshore; and (b) offshore licences?
  3. How many petroleum prospective basins have been identified in the Papua New Guinea region: and of these, in respect of how many have (a) prospecting licences already been granted: and (b) applications been called for?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The following companies hold petroleum prospecting licences in Papua New Guinea and adjacent territorial waters. In addition to licence holders, the list includes companies and consortiums holding permits to explore for petroleum, (a) Licence to Prospect (Onshore)

Australasian Petroleum Co. Pty Ltd.

Island Exploration Co. Pty Ltd.

Consortium of -

Marathon Petroleum Australia Ltd.

Basin Oil N.L.

Reef Oil N.L.

Consortium of -

Endeavour Oil N.L.

Interstate Oil Ltd.

Permit to Explore (Onshore)

Australasian Petroleum Co. Pty Ltd.

Consortium of -

Phillips Australian Oil Co.

Sunray Australian Oil Co.

Arco Ltd.

Australian Superior Oil Co. Ltd.

Canadian Superior Oil (Aust.) Pty Ltd.

Consortium of -

Continental Oil Co. of Australia Ltd.

New Guinea-Cities Service Inc.

Consortium of -

Continental Oil Co. of Australia Ltd.

Basin Oil N.L.

Beaver Exploration Australia N.L.

Reef Oil N.L.

Consortium of -

Australian Aquitane Petroleum Pty Ltd.

Japex (Australia) Pty Ltd.

BP Petroleum Development Australia Pty

Ltd.

General Exploration Co. of Australasia Ltd.

Union Oil Development Corp.

Consortium of -

California Asiatic Oil Company.

Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company.

Pan Ocean Oil Corporation.

  1. Production Licences(Offshore) - Nil

Permit to Explore (Offshore)

Consortium of -

Phillips Australian Oil Co.

Sunray Australian Oil Co.

Arco Ltd.

Aust. Superior Oil Co. Ltd.

Canadian Superior Oil (Aust.) Pty Ltd.

General Exploration Co. of Australasia Ltd.

Consortium of -

Continental Oil Co. of Aust. Ltd.

Basin Oil N.L.

Marathon Petroleum Aust. Ltd.

Australian Aquitaine Petroleum Pty Ltd.

Consortium of -

Amoco Australia Exploration Co.

Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd.

Southern Pacific Petroleum N.L.

West Pacific Oil Pty Ltd.

Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co.

Hermatite Petroleum Pty Ltd.

Consortium of -

Australian Gulf Oil Company.

Shell Development (Australia) Pty Ltd.

Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd.

  1. The following companies have applied for but have not yet been granted petroleum prospecting permits in Papua New Guinea:

    1. Onshore

Nil

  1. Offshore

Australian Aquitaine Petroleum Pty Ltd.

Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Limited.

Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd.

Ranger Oil Canada Ltd.

Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company.

  1. There are 4 sedimentary basins which could be considered as prospective for petroleum exploration in Papua New Guinea. Applications have been called for and permits have been issued for areas in parts of all 4 of the basins listed below.

Morehead Basin

Papuan Basin

Northern New Guinea Basin

Cape Vogel Basin.

There are many other areas where sedimentary rocks are known to exist, but it is too early at this stage to say whether or not these form sedimentary basins.

page 63

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 1137)

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. To what extent, if at all, does the Department of Education and Science consult with the Council of the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations on matters which that body would have special knowledge, experience or opinion?
  2. Will the Minister give consideration to instructing consultation to be undertaken if there has in fact been no such consultation?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) From time to time over recent years the Federation of Australian University

Staff Associations has made representations to successive Ministers for Education and Science and to the Australian Universities Commission about matters in which the Federation is interested. These representations have been fully and carefully considered and, on a number of occasions, have been discussed between representatives of the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations, the Minister and the Chairman of the Australian Universities Commission. I last met the Federation for discussions on 6th July 1971 and on this occasion the new chairman of the Australian Universities Commission - Professor P. H.Karmel - was also present. 1 will continue to be available to discuss relevant matters with the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations.

page 63

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1141)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Has the Papua New Guinea Administration cleared the way for public servants to buy shares in Bougainville Mining Ltd?
  2. Does the Minister regard the suggestion by the Administrator of the Territory of Capua New Guinea that public servants buying shares ‘should keep the possibility of conflict of interest in mind’ as being adequate to ensure that no such situation of conflict of interest involving public servants and the company will arise in the future?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. There is no legal impediment to an officer of the Territory Public Service becoming a shareholder in Bougainville Mining Limited and the Administrator has issued a circular explaining this.
  2. In the circular the Administrator asks that officers who, because their duties involve fairly direct policy or operational decisions on the Bougainville project, could be involved in a possible conflict of interest if they or their wives had personal holdings of shares in the Bougainville Company should refrain from placing themselves in this situation. I consider the action taken by the Administrator to be proper and adequate.

page 63

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

(Question No. 1147)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

How. many Chinese language speakers at each level of proficiency are currently working as officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

There are at present 20 officers in the Department with some knowledge of the Chinese language. Of these, 5 officers have a high degree of proficiency, 4 officers have a working knowledge and the remainder (11) have a basic knowledge of the language. The Department’s programme of language training includes provision for one or two officers to undertake intensive Chinese language study each year.

page 64

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 1149)

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister seen reports in the Canberra Times of 6th and 7th May 1971 of teacher shortages in Australian Capital Territory schools and of proposed courses of action recommended by the Australian Capital Territory Secondary Teachers’ Association to deal with problems of teacher shortages.
  2. How many secondary schools are there in the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. How many secondary schools have not had their full complement of teachers since the beginning of the first term of 1971.
  4. How many teachers have been absent for one day or more in secondary schools in the Australian Capital Territory during the months of March and April 1971.
  5. How many teachers have been forced to take extra classes during March and April 1971 in order to cope with either teacher shortages or teacher absences.
  6. How many persons are registered in the Australian Capital Territory to take relief teaching appointments on (a) a long term basis; and (b) a short term basis.
  7. How many teachers in Australian Capital Territory secondary schools teach subjects for which they have no specialist training.
  8. How many teachers in Australian Capital Territory secondary schools have resigned since the beginning of the first term of 1971.
  9. How many teachers in Australian Capital Territory secondary schools have indicated that they will resign at the end of the first term of 1971.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Eleven government secondary schools.
  3. None.
  5. The information to this question is not readily available.
  6. The number of teachers registered for casual relief teaching in the A.C.T. is as follows:
  1. All permanent teachers employed in the Australian Capital Territory have had specialist training in general classroom procedures and in the techniques of teaching which enable them to leach a variety of subjects. It is not possible to provide information on the numbers of teachers who have not undertaken specific tertiary studies in the subjects which they teach.
  2. and (9) 31 teachers in A.C.T. government secondary schools resigned during first term.

page 64

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 1153)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

When will the Government sign and ratify the United Nations Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, the adoption of which was supported by Australia in the United Nations General Assembly in 1966?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The Honourable Senator is referred to the reply to Question No. 1508 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 18th September 1970, page 1410). This reply still represents the position.

page 64

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 1166)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. has any meeting been held of the Commonwealth Study Group on South Atlantic and Indian Ocean Security which was set up at the 1971 Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in Singapore; if not, when will the Study Group meet?
  2. Have any members withdrawn from the Study Group; if so, who and for what reason?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Study Group on Security of the Maritime Trade Routes in South Atlantic and Indian Oceans has not met. The Government will be informed by the Commonwealth Secretary-General about any proposed meeting of the Study Group when consultations with all Commonwealth Governments are complete.
  2. Nigeria, Malaysia and India have announced that they have withdrawn from the Study Group as a result of the announcement by the British Government of its decision to inform the South African Government of their willingness to permit the export to South Africa of such Wasp helicopters and military spare parts as they consider fell within their legal obligations under the Simonstown agreements, before the Study had met.

page 65

QUESTION

SUGAR HARVESTERS

(Question No. 1171)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Did the Minister issue a statement this week denying that the Government of the United States of America had objected to the sale by Australia of sugar harvesters to Cuba; if so, can the Minister reconcile his statement with the statement of the United States State Department Press Officer, Mr Robert McClosky, in which be is reported to have said that the United States had made representations to the Australian Government about the sale?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

There has been an informal exchange of views, at a routine level, with the United States and this is what Mr McClosky was referring to in his remarks to the Press on 12th May 1971. However the United States has not objected to the sale by Australia of sugar cane harvesters to Cuba. It has been explained to the United States that the sale of sugar cane harvesters to Cuba was a normal commercial transaction which did not involve items of strategic significance.

page 65

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS

(Question No. 1172)

Senator MURPHY:

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

What was the number of Commonwealth Secondary scholarships awarded to each government school in New South Wales in 1970?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Commonwealth Secondary scholarships are awarded on merit and no quota for individual schools or groups of schools is set. The number of 1970 Commonwealth Secondary scholarships offered to applicants from government schools in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory is set out below. It should be noted that some scholarship winners transfer to other schools, government and non-government, either prior to or during the tenure of their awards.

page 67

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS

(Question No. 1173)

Senator MURPHY:

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

What was the number of Commonwealth Secondary scholarships awarded to each nongovernment school in New South Wales in 1970?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Commonwealth Secondary scholarships are awarded on merit and no quota for individual schools or groups of schools is set. The number of 1970 Commonwealth Secondary scholarships offered to applicants from non-government schools in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory is set out below. It should be noted that some scholarships winners transfer to other schools, government and non-government, either prior to or during the tenure of their awards.

page 69

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: EDUCATION

(Question No. 1176)

Senator MURPHY:

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

How many bursaries and what amounts have been given to each school, government and nongovernment,in the Commonwealth Capital Territory by the Commonwealth in each of the last 3 years?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

There are two types of bursaries awarded to students enrolled at schools in the Australian Capital Territory. These are Junior Secondary Bursaries and Senior Secondary Bursaries. Amounts payable in respect of these bursaries are paid direct to parents at the end of each term and not to schools.

page 69

JUNIOR SECONDARY BURSARIES

These bursaries are awarded on the basis of examination in the final year of primary school and are tenable in forms 1 and 4 inclusive at secondary school. The bursary amounts are payable subject to a family taxable income of less than $2,000 in the tax year prior to the school year concerned, and are subject to annual review. The rates of allowances payable are as follows:

page 69

SENIOR SECONDARY BURSARIES

These bursaries are awarded on the basis of results in the School Certificate examination, are tenable in Forms 5 and 6, and are determined on the basis of taxable income in the tax year prior to the school year, subject to annual review. The rates of allowance payable are as follows:

The number of each type of bursaries awarded in each of the 3 years since 1969, 1970 and 1971, the schools at which successful applicants were enrolled at the time of the award and the amounts paid to parents are set out below:

page 70

QUESTION

REFUGEE SEAMEN’S CONVENTION

(Question No. 1178)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What reservations did the Government have concerning the Refugee Seamen’s Convention?
  2. What stage have plans reached for Australia to become a signatory to the Convention?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The Commonwealth’s examination of the Refugee Seamen’s Agreement with a view to possible future accession has virtually concluded and so far no objection is seen to Australian accession. The main difficulty concerns the application of the agreement to Australia’s territories. The question has been referred to the Administration of Papua/New Guinea and I understand that the Administrator’s Executive Council will consider it at its meeting scheduled for 2nd June 1971. I am sure that once we know the Council’s decision the question of accession can be settled very quickly.

page 70

QUESTION

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT SCHEME

(Question No. 1183)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. Which organisations are ‘approved’ under the Homes Savings Grant Scheme?
  2. How is such approval determined?
  3. Why are investments in Commonwealth Bonds (including Special Bonds) excluded under the savings terms of the Scheme?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The only organisations which need to be approved’ under the Homes Savings Grant legislation are credit unions.
  2. The conditions to be met are set down in section 4b of the Homes Savings Grant Act, a copy of which has been sent to the honourable senator.
  3. A primary objective of the Homes Savings Grant Scheme is to encourage savings with institutions that provide thebulk of long-term finance for private housing. The present forms of acceptable savings were chosen because they are regarded as satisfactorily meeting this objective. Moreover, if Commonwealth bonds were to be made acceptable, this could pose administrative problems in respect of ownership at specific dates and current values.

page 70

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

(Question No. 1184)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

Did the Australian Government initiate discussions with the Cambodian Government and indicate that aircraft would be made available if they were requested, prior to the request from Cambodia for DC-3 aircraft?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Yes. Advice was given to the Khmer (Cambodian) Government that aircraft could be available as foreign aid. This was part of the normal process of the management of a foreign aid programme and is in keeping with the established practice of making recipient Governments aware of the type of equipment and advice which Australia would be able to supply, should it be required.

page 70

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD: SALE OF AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1193)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Does the Government intend to table, during the Budget session, all documents connected with the purchase of the 6 DC3 aircraft from Jetair Australia Limited; if not, will the documents covering the transaction ever be made available for scrutiny by the Parliament or the public?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The Government believes that all relevant points relating to the purchase of 6 DC3 aircraft from Jetair Australia Limited have been raised in Parliament and have been answered fully. There would be little purpose in making public individual documents.

page 71

QUESTION

FOREIGN AID: DC3 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1194)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Are the DC3 aircraft purchased for foreign aid still in Australia as at 20th May 1971; if not, when were they ferried to the recipient countries and what was the cost involved in doing so?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The aircraft were in Australia on 20th May 1971. Tenders for the ferrying of the aircraft closed on 20th July 1971 and a contract has been let by the Department of Supply to Forrester Stephens Pty Ltd, Melbourne. The actual ferrying of the 6 DC3 aircraft will commence early August 1971.

page 71

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD: SALE OF AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1195)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

What was the Departmental classification of the officers involved in the Jetair Australia Limited transaction and who acted on behalf of Jetair in initiating and completing the transactions?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

In answer to the Senate question on notice No. 937 asked by Senator Keeffe, it was advised that initial negotiating discussions were held between representatives of Jetair Australia Limited and senior officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs with an officer of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply present as a technical adviser. It is felt that it would not be appropriate to give the exact classification of the Departmental officers involved in the transaction apart from stating that they were experienced senior officers led by one of Second Division status. Similarly, it would not be appropriate to name the representatives of Jetair in the negotiations. These were initiated by Jetair’s press advertisement to which Foreign Affairs responded and the discussions described in answer to Question No. 937 took place.

page 71

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 20th May 1971 Senator Keeffe asked the following question without notice:

Is the Minister aware that Sir Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner in London, also made a lengthy statement on Papua New Guinea in which he said that Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community would eliminate the primary industry export markets for

Papua New Guinea? I ask the Minister: Can he inform the Parliament whether, in fact, the export market of Papua New Guinea for primary products will be lost in the event of Britain joining the European Economic Community?

This is a matter for the Minister for External Territories who has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am aware that Sir Alexander Downer, when opening a Papua New Guinea exhibition in London on 18th May 1971, emphasised that Papua New Guinea’s economy would be dealt a serious blow if Britain entered the Common Market without some safeguards for the Territory.

Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community without appropriate arrangements for Papua New Guinea, would mean the loss of preferences in the United Kingdom market and in some cases would erect Community Tariff barriers in their place. In this situation some$1 6m worth of exports, i.e. about a quarter of Papua New Guinea’s export trade would be at risk. This would be a grave situation.

The position would be particularly marked in the case of palm products. The 15 per cent preference which coconut oil now enjoys over suppliers from non-Commonwealth sources would be transformed into a tariff barrier of from 9 per cent to 14 per cent and the 10 per cent preference for copra would be lost. The infant oil palm industry would lose the 10 per cent preference in the British market and would encounter Common Market tariffs of 4 per cent and 6 per cent.

Because of the highly competitive nature of markets for tropical agricultural commodities, Papua New Guinea has only limited scope for diverting exports from its traditional market in Britain.

The Commonwealth Government has sought at every appropriate opportunity to direct the attention of the authorities in Britain and of member Governments of the EEC to the serious damage to Papua New Guinea’s trade likely to result from enlargement of the Community unless appropriate provisions are made to accommodate that trade.

Following high level discussions by the Deputy Prime Minister with the United Kingdom and Common Market Governments earlier in 1970 the Commonwealth Government arranged for a special Papua New Guinea Delegation to visit London and the capitals of the EEC. The special delegation led by Mr Bilas, Papua New Guinea’s Ministerial Member for Trade and Industry and advised by a senior officer of my Department, visited Europe during October and November 1970 to inform the Governments concerned in detail about the unique position of Papua New Guinea and problems the country would face if Britain entered the EEC without some special provision for Papua New Guinea’s trade.

Mr Rippon, the British Minister in Charge of negotiations with the Community subsequently stressed the unique nature of the Papua New Guinea case in addressing the Council of Ministers in Brussels during February’ 1971. Following this meeting Australia presented a further comprehensive statement of the Papua New Guinea case to the member Governments of the Six and to the British authorities. The Papua New Guinea issue was again raised by the Deputy Prime Minister in the course of his visit to Britain and the capitals of the Six during June this year and was further discussed in detail with senior Government officials in London, Brussels and Paris by a small team of officers including Papua New Guinea’s Director of Trade and Industry.

We have some indication that the European Commission and the member Governments of the Six now fully understand the unique nature of the Papua New Guinea case and the gravity of the damage that could be inflicted on Papua New Guinea’s trade in the absence of appropriate arrangements. Papua New Guinea’s case is still being considered by the EEC. We are continuing with our efforts and are hopeful that it will prove possible to obtain provisions which will go some way towards safeguarding Papua New Guinea’s future trade.

page 72

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

(Question No. 939)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. What were the amounts outstanding in respect of repayments on War Service homes in each State at 30th June 1970?
  2. What were the total amounts collected in each State in repayments in the financial year to 30th June 1970?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Loan balances outstanding at 30th June 1970, excluding works in progress, were as follows:
  1. The total amounts received in each State in the financial year ending 30th June 1970 in respect of repayments of principal, but not including interest, were as follows:

page 72

QUESTION

LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1005)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Does the Minister consider that adequate severance payment is a vital complement to any programme of job abolition, in view of the statement by the former Minister for Labour and National Service, Mr Snedden, at the recent seminar on advanced technology organised by the National Labour Advisory Council, that of 9,000 employees affected by, new technology 2,000 were retrenched?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The Commonwealth has pursued economic policies favourable to technological change through the maintenance of high levels of employment and of an effective national employment service to assist people changing jobs to find suitable alternative employment. In fact, the post-war period in this country has been characterised by extremely low levels of unemployment and rapid technological innovation and development. The appropriateness of severance payments can only be considered in respect of particular circumstances as they occur.

page 72

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 1006)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. On how many occasions since 1950 have Latin American Governments been overthrown by armed forces insurrection?
  2. What were the nations involved?
  3. What was the lapse of time, on each occasion, before Australia recognised the new regime?
  4. Was there any occasion when diplomatic recognition was refused?
  5. What criterion applies to determine Australia’s attitude to new governments who assume office by unconstitutional methods?
  6. What is Australia’s attitude to recent happenings in the Argentine?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. and (2) The occasions since 1950 on which Latin American governments have been overthrown by armed forces insurrection, and the nations involved, are as follows:

(3), (4) and (5) The recognition of governments is a matter not of legal rule but wholly of political discretion. Though learned treatises have been written on the subject, it is not possible to reduce it to one criterion, or a short list of criteria, which governmentstake into account in exercising their discretion. In many cases moreover it may never become necessary to take any formal step either of recognition or of non-recognition of a new regime. In any event recognition may be accorded not by formal act but merely by implication from some intergovernmental dealing if and when the need for such a transaction arises.

  1. The Australian Government considers that recent events in Argentina were analagous to those which occurred in June last year when President Ongania was removed from office. On that occasion the Government accepted the view that a change in the leadership of the government had taken place, not a change in the government itself. On both occasions, therefore, the question of recognition did not arise. Accordingly the Government promptly acknowledged the circular issued by the Argentine Foreign Ministry advising of the change which took place in March this year.

page 73

QUESTION

MORATORIUM DEMONSTRATION

(Question No. 1108)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

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

Will the Minister inquire into reports that those responsible for conducting honours tutorial classes in politics at the University of Adelaide have cancelled all tutorials so as to enable students to participate in the Moratorium demonstration in Adelaide on 30th April 1971?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

I have no information as to whether any tutorials at the University of Adelaide were cancelled on 30th April 1971. Any cancellation which may have occurred is a matter within the responsibility of the University itself.

page 73

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

(Question No. 1114)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice:

Are there persons from foreign countries in Australia by arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency? If so, when did these persons first enter Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

I am informed that the only persons from foreign countries at present in Australia by arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency are 2 Indonesians who hold fellowships under the United Nations Development Programme, for which the International Atomic Energy Agency made the necessary arrangements. The fellows arrived in Australia on 2nd May 1971. Two safeguards inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency visited Australia from 15th to 23rd April 1971 to inspect safeguarded material supplied by the United Stales to Australia under the agreement for co-operation concerning the civil uses of atomic energy in force between Australia and the United States.

page 73

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1120)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. What companies have (a) mineral production leases, and (b) authorities to prospect for minerals, in the Territory of Papua New Guinea.
  2. What royalty rates are payable on minerals which are being extracted or may be extracted in Papua New Guinea.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Ministerial Member for Mines in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Ministerial Member for Mines has provided the following information:

(a) The following companies hold mineral production leases in Papua New Guinea:

Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd

New Guinea Containers Pty Ltd

Koranga Gold Sluicing Ltd

Edie Alluvials Limited

New Guinea Gold Ltd

Placer Development Ltd

Bulolo Gold Dredging Ltd

Benyeoman Pty Ltd

Oceanic Minerals Development Pry Ltd

  1. The following companies hold authorities to prospect in Papua New Guinea

Amax Exploration (Australia) Inc.

  1. O.G. Minerals Pty Ltd

Associated International Cement (Australia) Pty Ltd Benyeoman Pty Ltd

  1. M.I. Mining Pty Ltd

Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd

Bridge Minerals Pty Ltd

The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd

Canadian Superior Oil (Aust.) Pty Ltd

Carpentaria Exploration Co. Pty Ltd

Consolidated Mining Industries Ltd

  1. R.A. Exploration Pty Ltd
  2. T. Crosbie Pty Ltd

Eastern Pacific Mines Pty Ltd

Consortium of - Exoil N.L. - Transoil N.L.

Highland Gold Development N.L.

International Nickel Aust. Ltd

International Nickel Southern Exploration Pty Ltd

Kennecott Explorations (Aust.) Pty Ltd

Kora Creek Mining Co. Pty Ltd

Madang Minerals Pty Ltd

Metals Exploration N.L.

Minjur Mines Pty Ltd

Minerals Exploration Pty Ltd

Mount Isa Mines Limited

New Guinea Containers Pty Ltd

Oceanic Minerals Development Pty Ltd

Pacific Island Mines

Pacific Metals Pty Ltd

Pari Enterprise Pty Ltd

Papuan Nickel Exploration N.L.

Phillips Australian Oil Company

Placer Prospecting (Aust.) Pty Ltd

Planet Mining Company Pty Ltd

Rabac Exploration N.L.

Southwest Pacific Oil & Mining N.L.

Swiss Aluminium Mining (Aust.) Pty Ltd

Texfel Pacific Corporation

Titan New Guinea Pty Ltd

United States Steel (N.Y.) Inc.

  1. Royalty at the rate of1¼ per cent is payable on the value of gold or other minerals (other than coal or petroleum) mined in Papua New Guinea by the holder of a mining tenement.

page 74

QUESTION

WAVE HILL ABORIGINAL SETTLEMENT

(Question No. 1189)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What will be the installation cost of the new water supply at the Wave Hill Aboriginal settlement?
  2. Was this cost allowed for in the original estimate?
  3. Will there be sufficient water supply for an irrigation system for gardens when the installation is completed?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The estimated cost of equipping the existing bores, with reticulation to houses, was $32,000. Because of the failure of one bore it was necessary to drill for water in another location. The cost of exploratory boring, equipping the bore and reticulating cannot be given until the boring is completed. Tentative estimates, however, suggest an additional cost of $69,000 for the establishing and equipping of further bores and reticulating water to the township.
  2. The existing bores provide adequate water supplies for domestic purposes. Subject to the final result of exploratory boring, there should be adequate supplies to enable the establishment of a market garden to supply the local population.

page 74

QUESTION

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES

(Question No. 1180)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What is the current manpower strength of the Commonweath Bureau of Mineral Resources?
  2. What are the present staff shortages and to which categories do the shortages apply?
  3. What steps are being taken to overcome staff shortages?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. As at Friday, 14 th May 1971, the Bureau of Mineral Resources employed 558 staff against an establishment of 628.
  2. The total staff shortage at that date was 70. Categories and numbers are:
  1. Vigorous recruitment campaigns are undertaken throughout Australia and, insofar as professional staff are concerned, the United Kingdom. Currently the Department has approval or is awaiting approval to employ the following:

In addition, various cadetships and traineeships are offered each year. 11 Cadet Geologists, 11 Cadet Geophysicists and 4 Trainee Draftsmen will complete their training and be available for duty in January 1972.

page 75

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER

(Question No. 1150)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. When will the successful tenderer for the construction of the Jervis Bay nuclear power station and the date of commencement of construction be announced?
  2. Has the project been deferred; if so, for what reason and for how long?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The matter to which the honourable senator refers is being considered by the Government. When a decision has been reached by the Government an announcement will be made.

page 75

QUESTION

BUTTER

(Question No. 1144’)

Senator WEBSTER:

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

At what price is it profitable for Australia to export butter?

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

It is not possible to define a profitable butter export price for Australia as a whole.

Production costs of butter in Australia vary widely both between and within States in accordance with variations in farm costs and other factors.

In addition, the equalisation arrangements applying to butter and cheese and the proceeds from the sale of by-products of butter production, such as skimmed milk powder and casein, are also important considerations influencing the level of export return which might be regarded as profitable.

page 75

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: INVESTIGATION COMMISSIONER

(Question No. 1096)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. What complaints could be legally examined by an investigation Commissioner as proposed under the Northern Territory Legislative Council Administration Actions (Investigation) Ordinance 1969, which was disallowed by the Minister?
  2. What would have been the approximate cost of the proposed appointment?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Under the Northern Territory Legislative Council Administrative Actions (Investigation) Ordinance 1969 from which assent was withheld by the Governor-General on 6th November 1969 the proposed Commissioner would have been empowered, either in his own discretion or on a written complaint from any person, to investigate:

    1. a decision, ruling, order or recommendation made or given; or
    2. an act done or omitted, in the discharge of a function, the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty, by a person, authority, body or organisation, where the function, power or duty had been given under an Ordinance of the Northern Territory; but only if the Commissioner was satisfied that the decision, ruling, order, recommendation, act or omission referred to:
    3. directly affected any person; and
    4. was made, given, done or omitted in relation to the administration of an ordinance of the Northern Territory.

He would have been precluded from conducting an investigation where some other right of appeal, objection or review exists, unless special circumstances existed. He would have had discretion not to investigate or further investigate a matter e.g. where adequate remedy available at law or if complaint considered trivial, frivolous, vexatious not in good faith, etc.

  1. As the proposed Commission was not established, there is no basis for assessing the cost.

page 75

QUESTION

CANBERRA: TREE PLANTING CEREMONY

(Question No. 1101)

Senator CANT:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Did each senator and each member of the House of Representatives who first sat in the Parliament at Canberra plant a tree in the vicinity of the present Canadian High Commission; if so, have some of those trees been cut down, on whose instructions were they cut down and for what purpose?
  2. Are each of the trees presently standing, marked with the name of the senator or member who planted it; if not, will the Minister take steps to preserve those trees and have them so marked?
  3. Will the Minister have trees planted to replace those cut down and have them marked appropriately.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The occasion to which the honourable senator refers was a long time ago. There are indications of an intention to carry out such a Tree Planting Ceremony, but there is no conclusive record that it actually took place. The information required for the action suggested by the honourable senator is in any case not available.

page 76

QUESTION

RIVER POLLUTION

(Question No. 1071)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Has the Department of National Development designed and implemented a more effective code to combat water pollution of rivers adjacent to mining operations, in view of the neglect shown by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in polluting the East Finniss River; if so, how can the Minister justify the gross water pollution that has been inflicted on the Dampier Archipelago by the operations of the Hamersley Iron group mining operations?
  2. Have officers of the Department observed the oil and slime that impregnates the Dampier foreshores?
  3. What directives have been issued to Hamersley Iron to cease this industrial rape of the area?
  4. What restrictions have been imposed on Hamersley Iron to control the gross air pollution that stems from the Hamersley Iron pellet plant, covering a radius of 20 miles from the plant with dust?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The control of pollution in the various States is the responsibility of State authorities and in the Northern Territory the responsibility of the Northern Territory Administration. It is therefore neither appropriate nor the responsibility of the Department of National Development to design and implement a code to combat water pollution of rivers adjacent to mining operations.

I would mention that the Australian Minerals Council (a body comprising Commonwealth Ministers and the six State Ministers for Mines) announced after its May 1971 meeting that ‘mining and the environment’ was among the subjects discussed by Ministers at that meeting. I would expect that at future meetings of the Australian Minerals Council this subject will be prominent among those discussed.

  1. No. As explained above the responsibility for inspection (and policing) of pollution is the responsibility of the State authorities.
  2. and (4) See (1) and (2) above.

page 76

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: ACCIDENTS

(Question No. 816)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Can the frequency of aviation accidents, particularly to single-engined aircraft be prevented by stronger aircraft operating regulations, particularly with respect to light aircraft?
  2. Do some or all of the recent accidents indicate a need for improved air traffic control or Air Navigation Aids?
  3. To what extent is the lack of uniformity in flight training manuals - as mentioned by a Mr Robey - a cause of aviation accidents?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The Department maintains a constant surveillance of operating procedures and safety requirements. Operating standards are under continuing review and measures to increase safety are constantly being implemented. The number of accidents in Papua/New Guinea during the past year has caused some concern but I believe that the situation will respond to intensified pilot education and field supervision which has been undertaken by the Department. The overall accident rate in general aviation operations was slightly lower in 1970 than 1969 although the fatal accident rate was slightly higher. These circumstances do not give rise to the need for consideration of more stringent operating regulations in general aviation operations.
  2. The Australian Air Traffic Control service ranks amongst the most efficient in the world. Recent and projected improvements in radar coverage, although primarily intended to service traffic operating under the Instrument Flight Rules, will provide increased efficiency to the control of aircraft operating under Visual Flight Rules which incorporates a substantial number of general aviation operations. It will not be practicable within the foreseeable future to extend Air Traffic Control to cover all operations and there will continue to be a requirement for aircraft to maintain their own separation in areas where traffic density is comparatively low.

Since 1966 the Department has pursued the policy of providing aids specifically to meet general aviation needs. In the period since July 1967, 42 non-directional beacons have been installed primarily for general aviation use and a further 17 are currently programmed for future installation. In addition, the provision of 62 new very high frequency omni ranges is planned and 11 of these will be sited primarily to serve general aviation. The Department continually reviews general aviation needs in this field in consultation with the industry and I do not doubt that sufficient funds will be available for the provision of aids to meet all reasonable general aviation requirements in the future. It is therefore apparent that the Air Traffic Control and navigational aids are continually being up-dated to keep pace with the safety requirements dictated by the growth of the industry.

  1. There is no evidence to suggest that aircraft accidents can be attributed to a lack of uniformity in flight training methods. There has always been room for an individual approach to flight instruction and it would be undesirable for the Department to completely standardise instruction procedures in an attempt to enforce rigid methods on the industry. The Flight Instructors Manual, DCA Publication No. 45, is provided by the Department in order to standardise the general principles of safety in flying instruction. Flying training schools provide operations manuals relating to procedures for specific aircraft types and it is in this area where differences in operating details usually occur. These differences may cause some inconvenience to students transferring from one flying school to another during training but are not critical to safety. The main reason for the industry’s desire to standardise this section of flying school operations manuals is to provide reduction of frustration which minor differences in this nature may cause to the student concerned.

page 77

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

(Question No. 1034)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Has the Board of the Australian industry Dev elopment Corporation appointed an auditor; if so, whom?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied me with the following information:

The Australian Industry Development Corporation has appointed Edwin V. Nixon and Partners Arthur Young and Co. as its auditors.

page 77

QUESTION

MARGARINE

(Question No. 1037)

Senator WEBSTER:

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

  1. What is the quantity and value of margarine exported from Australia each year?
  2. What are the destinations of these exports?
  3. What are the various types and qualities of margarine exportaed?
  4. Does the Department inspect these exports for verification of quality and type?
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l), (2) and (3) The following tables show the quantity and value of margarine exported from Australia during the period 1967-68 to 1969-70, the destination of these exports, and the types of margarine exported.

page 78

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 1142)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen the statement by the New South Wales Minister for Lands, Mr Lewis, that it was ‘ridiculous and anachronistic’ to keep the Royal Australian Navy mothball fleet in Sydney Harbour?
  2. Does the Minister have any plans for removing this unsightly fleet to other moorings?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The RAN reserve ships HMAS ‘Tobruk’, Quiberon’, ‘Barcoo’ and ‘Kara Kara’ currently berthed at the Naval dolphins in Athol Bight in Sydney Harbour are to be disposed of as they have now reached the end of their useful lives. Various pieces of equipment will be removed for use as spare parts or for training purposes prior to the ships being declared by the Department of Supply for sale. The Department of Supply will then call tenders for purchase of the ships.

Until such time as the ships are actually sold they will remain at their present location in Sydney.

page 78

QUESTION

AIR TRAINING CORPS

(Question No. 1023)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice: (1)How many members of the Air Training Corps are there in Australia and where are Air Training Corps units situated?

  1. How many reserve officers and other ranks are associated with the Air Training Corps?
  2. How many permanent officers and other ranks are involved in Air Training Corps duties?
  3. What is the total cost to the Royal Australian Air Force in terms of clothing, equipment, administration, feeding and accommodation of Air Training Corps cadets in camp?
  4. What are the names of schools with Air Training Corps units and what are the sizes of these units?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. The establishment of the Air Training Corps in Australia is 6,500 cadets. The total squadron strengths at 28th February 1971 was 5,651 cadets.

It is normal at the beginning of the school year for A.T.C. strength to be down because cadets who reach the age of 18 during the year are discharged on 31st December. As the school year advances new recruits are enlisted and the normal working strength is approximately 6,150 cadets.

The flight locations are as follows:

North Queensland Air Training Corps

Headquarters situated at Townsville Establishment- 460

Strength- 370

No. 1 Flight- RAAF Townsville

No. 2 Flight - Townsville High School

No. 3 Flight - Ingham

No. 4 Flight - Cairns

No. 5 Flight - Mackay

No. 6 Flight - Mareeba

No. 7 Flight - Innisfail

No. 8 Flight - Townsville Grammar School

No. 9 Flight- Pimlico High School

No. 11 Flight- RAAF Townsville

Queensland Air Training Corps

Headquarters situated at Brisbane Establishment- 1 , 420

Strength- 1,390

No. 1 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 2 Flight - Brisbane Grammar School

No. 3 Flight - Church of England Grammar School

No. 4 Flight- Redcliffe State High School

No. 5 Flight - Gatton - Queensland Agricultural College

No. 6 Flight - Gympie

No. 7 Flight- Nambour State High School

No. 8 Flight- Amberly

No. 9 Flight- South Brisbane State High School

No. 10 Flight - Toowoomba

No. 11 Flight- Christian Brothers’ College

No. 12 Flight- Sandgate

No. 13 Flight - St Laurence’s College

No. 14 Flight - Brisbane Boys College

No. 15 Flight- Holland Park High School

No. 16 Flight - Maryborough

No. 17 Flight - Boys Grammar School Ipswich

No. 18 Flight- Corinda

No. 19 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 20 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

New South Wales Air Training Corps

Headquarters situated at Sydney Establishment - 1,620

Strength- 1,644

No. 1 Flight - Sydney Technical College

No. 2 Flight- Sydney Technical High School

No. 3 Flight - Camden

No. 4 Flight- Sydney Church of England Grammar School

No. 5 Flight - Frenchs Forest

No. 6 Flight - SydneyGrammar School

No. 7 Flight - No. 2 Stores Depot Bankstown

No. 8 Flight- The Scots College

No. 9 Flight- Canterbury High School

No. 10 Flight- Tamworth

No. 11 Flight - Homebush Boys High School

No. 12 Flight - Newington College

No. 13 Flight - Dubbo

No. 14 Flight - Wollongong

No. 15 Flight- RAAF Fairbairn

No. 16 Flight- Blacksmiths

No. 17 Flight- Taree

No. 18 Flight- Mascot

No. 19 Flight- Inverell

No. 20 Flight- Liverpool Boys High School

No. 21 Flight- Newcastle Boys High School

No. 22 Flight- West Ryde

No. 23 Flight- St Marys

New South Wales Air Training Corps

No. 24 Flight- Cleveland Street Boys High School

No. 25 Flight- Goulburn

No. 26 Flight - Lismore

No. 27 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 28 Flight- Bathurst

No. 29 Flight- Orange

No. 30 Flight- Manly Boys High School

Victorian Air Training Corps

Headquarters situated at Melbourne Establishment - 980

No. 1 Flight- RAAF Frognall

No. 2 Flight- Preston

No. 3 Flight- Brighton

No. 4 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 5 Flight- Preston

No. 6 Flight - Frankston

No. 9 Flight- RAAF East Sale

No. 11 Flight - Footscray

No. 14 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 15 Flight- Melbourne High School

No. 16 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 17 Flight - Brighton

No. 23 Flight- Mildura

No. 25 Flight- Ballarat

No. 26 Flight - Morwell

No. 27 Flight- Geelong

Tasmanian Air Training Corps

Headquarters situated at Hobart Establishment - 450

Strength- 269

No. 1 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 2 Flight - Launceston

No. 4 Flight- Burnie

No. 5 Flight- Claremont State High School

No. 6 Flight- Rose Bay High School

No. 8 Flight - Launceston

No. 10 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 11 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 12 Flight - Brooks High School Launceston

South Australian Air Training Corps

Headquarters situated at Adelaide Establishment- 480

Strength- 383

No. 1 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 2 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 3 Flight- Renmark

No. 4 Flight - Squadron Headquarters .

No. 5 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 6 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 7 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 8 Flight- Gawler

No. 9 Flight- St Peter’s College

No. 10 Flight- Westminster College

No. 11 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 12 Flight- Mount Gambier

No. 13 Flight- Penfield

No. 14 Flight- Mitchell Park Technical School

No. 1 Flight - Darwin

Western Australia Air Training Corps

Headquarters situated at Perth Establishment- 1,090

Strength- 830

No. 1 Flight- Wesley College

No. 2 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 3 Flight- Fremantle

No. 4 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 5 Flight- Albany

No. 7 Flight- Squadron Headquarters

No. 8 Flight-South Perth

Western Australia Air Training Corps

No. 9 Flight- Kalgoorlie

No. 10 Flight- Bunbury

No. 11 Flight- Scotch College

No. 12 Flight- Belmont

No. 13 Flight- Maddington

No. 14 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

No. 15 Flight- Belmont

No. 16 Flight - Squadron Headquarters

  1. The Royal Australian Air Force Reserve instructor strength at 31st March 1971 was 510 officers and 210 airmen.
  2. The number of Permanent Air Force staff currently employed at A.T.C. duties is 111 - 29 officers and 82 airmen.
  3. The estimated annual cost of maintain A.T.C. cadets in camps is assessed at $609,000 comprising:

The administration cost includes pay for Citizen Air Force instructors and casual civilian employees and fares for instructors and cadets to and from the camps.

page 80

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NAVY: OIL SPILLAGE

(Question No. 1073)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. When did the Royal Australian Navy first introduce a clean-up method of combat its own spillage mishaps?
  2. For how long has it used gamelin as a preparation to counter oil spillages?
  3. On whose advice was such a preparation procured?
  4. Does the Department of the Navy confer with the Department of Shipping and Transport on new techniques and preparations to combat oil spillage?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. About 15 years ago.
  2. For approximately 10 years up to 1970. A new product, Slickmulso, has recently been adopted.
  3. The Naval Technical Services.
  4. Yes.

page 80

QUESTION

NAVAL CADETS

(Question No. 1128)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

Have there been any, deaths by suicide of cadets at HMAS Leeuwin in the past 3 years; if so. how many have there been?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

There have been no deaths by suicide of cadets at HMAS Leeuwin in the past 3 years.

page 80

QUESTION

NAVAL CADETS

(Question No. 1138)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Will the Minister examine the role of psychiatry in the selection of cadet apprentices for the Royal Australian Navy, and consider the dismissal of the persons, presently responsible for the selection of cadets, who do not appear to be effective in their assessment of the personalities of prospective cadets?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

There are three forms of entry for young men: Firstly - As Cadet Midshipmen at the Royal

Australian Naval College at Jervis Bay where officer training is commenced.

Secondly - As Naval Artificer Apprentices at HMAS Nirimba, near Quakers Hill in Sydney - where all apprentice training is conducted.

Thirdly - As Junior Recruits at HMAS Leeuwin in Fremantle, Western Australia - where training as sailors commences.

Young men are tested with the forms of testing appropriate to the type of entry, undergo medical examinations and are interviewed by Recruiting Staff Officers and Psychologists before selections.

Psychiatry, as such, plays no part in the selection of young men entering the Navy.

Selections are done very carefully and only a proportion of those who apply are taken. For example, in 1970, a total of 18,558 men and women enquired about service in the RAN as sailors and WRANS. Of that number 6,910 applied, and from this number of applicants, 1,973 selections were made.

Selection procedures are closely watched and their predictive value followed up. They are considered satisfactory. Dismissal of any of those responsible for the selection of Naval Personnel is not contemplated.

page 80

QUESTION

LEGAL FEES

(Question No. 744)

Senator GEORGES:

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

What has been the total amount of legal fees paid to lawyers in private practice for work done on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Department for each of the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The amounts paid, including amounts paid in the nature of legal assistance to persons, is as follows:

page 80

QUESTION

VINCENT LIBRARY

(Question No. 779)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. What steps, if any, have been or are being taken by the Australian Council for the Arts to ensure that the newly founded Vincent Library of Australian films, being administered by the Australian Film Institute does not duplicate the work of the Film Division of the National Library of Australia, which has been actually collecting, preserving and distributing Australian films since the 1940s.
  2. What provisions have been made by the Australian Council for the Arts for the preservation of films, and material relating to them, produced by the Experimental Film and Television Fund.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister forthe Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am advised by the Australian Council for the Arts that:

The Vincent Library differs markedly from the Film Division of the Australian National Library in purpose and operation, and although it may be expected to hold a small number of films in common with the National Library, its specialist collection of Australian films will not duplicate the holdings of the National Library. The Vincent Library is designed as a distribution and exhibition service for the films it holds and is the principal exhibition outlet of the Council’s Experimental Fund. It will charge a rental fee for its services, part of which will be used to repay loans made from the Fund, and will actively seek to widen public interest in experimental films. It will promote the non-commercial screening of its films at schools, film societies and film festivals. It is expected to be a catalyst in the educational sphere and in the understanding of the art and technique of film-making. It is expected that consultation with the National Library in connection with distribution arrangements will avoid overlap in that area. The Vincent Library will also develop an active sales function and will aim to find outlets in commercial cinema and on television for the best of the experimental films. It is also hoped that the best of the films may be sold overseas.

Preservation copies of all films and film material made with the assistance of the Experimental Film and Television Fund will be held on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Vincent Library acting in conjunction with the Australian Council for the Arts. Steps are being taken to ensure that the National Library holds copies of selected films made with the assistance of the Fund.

page 81

QUESTION

NATIONAL LIBRARY

(Question No. 987)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minis ter for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. What steps have been taken to provide additional funds and full-time staff to place the Library’s film archives on an equal footing with film archives overseas in view of the apparent urgent needs of the National Library’s work of film preservation?
  2. What steps has the Government taken or does it consider taking to link the activities of the National Library’s film study collection and film archives with those of the National Film and Television Training School, where a collection of historical and contemporary study films will be necessary.
  3. Can the Minister explain the Government’s failure to finance and maintain national film archives comparable with overseas countries similar to Australia in population, in view of its professed interest in fostering the Australian film industry?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. In December 1970 the Council of the National Library undertook a review of the adequacy of the resources available to conduct the Library’s film archive activities. It was concluded that some increase in staff was necessary, but proposals for expansion are not being pursued at present having regard to current restrictions on Government spending. The National Library has expended funds on the copying of historical films up to the limit that could be handled by the staff available.
  2. The National Library provided a sum of $30,000 in 1970-71 for the purchase of film study material. This material is being acquired specifically with the National Film and Televison Training School in mind. Both the National Library and the Interim Council of the National Film and Televison Training School expect there to be close co-operation in this area when the School is set up.
  3. It is the intention that the National Library’s film resources should be brought to international standard just as soon as this is practicable, having regard to the availability of funds and overall priorities. Progress is already being made in this direction and the Library is actively engaged in seeking out film material for the archive. The Library is also engaged in planning nitrate and acetate film vaults to replace the temporary storage facilities currently being used.

page 81

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

(Question No. 995)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Post master-General, upon notice:

What was the report on the result of the study conducted by the University of Melbourne, referred to in paragraph 507 of the 22nd Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board relating to the part played by broadcasting and television in influencing the vote in the 1969 Federal Elections?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The study conducted by Professor S. B. Harmond of the University of Melbourne into changes in attitude of a group of young people between 1957 and 1967 was partly financed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Board’s main interest in supporting the research was the study of the role of broadcasting and television in the lives of those included in the sample in relation to their other leisure activities. This portion of the research will be published by the Board. The continuation of the study, dealing with the effect of the 2 media on the vote of the sample in the 1969 Federal Election is peripheral to the Board’s main interest and will not be published by the Board.

page 82

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

(Question No. 996)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Post master-General, upon notice:

  1. What further progress has been made to date by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to achieve greater independence of operation by country commercial broadcasting stations, referred to in paragraphs 248 and 249 of the Board’s 22nd Annual Report?
  2. Has the Board in recent years exercised its power to provide financial assistance and other assistance to commercial broadcasting stations for the purpose of ensuring that programmes of adequate extent, standard and variety are provided in the areas served by those stations; it so, what financial and other assistance has been provided.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. The trend towards greater independence of operation by several country stations which are connected with capital city stations, referred to by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its 22nd Annual Report (1969-70), has continued and additional local programming has been introduced at six of the twelve stations involved. Further preliminary plans have been reported, and I understand that the Board will be commenting on the matter in some detail in its next Annual Report.
  2. No. The Board has not regarded such assistance as being necessary.

page 82

QUESTION

TOMISLAV LESIC

(Question No. 1017)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Attorney-General the following question, upon notice:

  1. Has Tomislav Lesic, referred to in Question No. 948, sought to intimidate several Sydney bank officers of Serbian and Slovene origin?
  2. Did the Commonwealth Police investigate the matter?
  3. Will the Government consider placing Tomislav Lesic in a mental institution to avoid a repetition of incidents mentioned in (1), if it considers that legal action against him is inappropriate?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Tomislav Lesic, who appears to be identical with the person referred to in Question No. 948, was involved in an incident with an officer of the Migrant Information Service of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Market Street, Sydney, on 10th March 1971.
  2. Yes, following investigations which had been commenced by the New South Wales police. It is understood that both the bank officer and the bank have requested that no further police action be taken.
  3. As the matters referred to are governed by State law the question of action that may be taken is one for the State authorities.

page 82

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

(Question No. 1090)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Are sufficient telephone directories, including those for adjacent States, provided at the General Post Office, Sydney, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.; and how many telephones are available for both local and trunk calls.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

More than thirty public telephones and copies of all Australian telephone directories are available at the G.P.O. Sydney, to the public until 11 p.m. on normal days and until 12 midnight on days during holiday periods when there is an increased demand for public telephone service. On a normal day the area containing all but two multi-coin public telephones and six Sydney telephone directories is blocked off by a security grille from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. During this period, callers are invited by means of notices in the two cabinets to dial0175 and obtain, without charge, information about required numbers not in the Sydney directories.

A review of the existing arrangements has indicated that, while two public telephones are sufficient for the number of calls made, it would be more convenient for intending callers, when the security grille is closed, if copies of all Australian directories were made available to them. Action has therefore been taken to provide these directories at the nearby telegraph counter which is open continuously and a notice to this effect is now exhibited near the public telephones. The general position will be kept under notice and any further improvements in the arrangements which may be justified will be made.

page 82

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 1125)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Is the Australian Post Office’s main research laboratory studying the likely effects of huge coal dust clouds on the operation of the Maddern

Plains repeater station which is a link in the main Sydney-Melbourne telecommunications system; if so, what are the origins of the coal dust clouds.

  1. Can action be taken to stop the coal dust clouds if there is any likelihood of damage to the equipment.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. The main research laboratory of the” Post Office will, if necessary, study the likely effects of coal dust on the operation of the Maddern Plains repeater. The need for such studies will not be known until Cluiha Development Pty Ltd has completed its feasibility studies and developed firm proposals for the Burragorang-Coalcliff coal mining project. The coal dust in question would originate from the handling and stockpiling of coal in the vicinity of the Maddern Plains as part of the Clutha project.
  2. No known action is likely to be effective. It would be necessary to transfer the station to another location.

page 83

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1136)

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

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

Why have an average of 1,500 unsolicited Mauritians, i.e., Indians, been admitted into Australia each year for the last 5 years in view of the Government’s recent statement that selected Asians are admitted as migrants to Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The majority of people admitted to Australia from Mauritius as migrants are people of part European/part non-European descent.

Under policy which came into operation in September 1964, the eligibility of people of mixed descent for entry to Australia is dependent firstly on whether the applicant is judged to be capable of ready integration into the Australian community and secondly on whether:

  1. humanitarian considerations involving close family relationship or hardship on grounds of specific discrimination are present; or
  2. the applicant has special knowledge, experience or qualifications useful to Australia; or
  3. the applicant has the ability to make a contribution to Australia’s economic, social or cultural progress.

page 83

QUESTION

LEGAL AID

(Question No. 1170)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the

Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Does regulation 3 (1.) (b) of the Legal Aid Regulations, made pursuant to the Legal Prac titioners (Legal Aid) Act 1970 of the State of New South Wales, deny legal aid to a citizen in proceedings in a District Court, if the proceedings arise under an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament?
  2. Are proceedings under the Commonwealth Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1966 similarly excluded from the New South Wales legal aid provisions?
  3. Will the Attorney-General advise whether his Department will grant legal aid to citizens who qualify for assistance under the strict means test of the New South Wales Legal Practitioners (Legal Aid) Act 1970 but are denied legal aid because, (a) in their case the District Court has jurisdiction under an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament, or (b) their proceedings come within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Matrimonial Causes Act?
  4. What was the total cost of legal aid granted by the Commonwealth in each of the two Royal Commissions relating to H.M.A.S. Voyager?
  5. Was a means test applied to the recipients of legal aid in the two Royal Commissions relating to H.M.A.S. Voyager?
  6. What was the cost to the Commonwealth of legal aid in each Commonwealth Territory in each of the last 5 years?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Yes, in respect of applicants under that Act. However, the New South Wales Public Solicitor will give legal aid, subject to a means test, notwithstanding the proceedings arise under an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament.
  2. Yes, in respect of applicants under that Act, but again the New South Wales Public Solicitor will give legal aid, subject to a means test, where questions concerning property arise in the divorce proceedings.
  3. There is no provision for the granting of legal aid by the Commonwealth in the circumstances mentioned in the honourable senator’s question.
  4. First Royal Commission $61,665.86, Second Royal Commission $166,271.23.
  5. In the special circumstances of the two inquiries, no.
  6. The position in the two mainland Territories is as follows:

In addition, the following legal aid was given to the aboriginal plaintiffs in the Gove Peninsula Land Claims case:

None of these amounts include administrative costs, for which separate figures have not been kept. In so far as the question relates to other Territories the matter is one for the Minister for External Territories.

page 84

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIGHT: On 28th April 1971 Senator Milliner asked me the following question: ls the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science aware that for some time in 1970, the University of Queensland, on a head count, was the largest university in Australia? Despite that fact, for a long time it has been the university- with the lowest financial provision per student in Australia. Could the Minister explain the reason for this anomalous position?

In my reply I said that I would draw the question to the attention of the Department of Education and Science. The Minister for Education and Science has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

On the basis of the enrolments for the 1970-72 triennium that were anticipated when the grants for the triennium were’ fixed for all universities in 1969, the grants for the University of Queensland, if expressed in terms of grants per equivalent fulltime student, were comparable with those provided for other universities of similar size. However, if the grants are expressed in terms of a head count, those for the University of Queensland are lower than those for other large universities, firstly, because the University of Queensland has a high proportion of part-time students for whom the recurrent costs are approximately onehalf of the recurrent costs for a full-time student, and secondly, because the University of Queensland, unlike the other large universities, imposes very little restriction on the admission of students with the result that the actual student numbers in 1970 and 1971 have exceeded the estimates for those years made in 1969.

page 84

QUESTION

JAPAN

While it may be true that Japan spends only one 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 rearming of Japan have been made by the Government of the United States of America since the end of World War 11? Will the Minister inform the Senate the total amount of United States contributions to Japanese re-armament since the end of World War II?

In my reply I undertook to obtain additional information on this subject. I now wish to advise you that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following information:

Between 1946 and 1970 the United States provided Japan with military assistance to the total value of $US1,131.6m. Of this, SA855.1m was in direct grant form $A34.8m in credit sales and $A24I.7m in cash sales.

Grants and credit sales were mainly concentrated in the 1950’s. They were phased out during the 1960’s and were completely terminated in 1968. Since then, only cash sales of military equipment have been made to Japan. It is estimated that in the 1971 financial year the total value of United States cash sales of military equipment to Japan will be SUS48.0m, and in the 1972 financial year, $S0.6m.

The main components of United States military assistance to Japan between 1946 and 1970 were: Naval vessels $55m; vehicles ‘and weapons $340m; missiles $28m; and training $32m.

page 84

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WRIGHT on 13 th May Senator Willesee asked me the following question without notice:

To pursue the question I asked of the Minister for Civil Aviation, perhaps I could put the second part of it to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs because Senator Cotton did not advert to it. Did the Department of Foreign Affairs receive a diplomatic note from the United States Department on the subject I just asked Senator Cotton about?

I said that I regretted that I did not have the information to enable me to say whether that was so and that I would enquire and let the honourable senator know as soon as possible. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer:

The Embassy of the United States of America delivered a Note on the subject of the United States/Australia Air Services Agreement on 8th April 1971 to the Department of Foreign Affairs. A reply to this Note was made on 29 9th May 1971.

page 84

QUESTION

VISAS

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 13th May Senator Bishop asked the following question without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to difficulties which are experienced by Canberra citizens in obtaining visas from the American Embassy and the representations which have been made by a number of community groups, including tourist agencies in Canberra, to the American Embassy. Will the Minister ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make representations to the American Embassy to see whether it is possible for visas to be supplied in Canberra? At the present they are supplied in Sydney, a practice which occasions delays of up to a fortnight because of the correspondence and paper work involved.

I replied as follows:

I shall certainly be pleased to have the matter examined. If inconvenience is being caused, I have no doubt that we will endeavour to facilitate the issue of visas in Sydney,

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following information:

This matter was raised by the ACT Advisory Board on Tourism in March of this year.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has since discussed the matter with the Embassy of the United States of America. The Department was informed that under normal circumstances nonimmigrant visa applications by residents of the Australian Capital Territory are processed and posted within 24 hours of receipt by the United States Consulate-General in Sydney.

The Embassy has pointed out that United States Consulates issue visas in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth where the major volumes of applications arc lodged. This represents a greater number of visa-issuing centres than that provided by most of the Governments represented in Australia.

page 85

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 13th May 1971 Senator McClelland asked me the following question:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. I ask:

Has the Minister seen a statement attributed to the New South Wales President of the Returned Services League that national servicemen who have been conscripted by the Government to fight in Vietnam and who, upon their return to Australia, have sought entry to a university are finding difficulty in gaining admission? Will the Minister undertake to raise this matter with the universities to see whether national servicemen are finding difficulty in gaining admission to a university, and if so, will he take steps to ensure- that these young men are given every assistance to reestablish themselves in civilian life?

In my reply, 1 explained that the statement had only just come to my notice and that I had noted the matter for immediate attention.

The Minister for Education and Science has now provided me with the following advice:

As universities are autonomous bodies, enrolment at any university is determined in accordance with that university’s policy governing entry requirements; and some universities have special provisions relating to the admission of persons who have engaged In war service and/or national service training. It is my experience that the universities act wilh great responsibility in this matter.

page 85

QUESTION

CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 14th May 1971 Senator Davidson asked me a question on Conversion to the Metric System. The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply:

The metric system in its totality is much more extensive than the decimal currency, system because it relates to all the measurements of physical quantities which we have need to use for technical, scientific and everyday purposes, such as measurements of length, volume, pressure, temperature and energy, whereas the decimal currency system involves only 2 units - the dollar and the cent. However because the metric system like our currency system is decimally based and has been devised in accordance with simple uniform rules, it is a very easy, system to learn, certainly very much easier than is the task newcomers to this country face when learning our present conglomeration of units of measurement which relate to one another in a complex and unsystematic manner.

The change will extend over a much wider and more diversified field than decimal currency and most of the units will be of concern only to those needing to use them for professional, technical or industrial activities. Those that will affect most people in their daily lives are few in numberprincipally those of length, mass and volume.

Again the impact of the change will be much less intense than it was with the currency change because it will be spread over a much longer period during which gradual exposure of the general public - the consumer, the housewife, the motorist - to metric weights and measures will result in recognition and acceptance of the change without serious difficulties of comprehension. Experience in countries where the change has been completed recently, such as India and Japan, has confirmed that this is so.

The Metric Conversion Board was established under the Metric Conversion Act to advise and make recommendations to me regarding the attainment of the object of the Act which is to bring about progressively the use of the metric system of measurements in Australia as the sole system of measurement of physical quantities. The Board has been charged with helping to plan, guide and facilitate the change. To assist it in doing this it has established an extensive system of committees, the members of which are leaders in their own fields to advise regarding the formulation of plans for conversion throughout the whole spectrum of activities in the community.

Under the guidance of the Board these committees are preparing detailed and co-ordinated plans for orderly conversion to the metric system. This will ensure that the proposals for conversion in each sector are initiated by those who will be directly concerned in their implementation. Such a procedure is obviously desirable for a change which is to be effected predominantly on a voluntary basis.

The decision to change to the metric system was made in recognition of the considerable benefits which will follow the change, that it was in any case inevitable having regard to the world situation in which the United States of America is now the only non-metric country, not committed to the change, and that the longer it is delayed the greater will be the costs.

If the benefits of conversion are to become available as widely and as quickly as possible it should proceed simultaneously in all sectors of the community, each at its optimum rate and the Board’s planning is on this basis.

I understand the Board hopes to submit to me before the end of the year programs for conversion in a number of key sectors and that, if adopted, their implementation could commence in 1972 so that by 1973 active conversion would be proceeding in many sectors of the community. In addition it must be recognised that many industrial and other establishments are already, embarking on their own programmes so that during the next year the community will be increasingly exposed to metric units but not, I believe, in such a way as to disadvantage it or to cause significant inconvenience.

There is in this operation not one ‘M’ day, indeed in some sectors such as the pharmaceutical sector the change is already effectively completed. However as changes of interest or concern to the general public and to particular sectors of it are due to occur, special measures will be taken to ensure that those concerned are fully informed and if need be instructed through the use of special publications, technical and professional journals and news media and the professional and trade organisations which are themselves through their members even now involved in helping to plan the change.

The Board has produced a brochure dealing with its initial proposals for metric conversion in this country which I expect to be issued very shortly and the Board will be following this with a regularly-issued news-sheet.

Effective communication is recognised as a primary, requirement for the conversion operation and it will be a major aim of the Board to achieve this.

page 86

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 6th May Senator Hannan asked me a question without notice in which he asked:

Is it a fact that the Australian Industry Development Corporation has been engaging staff? If so, what is the total weekly wage bill for the Corporation? What are the salaries paid individually? What are the classifications of the people receiving those salaries? Has the AIDC commenced the investigation of applications for funds? Has the AIDC been given any economy direction by the Government in respect of the control of its expenses?

I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Trade and Industry who has provided me with the following reply:

The Australian Industry Development Corporation Act provides that the control and management of the Corporation are vested in a Board of Directors of the Corporation. In the exercise of its powers the Corporation is not subject to direction by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. No directions have been given to the Corporation other than those clearly set out in the Act.

The Board of Directors consists of eminent persons, widely experienced in business and public service, who are of unquestionable integrity and probity. The Board is required to submit a report annually to the Minister on the operations of the Corporation during each year, together with properly audited statements in such form as the Treasurer approves. The annual report and financial statements are required to be laid before each House of the Parliament by the Minister and this will be done.

page 86

QUESTION

TAIWAN

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 17th May Senator Buttfield addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, the following question without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry and has particular reference to those honourable senators who claim that Taiwan-Australia interests should be submerged for those of Red China and Australia in the recognition of Red China. Is it a fact that the United States Ambassador in Taiwan has publicly predicted that Taiwan’s international trade volume may be equal ‘ to or in excess of that of Mainland China in 2 or 3 years’ time? Is it a fact that, taking 1968 as a base year, Taiwan increased its international trade 33 per cent last year and by 23.9 per cent in 1969 while Mainland China increased its trade by 6.3 per cent in 1969 and S.8 per cent last year? Can the Minister give similar figures for the volumes and growth rates of trade between Taiwan and Australia and Red China and Australia?

The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answers to the questions:

  1. I understand that die United States Ambassador to the Republic of China said, when addressing the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, that the Republic of China’s total trade volume may be equal to, or larger than, that of the People’s Republic of China within 2 or 3 years.
  2. The Republic of China’s international trade increased by 34 per cent (exports by 33 per cent, imports by 35 per cent) from 1968 to 1969. I understand that figures for 1970 have not yet been received by the Department of Trade and Industry.
  3. Trade statistics are not published by the People’s Republic of China and can be obtained only on a derived basis from statistics reported by other countries. Some countries do not report trade statistics with the People’s Republic of China and therefore total People’s Republic of China trade can only be an estimate. However, allowing for these assumptions, it would appear that the People’s Republic of China’s total trade increased by approximately 7 .per cent in 1969 compared with 1968.
  4. Australia’s trade with the Republic of China increased by 29 per cent in 1969 (exports by 26 per cent, imports by 37 per cent) and by 27 per cent in 1970 (exports by 24 per cent, imports by 33 per cent). Australia’s trade with the People’s Republic of China increased by 29 per cent in 1969 ‘(exports by 34 per cent, imports by 14 per cent) and by 7 per cent in 1970 (exports by 8 per cent, imports by 3 per cent).
  5. As requested by Senator Cant in a later question on 17th May, I asked the Minister for a list of goods on which trade is restricted with the People’s Republic of China. On 31st May. the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry announced that the revised list of goods subject to strategic export controls would be available from Offices of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Customs and Excise in Canberra and the capital cities on 1st June 1971. The products remaining under export control for the People’s Republic of China will now be the same as those under export control for the European Communist countries, excluding Yugoslavia. Further, I have obtained the following trade statistics of Australia’s trade with the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China for the interest of senators.

page 87

QUESTION

MACKAY: TIDE MOVEMENTS

(Question No. 1081)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. What is the maximum tidal surge for which the new wharf at Hay Point, via Mackay, has been designed to withstand?
  2. What has been the highest tidal surge recorded in the Mackay region?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. I am informed that the Hay Point Wharf has been designed for a 9 feet non-breaking wave super-imposed on a storm (tidal) surge of 11 feet 6 inches.
  2. The maximum storm (tidal) surge at Mackay was registered in 1918 at 11 feet 6 inches.

page 87

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD: SALE OF AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1197)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Civil Aviation, upon notice:

What was the unexpired period of the Certificate of Airworthiness of each of the six D.C.3 aircraft purchased by the Government from Jetair Australia Ltd?

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

When the six D.C.3 aircraft were purchased by the Government’ from Jetair Australia Ltd their respective Certificates of Airworthiness were valid to the dates indicated below subject to the aircraft being maintained in’ accordance with inspection and maintenance schedules approved by the Department of Civil Aviation:

VH-BUR to 3rd September 1978

VH-EQB to 10th September 1978

VH-EQN to 15th April 1979

VH-EQO to 31st May 1979

VH-SEN to 30th December 1978

VH-TAI to 15th October 1978.

The schedules approved for the D.C.3 aircraft operated by Jetair Australia Ltd required each aircraft to be maintained in accordance with an approved maintenance schedule which included specified inspections at the completion of every 100 hours of operation. The continued airworthiness of each aircraft is dependent upon the aircraft being operated to the approved operations manual and maintained to the approved maintenance manual. When such maintenance as is found necessary to maintain the airworthiness of the aircraft concerned is completed, a Maintenance Release is issued certifying that the aircraft is considered airworthy for a further period.

These aircraft are now no longer being operated or maintained under the Jetair approved manuals and therefore have not been subjected to the maintenance release certifying process described. Since the aircraft were purchased by the Government the Department of Civil Aviation has not been involved in assessing the maintenance status of the aircraft and therefore the unexpired periods of the Certificates of Airworthiness are only book entries and do not in themselves reflect the airworthiness or otherwise of the aircraft. The aircraft are currently being overhauled prior to delivery.

page 87

QUESTION

ROADS

(Question No. 1190)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Do figures, recently released by the Australian Road Research Board, show that Commonwealth expenditure on roads has fallen from -85 per cent of the sum collected in fuel tax in 1963 to 73 per cent in 1969?
  2. Does the Minister agree with the prediction of the Board that the share of fuel tax to be spent on roads will fall well below its current level of 73 per cent. If so, is this trend the result of Government policy?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes. However the figures published by the Australian Road Research Board convey the impression of a relationship between Commonwealth grants for road works and amounts collected from fuel taxes.

There is no such association. The Government takes the view that it is unsound practice to allocate the proceeds of any one tax to a particular class of expenditure. To do so would cut across the fundamental budgetary principle that all government receipts should be paid into a common account. From this account particular expenditures can be met only with the approval of Parliament under the annual votes or special appropriations.

  1. When formulating the current Commonwealth Aid Roads legislation, which is operative until 1973-74, the Commonwealth had the benefit of a comprehensive survey of road needs prepared by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in conjunction with the State Road Authorities.

The Bureau’s recommendations were based on the economic returns expected from investment in roads, and the resources available to do the work. As already mentioned, the relationship to fuel tax collections is not relevant.

page 88

QUESTION

GEOPHYSICISTS

(Question No. 1182)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. What salaries, on average are paid to geophysicists in the Commonwealth Bureau of Mineral Resources who have, respectively 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 years and more than 14 years of professional experience since taking their first pass or honours bachelor degree?
  2. In what way do these salaries reflect higher degree qualifications?
  3. Have there been changes in the salaries received by geophysicists in the Geological Survey of New South Wales?
  4. Will the Minister provide salary tables, comparative to those requested in (1) and (2) above, concerning geophysicists employed in the Geological Survey of New South Wales?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The work undertaken by Geophysicists in the Bureau of Mineral Resources is encompassed in a 5 class structure. The rates for each of these classes, which are currently, the subject of a public hearing before the commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, are as follows:

Geophysicist Class 1- $3957$4099$4466$4833$5252$5727$6202

Geophysicist Class 2-$6520-$6788-$7055-$7322

Geophysicist Class 3- $7700-$8013-$8326-$8639

Geophysicist Class 4- $9029-$9346-$9663

Geophysicist Class 5- $9987-$ 10,3 13-$ 1 0,638

The above rates are applicable to males only. Under the system of the phased introduction of equal pay determined by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and applied in the Commonwealth Service, female Geophysicists are currently in receipt of 95 per cent of the appropriate male rate or $428 less than the appropriate male rate whichever is the higher salary. As from the beginning of the first pay, period commencing on or after 1st January 1972, female Geophysicists will receive the same rates of pay as male Geophysicists.

The attached table indicates the average annual salaries paid to Geophysicsts employed at 31st May 1971 by the Bureau of Mineral Resources.

  1. Special commencing rates are provided in the Geophysicist Class 1 range for persons having completed a 3 year degree (currently $4099 male; $3894 female) and a 4 or 5 year degree course (currently $4466 male; $4243 female). In addition there is an educational allowance system based on the Class or level of degree held which has wide application in the Third Division. Geophysicists Class 1 are entitled to receive an allowance under this system at any time when the relevant level of remuneration prescribed is higher than their salary entitlements as a Geophysicist Class 1. Minimum levels of remuneration currently prescribed are as follows:
  1. I understand that salaries of Geophysicists In the Geological Survey of New South Wales have been increased this year.
  2. The Geological Survey of New South Wales is a State Government organisation and I do not, therefore, have details of salaries paid to the individual officers of that organisation. Consequently, I am unable to provide the information requested in this part of the question.

page 89

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1091)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

How many eligible persons failed to attend for medical examination as required by the National Service Act during the past 3 years?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Men who fail to attend when required for medical examination without prior notification to the Registrar for National Service, are normally sent a notice to attend on a later date together with advice of the penalty for non-attendance provided in the National Service Act. Cases of continued failure or refusal are investigated and men prosecuted where this is warranted.

In the 3 years to 30th June 1971, 69,408 men were medically examined and 55 prosecuted for failure to report for medical examination.

page 89

TRADE UNION ORGANISATIONS

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following letter from Senator Kane: 13th August, 1971

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, I intend to move on Wednesday,18th August - That the Senate, at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at 10.55 a.m. - for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely:

The developing practice of using industrial Trade Union organisations to effect purposes of a political character, not designed to or having the effect of improving the industrial conditions of the members of these organisations and not directly and immediately related to industrial issues but for the purpose of affecting political decisions, properly resting within the Constitu tional power of the Commonwealth through its elected Parliament and its instrumentalities and thus usurping the functions of Government.

Yours sincerely, J. T. KANE

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

– I move:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.55 a.m.

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

The developing practice of using industrial Trade Union organisations to effect purposes of a political character, not designed to or having the effect of improvingthe industrial conditions of the members of these organisations and not directly and immediately related to industrial issues but for the purpose of affecting political decisions, properly resting within the Constitutional power of the Commonwealth through its elected Parliament and its instrumentalities and thus usurping the functions of Government.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Senator KANE:

– In moving this motion I feel it is important at the outset to clarify its terms and intention. It is equally important to clarify beyond all doubt those areas of trade union activities which lie outside the purpose of this motion. The motion refers to industrial trade union organisations. This description, in the view of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, applies to trade unions, their role and proper purposes. No-one who has studied the history of their formation and growth can deny the vital role that trade unions have played in improving the conditions and status of working people.

Formed in the wake of the Industrial Revolution at a time when the human dignity of the worker had no champion or organised strength to defend it, the trade unions within a century achieved a transformation no less dramatic than the Industrial Revolution which gave them birth.

Senator Cant:

– Mr Deputy President, I rise to a point of order. I ask whether it is in order for the honourable senator to read his speech.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Standing Order 406 forbids it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - The practice of the Senate, as we all know, is that a speech should not be read, but there has been ample precedent for the use of copious notes so that a speaker may follow a determined line. Therefore, within that limitation, Senator Kane may proceed.

Senator KANE:

– Thank you.

Senator Gair:

– Senator Cant could not read it.

Senator Cant:

– That is not the point, lt is not I who am wanting to read it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Senator Cant, are you challenging the decision?

Senator Cant:

– Yes, Mr Deputy President. I disagree with your ruling. I appreciate that there are people within the Senale who do speak from copious notes, but copious notes cannot be a blindfold for the direct reading of a speech.

Senator Gair:

– What did you do last night? You read and read.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Cant cannot canvass the ruling I have given.

Senator Cant:

– Mr Deputy President

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Are you speaking to another point of order?

Senator Cant:

– No, Mr Deputy President. What is the position if I want to disagree with your ruling?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You are at perfect liberty to do so. I. call Senator Kane.

Senator KANE:

– Mr Deputy President, 1 was saying that the trade unions were formed in the wake of the Industrial Revolution at a time when the human dignity of the worker had no champion or organised strength to defend it. Within a century the trade unions achieved a transformation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise to order, and 1 would appreciate some order while I state my point of order. 1 draw attention to standing order 406 which was referred to by Senator Cant. I appreciate and accept your ruling, Mr Deputy President, that copious notes have been used and may be used, but r would ask you to observe Senator Kane’s method of delivery to see whether he is not deliberately flouting the ruling you have just given.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I appreciate the advice, but this is not the normal procedure. I shall observe, as is the custom of the Chair, the way in which the speech is delivered.

Senator KANE:

– I was saying that the trade unions had within a century achieved a transformation no less dramatic than that which resulted from the Industrial Revolution. At the time of the foundation of the unions in England and Australia the founders had a very important choice to make. They could use the growing strength and organisation of these bodies to create dissent, violent agitation and revolution against the state or they could proceed within the framework of the British parliamentary system. At the time of which I am speaking the British parliamentary system was far from perfect. The Parliament was elected by restrictive franchise and it was not fully democratic in the modern sense. The wealthy and economically privileged were firmly entrenched in office and representation of the nation as a whole was far from adequate. Our parliamentary system through its gradual evolution has become a tribute to the Anglo-Saxon genius for compromise and gradual progress.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator should be careful that he does not lose his place.

Senator KANE:

– I am upsetting my friend Senator Cavanagh. I suggest that he be patient. I am sure that he will become a little more upset as 1 proceed. I was saying that the founders of Anglo-Australian trade unionism had two choices. The first was to agitate and to protest, the end result of which would have been revolution, and the alternative was to operate through the parliament. They chose to operate through the parliament. There can be no doubt that these men possessed a thirst for justice and progress, but with progress and the growth of industrial power came great responsibility. They recognised in the Parliament, imperfect though it was, the nation’s highest forum for debate, decision and authority.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Next page.

Senator KANE:

– Thank you, Senator Cavanagh. They accepted the parliamentary system and they shaped the role of the trade unions to operate within that parliamentary system. Ultimately the unions decided to have their own political voice, as a result of which they formed the Labor Party. If Senator Cavanagh reads the history of the time of the collapse of the great strike in 1890 he will learn that at a meeting in the Sydney Trades Hall the Trades Hall Council, as it was - or Labour Council - took a decision to form what was until about IS years ago the Labor Party.

Senator Cant:

– Australian Labor Party.

Senator Gair:

– The Australian Labor Party did not come into existence until after the First World War.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!

Senator KANE:

– 1 think the resolution of the Trades Hall Council at that time went something like this: The trumpet notes at which the barriers will fall are essentially political. It said that they must set about the work of reform in the place where reforms can be won, that is, in the Houses of Parliament. Undoubtedly the leaders of the trade union movement at that time formed the Labor Party. For Senator Cant’s information I point out that it was not called the Australian Labour Party. At that time it was referred to as political labour leagues. It was a recognition by leaders in the trade union movement that the use of their collective industrial power was limited strictly to industrial issues. Strikes and bans were confined to questions of wages and conditions related directly to their members and their working welfare. The role of Parliament was recognised and respected. It was accepted that, issues affecting the nation as a whole were for Parliament to debate and decide, if the Parliament failed in its task the growing franchise, which by this time had been extended to every citizen, could be used to censure and, indeed, to remove a government.

Unions today are highly industrialised in a country such as Australia and they have enormous power for influence on the national economy and the lives and living standards of all our citizens. Irresponsibly used, strikes and stoppages on whatever pretext can inflict great economic wounds on the whole nation in terms of irreplacably lost production, lost wages and rising costs and prices. I remind the Senate that in the first 5 months of 1971 workers alone were estimated to have lost $18m in wages. At this rate the loss for the 12 months will amount to $43m.

Senator Cant:

– The honourable senator is a bit out of date with figures going only to May. Was that when the speech was written for him?

Senator KANE:

– The honourable senator should hold his horses for a moment. If this rate of loss continues they will have lost $43m by the end of this year. I do not mention the cost in loss of production because i want to stress the losses suffered by workers. Senator Georges who is trying to interrupt was probably never a worker. Perhaps I could add that the by-election for the State seat of Maryborough, with which Senator Georges is no doubt familiar, showed very clearly what the workers thought of this misuse of political power. I remind my friend that the seat of Maryborough was held by Labor for 70 years, except for the 3 years when the Moore Government was in office, and that at the by-election there was a swing of 14 per cent against Senator Georges’ Party. I emphasise the loss in wages because 1 want to emphasise the loss to wage earners. Lost wages affect not the bosses but the very men, their wives and families, whom the trade unions claim to defend.

How often in strike decisions such as these are the rank and file members of the union consulted? All too frequently the union bureaucracy calls a strike and relies on the union’s solidarity and coercive power to give it effect. I have spent almost a lifetime in the Labor movement and in the unions, and nobody appreciates mont than I the necessity for the unionist to have the right to strike in order to better his working conditions and improve his wage earnings. But the use of political strikes is outside the role of trade unions. I am sure I will upset some of my Senate colleagues on the Opposition side at a later stage in my speech when I quote what their very eminent leader at one time said about strikes. I refer to the late Dr Evatt. If they want to get excited I suggest that they hold their horses until I reach that stage in my address.

I now take the opportunity to mention some of the political strikes. I say that they were not designed to improve working conditions or to get higher wages. They were simply and purely political strikes aimed at the very power and authority of government. I will now cite some recent examples. On 4th September 1970 the Waterside Workers Federation struck over the case of ‘Bunna’ Walsh. It will be recalled that Mr Walsh was prevented from taking his seat in the Victorian State Parliament because of his failure to reveal a conviction for an offence committed some years earlier. It is worth recalling that his exclusion subsequently was upheld in the courts. On 18th September 1970 the maritime and building groups of unions ceased work in support of the Victorian moratorium. On 2nd February 1971 the Australian Builders Labourers Federation struck over the arrest of Norman Gallagher, a Communist union official who was arrested on a charge of physical assault. On 14th February 1971 and again on 25th March 1971 the seamens and waterside workers unions held stoppages of various types to protest against the Greek Government.

Senator Georges:

– Why not? There are no unions m Greece.

Senator KANE:

– Senator Georges obviously does not understand what is meant by trade unionism. On 21st July 1971 the Queensland Trades and Labour Council called a State-wide 24- hour stoppage in protest against the State Government’s declaration of a state of emergency over the visit of the Springboks. I remind my Senate colleagues from Queensland that the by-elections held at that time clearly revealed the attitude of the Australian people towards this wrongful use of union power. In 1970 there were also union bans designed to prevent the export from Australia of merino rams. Every one of the incidents in the list I have - it is far from exhausted - represents a politcal stoppage. In no case did the stoppage involve an economic issue with any employer. In fact, in each case the socalled dispute was incapable of being solved by consultation between the unions and the employers.

The Democratic Labor Party submits that such political strikes cause not only economic damage, loss of wages and public inconvenience but, more seriously, they pervert the real role of trade unionism. They go further still; they amount, in fact, to a usurpation of powers specifically entrusted by the Commonwealth Constitution to the Commonwealth Parliament, and to it alone. Section 51 (i) of the Constitution reserves to this Parliament the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to trade and commerce’. Section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution deals with the external affairs power in a similar way. Clearly, then, political stoppages and bans of the kind I mentioned amount to trade unions and their officials attempting to ursurp or impede the constitutional powers of this Parliament. Clearly, then, in the view of the Democratic Labor Party, the Government should act quite firmly against this illegal presumption. By doing so it will not only protect the authority of this Parliament but also defend our democratic system against those determined to destroy it.

It might be asked: What can the Government do? All that the Government needs to do is what Dr Evatt did in 1947. There exists already on our statute book an Act of Parliament designed to prevent union usurpation of the Commonwealth defence powers. I refer to an Act providing for ‘the protection of the approved Defence Projects’ - I am sure Senator Cavanagh will know something about this - ‘and for other purposes’. It was passed in 1947 by the Chifley Labor Government when the late Dr Evatt was Attorney-General.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You supported it.

Senator KANE:

– Yes, I did support it. The Act was passed following an attempt by certain Communist controlled unions to bring about a black ban on the long range weapon project in Central Australia. I commend to honourable senators a printed defence by Dr Evatt of the Government’s stand. This document is entitled ‘Hands Off the Nation’s Defences’. Perhaps Senator Cavanagh ought to get a copy.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I have several.

Senator KANE:

– If the honourable senator has a copy I suggest he turn to page 5 on which are outlined the purposes of the Act. It says:

The Act makes it an offence without reasonable cause or excuse, by boycott or threat of boycott, to prevent, hinder or obstruct, or to attempt to prevent, hinder or obstruct the carrying out of an approved Defence Project as defined or to publish any declaration of such a boycott or threat of such a boycott. It also prohibits the advocacy or encouragement by speech or writing, without reasonable cause or excuse, of the prevention, hindrance or obstruction or the carrying out of any such project.

It further makes it an offence to prevent, hinder or obstruct the carrying out of any such projects by violence or threat of violence or other unlawful means.

I remind the Senate that the penalties authorised by the Act introduced by Dr Evatt ranged from fines of $1,000 to $10,000 or imprisonment for 6 months or both. Dr Evatt went on to describe the Act. In describing it he said:

It is said that the Act is aimed against the Trade Unions and the right of unionists to organise and if necessary to strike for improved conditions. This statement is utterly false. A strike is an action by workers to improve their industrial - conditions. But a boycott or black ban of the character contemplated by the Act is not for the industrial purpose of improving the conditions of workers, but for the seditious purpose of sabotaging the Defence Policy of the Government and the Parliament.

The Act did not restrict in any way the freedom to criticise the adoption by the Government of any project, but it did prescribe unlawful acts against the power of the Commonwealth. I would suggest that all the Government needs to do is to take Dr Evatt’s Bill of 1947 and change the words as I have outlined, and in that it will have the very Act necessary to prohibit the misuse of union power. I commend what I have said to the Senate. I certainly commend to the Government the Act introduced by Dr Evatt in 1947.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. Senator Kane quoted from a document, including lengthy quotations from

Dr Evatt’s booklet, about which I am concerned. I therefore move:

That the document be tabled.

Senator Cant:

– I second the motion.

Senator Little:

– Before the motion is put, if it is carried does this mean that the document has to be tabled immediately or can it be tabled at the conclusion of the debate? I desire to use it in the course of the debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! In the event of the motion being carried, if you should desire to avail yourself of the documents you may do so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Wright) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Murphy from taking 30 minutes in his reply to Senator Kane.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– The proposition contained in the motion reveals a lack of understanding of the role of trade unions in society. The substance of the motion does not deal merely with strikes and stoppages; it goes much wider than that. If it were carried it would mean that the trade union movement would be reduced to impotence. The motion states:

The developing practice of using industrial Trade Union organisations to effect purposes of a political character, not designed to or. having the effect of improving the industrial conditions of the members of these organisations and not directly and immediately related to industrial issues but for the purpose of affecting political decisions. . . .

The trade union movement is part of the political process of this community. Not only in Australia but all over the world trade unions take part in the political decisions which are made, including those which are not related immediate.ly to wages and conditions. That is part of our history. I am astonished to learn that anything to the contrary would be suggested. One should remember the Tolpuddle martyrs and also that in ancient times the associations of workers were concerned not only with wages and conditions but also with political matters.

This matter has been dealt with in depth in Australia in recent years. The right of the trade unions to engage in political decision making and to pursue political purposes was the subject of challenge in this community not so long ago. That challenge was resolved in the High Court. In a case in which one of our colleagues figured very prominently, the High Court decided that trade unions had the right to pursue political purposes and to impose political levies on their members in order to pursue those political purposes. That was the great case of Hursey and Williams. I suggest that those members who heard the suggestions that the trade unions cannot and should not do this refer to the case of Williams and Hursey, which’ is reported in 103 Commonwealth Law Reports. If one reads especially the passages at page 58 and 59 one sees that the High Court rejected the proposition that the trade union movement should not be permitted to pursue political purposes. The quotations from the judgment show, for example, that the writers of legitimate trade union history, one of whom was Hancock, said that an original development of trade unionism in Australia was its decision in the 80s of last century to play a direct part in politics. Further quotations from writers show that the decade 1880-1890 was a decade of industrial conflicts, often culminating in strikes, in all the Australian colonies. Out of that arose the decision of the trade union movement to establish political parties, lt is right that they were called by various names, but they eventually became the great Australian Labor Party.

The trade union movement still is an integral part of the Australian Labor Party. Delegates are sent by the trade unions to the Australian Labor Party conferences. Those delegations form part of its various councils and bodies.

Senator Byrne:

– Does that not mean that the trade union movement put aside the trade unions as a political weapon and fashioned a political weapon?

Senator MURPHY:

– The question almost answers itself.. The delegates are sent by the trade unions to the Australian Labor Party conferences. They take part in the formation of decisions on social and economic matters. They leave there, as do the other delegates who come from branches and leagues, and endeavour in every manner possible to see that the decisions are carried out. That is part of the duty of the trade unions which help to formulate the social and economic policies. What would they be doing in the Australian Labor Party if it was not part of their function not only to participate in the making of decisions but also to see that those decisions were carried out? That is the role of the trade unions in Australia. It is an accepted role, it is a proper role and it is a lawful role, as has been declared by the High Court of Australia. The High Court rejected the proposition that for trade unions to engage in these political activities was in some way illegal. It is absurd to suggest that it is. It has been suggested here that in some way the trade unions must retreat and be concerned only with wages and conditions.

Not only do the trade unions affiliate with the Australian Labor Party but - and it may well still be so - there was a very small number of trade unions actually affiliated with the Democratic Labor Party. In Victoria for some time the Victorian branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia and the Victorian branch of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia - and there may be others - were affiliated with the Democratic Labor Party. I do not know the present position. It is clear that it is pari of the traditional role of the trade unions to be concerned with political matters, even those unassociated with wages and conditions. Is this not reasonable? We have great associations of workers which under the laws of the Commonwealth are conducted in an extremely democratic manner, in which the members must have control of their committees of management, and in which there are all sorts of provisions for secret ballots and election of members. It is reasonable and natural that in this community they should take part in the democratic process.

Yet here we have a proposition which points to the developing practice of using industrial trade union organisations to effect purposes of a political character. Of course they should be used for that purpose and it is recognised that they should be used for that purpose. I notice that it is not said in the motion that there should be any complaint about the employers organisations being used for political purposes even though there is available from the Parliamentary Library the text of articles written by Mr Trevor Matthews, entitled

The Political Activities of Australia’s Employer Federations’. He sets out how the various federations of employers engage in political activities. On page 6 he says that the Victorian Employers Federation proudly regarded itself as the first body in Australia to openly proclaim its determination to fight Socialism as the one issue before Australia. There is various other matter in the articles showing the extent to which employer federations and other bodies engage in politics. But the mover does not mention anything about that. The myth is that in some way the various bodies in Australia which are associated for purposes of religion or social action of some kind are non-political. The reality is that bodies such as the churches, the Returned Servicemen’s League and great companies formed for profit all are engaging in political activity. No one says that they should not engage in that political activity, except the mover of the motion. He says that associations of workers should not engage in political activity; they should not use the industrial trade union organisations to effect purposes of a political character. What nonsense.

There are books written on the lobbies, the interest groups of the 4 continents, edited by Professor Ehrmann, setting out the lobbies which are operating in this community, and there are- some very heavy lobbies indeed. They are all entitled to do it but somehow the trade unions are not, that this is unthinkable and there should be some limitation upon them. The trade unions have found that very often they have to engage in these political drives. In some States, of course, it is in practice impossible for them to get the desired social and economic changes through the parliamentary institutions because the parliamentary institutions are not democratic. How can one describe Queensland as being a democratic State when there is a gerrymander which makes it practically impossible for the political party associated with the trade unions to win government? How can one regard as democratic the other States which have upper chambers stacked in a fashion which makes it impossible for the Australian Labor Party to win government there? When one has, as in South Australia, a situation that can only be described as democratic, then one has bodies going out and properly seeking to effect political change by persuasion of the whole community and, if necessary, engaging where they consider it proper in strikes and stoppages.

The debate here is not introduced merely in order to say that unions are not to engage in stoppages and strikes. There is no word about that in the motion. This is a motion designed to encourage the Government to somehow bring in legislation or to invoke legislation which will prevent the trade unions from carrying out a part of the great democratic political process, and it should not be accepted by the Senate. What are the kinds of things that have been complained about? It is true that in recent times the trade unions have complained about the failure of governments to provide properly for social services in this community. There have been stoppages over that. In addition there has been a tremendous amount of propaganda of a political type directed by the trade unions against the Federal Government for its failure to do what is rightly conceived to be social justice. Are they not entitled to do that? The trade union movement has been in the forefront of the great struggle against the war in Vietnam. It is not entitled to do that? ls it wrong that trade unions should join with the other groups in the community, the churches - not all the churches but a number of them - to protest against something which is against their social conscience and which is important enough for them to say to their members: ‘We ask you to stop work, to lose wages and to show how much you disapprove of this evil war, this genocide being committed against the Vietnamese people’. Has the time come when it is said that the trade union movement is not allowed to do that?

It is said that the trade unions ask their members to protest in various ways against the Springbok tour here. Why are they not entitled to do so? I was at the conference on human rights in Teheran and I well recall the motions which were passed there by the delegations from most of the world. Those delegations through the decision to which there was no opposition pointed out that despite requests there were still some countries and some sporting bodies which were allowing South Africa to engage in international sport and they called upon the governments to use their influence with their national sporting bodies to exclude South

Africa from international sport: In another resolution the conference called upon not only governments but peoples everywhere to protest against what was being done by the South African Government in pursuing its abominable policy of apartheid. In innumerable resolutions the United Nations has called upon governments and people to cut off cultural, social and sporting exchanges with the Government of South Africa while that policy of apartheid continues. When that call comes from the United Nations why are not the trade unions, as representatives of their members, entitled to respond to that call and do what the Government of Australia has failed to do - that is, to heed the international call? Why are they not entitled to say: ‘As citizens of the world we respond to what the United Nations is asking us to do. We will do it. We will protest in every way we can. If necessary we will suspend our labour. We will spend our money. We will do everything we can in order to ensure that the wishes of the United Nations are carried out in this country’? Whether the attitude of the trade union movement happens to be correct, whether I am right on the issue or somebody else is right on the issue, surely it is within the function of the trade union movement to enter into the political process and do what it can on these issues. Or is it to be said that only the employer organisations gan go on - as is said in that body - and mostly operate by methods of secrecy in order to achieve their political purposes? It is very rarely that they come out into the open. Very often secret activity is carried out by those organisations. The writer of the article refers to what was said by the Employers’ Federation in New South Wales in the annual report. The statement is:

As is customary in the management of all such institutions it is found judicious in the interests of those concerned not to give immediate publicity to the action taken by the committee in connection with some questions which have frequently to be dealt with privately.

The employer organisations are to be free to pursue political purposes, to take whatever action they might in relation to governments, to do it in private and to pursue political purposes in all sorts of devious ways. Is the trade union movement in this country to be told in some way what it must or must not do or to be subjected to legislation which will prevent it from enter ing into the democratic political processes of this country? The trade union movement all through its history has insisted upon its right, as representative of the working class movement of the various countries, to take social and economic action which in some cases is associated and in other cases is not associated with the immediate improvement of wages and conditions. The trade union movement will insist upon doing this. I do not care what might be said by the Australian Democratic Labor Party or this Government. This is a matter of free speech and the right to pursue democratic ends. The trade union movement will not be deprived of this right. No legislation is going to deprive us of the right of free speech. No legislation is going to prevent the trade union movement striking if it feels the issue is important enough. The right to strike distinguishes the free man from the slave, and the trade union movement of this country will not be enslaved by any legislation.

The issues for which the trade union movement has stood are right. As Senator Wheeldon has told me, if, during the war, the trade union movement of Holland had not refused to co-operate with the Nazis in shipping the Jews out of Holland the Jews of Holland would have perished. It was through the efforts of the trade union movement that many - not all - of the Jews in Holland were saved from that fate. That action was inconsistent with this motion. If this motion were carried and if the trade union movement could be reduced to impotence and could be castrated, as the mover of this motion would have it, how long would it be before some other body would next be told: ‘It is not your right to enter into the political processes in this way. You stick to what you are set up to do.’ Companies will be told to stick to making profits. Other individuals will be told to keep to their work and not to be concerned with political activities. The Australian Labor Party will vote against this motion in order to indicate its disapproval of the statement which is included in the motion as the reason for its being dealt with urgently by the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– The argument which we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) is false. It is based upon the utmost confusion, as a mere reading of the proposition put before us by Senator Kane will demonstrate. I think that nobody in this country would deny the right of any individual member of a trade union or the trade union itself to free and unfettered participation in the democratic, lawful processes of this country. That is not the issue. To show how thoroughly biased and distorted is the argument which we have heard from Senator Murphy from the start I shall take time quietly to refer to the High Court decision to which the honourable senator made reference. It was a case in which I had the honour to take part. The Waterside Workers Federation had imposed a levy for a political fund which the Hurseys refused to pay. The High Court held that it was lawful for the union to impose such a levy and that on non-payment the Hurseys ceased to hold membership. That aspect of the decision is explained by the Justices at pages 58 and 59. But the gravamen of the decision was that thereafter when the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority called upon registered waterside workers to work the Hurseys went along to take part in the work and members of the union took part in picketing by forming human barricades of members and supporters. The Hurseys were subjected to assaults, threats and insults from individuals in the picket line. After the picketing ceased members of the Waterside Workers Federation walked off the job and by a combination of numbers and those unlawful acts prevented the Hurseys from gaining employment. That was the cause of action which the High Court held to be valid, saying that the Hurseys had a cause of action for conspiracy based upon acts done pursuant to a combination to prevent them by unlawful means from presenting themselves for employment in stevedoring operations. That was the reason why each Hursey recovered £1,000 for the infringement of that civil right. There we have a suppression on the part of Senator Murphy of any reference to the unlawfulness of the trade union action and the citation of 2 pages which are of a sound historical introductory nature which point up where we really find the reason for Senator Murphy’s fire. It is this: We know that the workmen of England were repressed throughout last century for a century and more. It was by reason of an alleviation of the legislative position that in Australia one of the first acts of the Federal Parliament was to create a system of compulsory arbitration in order to ensure that workmen’s organisations would not have to battle it out against the superior weight of capital without an independent arbiter between them. That arbiter was established in the form of the arbitration court. That was in 1904, when this country, through its legislature, established the means of industrial justice for industrial organisations whether they were employer or employee.

In conformity with the Constitution that court was established to deal only with industrial disputes. Political disputes, disputes against the civil law, or disputes against international law are quite beyond the range of the constitutional power of this Parliament or the arbitration court and quite beyond the range of any purpose for which industrial organisations were set up. Because the Constitution has limited the power of this Parliament to legislating for conciliation and arbitration in industrial disputes extending beyond the borders of any one State, it is quite obvious that the court is limited to industrial disputes. When that legislation made provisions as one of its objects to register organisations of labour so that men would not have access to it as individuals but could combine in their organisations so as to present their case before the court, quite obviously the purposes of those organisations were limited to the purposes of the court - purposes defined by the Constitution, namely, industrial purposes.

The reason why Senator Murphy has resorted to such vehemence and fire instead of a little dispassionate analysis of the position is that in that day and age the workmen’s organisations thought they would find their fulfilment through the political party that they themselves created and which later became the Australian Labor Party. It is to the shame of that Party that now having been in Opposition for nearly 22 years the workmen find it unavailing in giving assistance in the Parliament. Therefore it is not unnatural that the organisations should be disposed to resort to unparliamentary and unindustrial means to create their purposes outside. It is those excesses which make Senator Kane’s motion timely - we are reminded to take note of them. I sympathise with Senator Murphy and those sitting behind him because they have been nourishing themselves on Dead Sea fruit for such a long time. I have no doubt that it is a bitter and unpalatable process. They cannot afford in this place much encouragement to the organisations which they would wish to represent. But I counsel them very strongly in that despair not to encourage combinations of whatever character outside the Parliament to undertake by their own exertions the achievement of things which should be done only within the Parliament. 1 counsel organisations in this country not to think that they can use their industrial strength for the direct coercion of other people in the community in order to get their way or to implement a decision they would wish to gain in the political field, unless they can persuade the franchised people of the country, through the medium qf .the ballot box, to send to this Parliament in sufficient numbers representatives and here, by law, change any injustice that they feel they have, because organisations are constituted for the purpose of dealing with industrial issues.

I always feel greatly heartened when 1 remind myself how at the end of the last century great industrial agitation took place when the unions finally achieved representation in Parliament and a political party which represented their general purposes became a political unit in the country. At that time Parliament was acknowledged as the place in which all sections of the community should have such representatives as the franchise entitled them according to their policies. But now. in the last 2 or 3 years, goaded and incited by frustrated political figures such as the Leader of the Opposition and Dr J. F. Cairns, we have the idea that is illustrated by a few incidents that I shall mention. Some were mentioned by Senator Kane.

Not only do we have these gentlemen striking but we have a tendency in the builders’ labourers activities in Sydney not to go on peaceful striking and picketing processes but actually to assault those who wish to work on the job. pull part of the job down and indulge in that form of activity. Coming closer to home, let me mention the Springboks visit. We heard Senator Murphy refer to his visit to Teheran, the Declaration of Human Rights and non-racial discrimination. Time out of number we have asserted our abhorrence of any doctrine of apartheid. But time out of number we have insisted upon the fact that if a sporting team comes here its members are entitled to play their game and to be treated as visitors in accordance with the law. For the Post Office gentry to refuse to deliver their mail or to pass on their messages and for other sections of organised labour to threaten to ground air services and rail services just because these 20-odd people who are visting us for the purpose of playing sport come from a country where the government exercises a policy of which Mr Hawke and Senator Murphy disapprove-

Senator Cant:

– Do you not disapprove?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I have said time out of number we disapprove.

Senator Cant:

– You did not say it then.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I said it within the last 5 minutes; I said we abhorred apartheid. But I cannot think of anything that is more un-Australian for any combination within this country to transgress the law in such a cowardly fashion by crowds and mobs humiliating and distressing a group of 20 sportsmen because they come here, to play a game.

However, the purpose pf my reference to this matter is to show that when the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the supreme industrial organisation conference in the country, passes a resolution inviting coercion by organised labour, that is the point where we deny that the ACTU is still acting within the ambit of its proper purposes. When it goes on to urge a vendetta, resistance to entrance to a ground, the throwing of bombs and invasion of the field why, even members of the Labor Party in the person of Mr Dunstan and the Premier of Western Australia have come out strongly to deny that these matters are within the ambit of trade union purposes.

We do not deny to trade unions participation in proper, democratic, lawful processes. We deny to them the right, by the use of industrial power, to cause the disruption of the economy of the country and the invasion and breach of people’s individual rights and to deny our civil liberties.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:

– When the sitting was suspended we were considering a subject that Senator Kane brought to our attention, warning of the abuses that could occur if there was a persistence in the present attitude of industrial organisations of using their efforts for political as distinct from industrial purposes. I address the Senate for a few minutes on the resumption of the sitting because I believe that this subject raises a very fundamental issue which it is timely to discuss in the present situation. The Australian trade unions, apparently having lost faith in the party which claims that it espouses their cause - that is to say, the Australian Labor Party - are resorting more and more to direct and unlawful action which, I believe, will be a great detriment to industrial organisations if they persist in it.

I remind the Senate that industrial organisations had their being and were created under Austraiian law for the purpose of facilitating their audience before the arbitration commission in order to give them industrial justice. In addition to that, in this century the civil law has given them many immunities so as to enable them to organise their affairs, in the hope that industrial equity will be more available. There have been legislative measures that have given them particular advantages: But they use the principle of solidarity in their organisation for the purpose of compelling the rank and file of the organisation to follow the decision that is made by the organisation. This decision is appropriate if it is made on industrial issues, but they cannot expect to have a cohesive organisation following their decisions if those decisions are made for purposes for which they are not constituted, namely, political, racial, religious or other purposes that are foreign to industrial issues.

Lel me cite just a few of the instances in which I believe the trade union movement has been exercising this power to the abuse of its real purposes. In Vietnam Moratorium Campaigns we have had 3 occasions on which there have been widespread stoppages of work, involving terrific loss, in support of a matter which is purely a political one and which, by its nature, should be left for decision by the nation’s Parliament. Let me take the case of the embargo on the export of merino rams. That is purely a trade question upon which trade organisations in the wool industry have spoken and on which the government of the day has made a decision. Yet we have the Australian Council of Trade Unions organising its forces to prevent the facilities of trade from being made available for the export of merino rams. Then we had a case in which the Court of Disputed Returns in Melbourne adjudicated upon the qualification of a waterside worker in that city to be a member of the Victorian Legislative Council. It would rarely be thought appropriate, I suggest - and then only by very few people - for a labour stoppage to occur in protest against a court decision. Yet that occurred in September last year in the circumstances I have mentioned.

Next we had a stoppage because the secretary of a trade union was arrested and subsequently convicted of assault in the course of a political scrimmage. What immunity has a secretary of a trade union organisation from the courts of law? What has it to do with the union by way of a stoppage of work? Then in February this year the Seamen’s Union banned service to United States vessels as a demonstration of support for the anti-war congress held in Sydney in that month. We even had a strike called because this Government saw fit to introduce legislation for the protection of law and order in this country, which legislation was passed through the Parliament with the approval of the majority of the elected representatives. Also we have had bans on Greek vessels in protest against actions of the present Greek Government. Seamen’s, waterside workers and firemen’s unions have restricted the operation in Australian waters of Greek vessels. Vessels of the Greek passenger line, Chandris Lines, have been a particular victim. They have been delayed no fewer than 16 times between May 1970 and August this year. Between July 1970 and July this year 35 ships of Greek ownership were delayed for periods ranging from 1 day ;o several days. Last July we even had a stoppage of work and a protest by waterside workers in Sydney against taxation rates. Then the ACTU - I think it was actually its president - approved of a stoppage on the basis of social services.

Of course, we are all familiar with the misguided attempt that the. ACTU made in relation to the Springboks’ tour. I would have thought that, so far from espousing this line of operation, those who had any solicitude for the existence and welfare of the trade union movement would see in this course of conduct a most divisive factor which, if persisted in, cannot be tolerated by any democratic community that puts its faith in a parliament elected by the majority of the people. With regard to the Springboks’ tour, although the trade union organisations were effective in creating dismay, engendering international illwill and creating a. good deal of resentment on the part of the members of our Australian community who desired to afford the ordinary Australian hospitality to visiting sportsmen, we have seen a divisiveness on the part of the Australian trade union movement that ought to be quite obvious to those who have the goodwill of that movement at heart.

Is it surprising then that as a result of this and other ill considered actions the man days lost by stoppages rose from about 750,000 in 1966 to nearly 2,500,000 last year? One has only to state those causes and those results to see the damage that the exertion of this industrial organisation power does to the men who are working bona fide in their industry and wish to use their organisation for the betterment of their industry. One has only to see the damage that it can do to the economic fabric of this country and to make mere mention of the Glasgow dockyards, the collapses that have taken place in big manufacturing concerns in America and the general economic situation in that country, which has industrial unrest to a greater degree than we have in this country, to see that the economic welfare of the trade unionist is at risk. Finally, it makes a challenge to the fundamental basis upon which we Australians wish to have our political government conducted, that is, after free elections at which trade unionists and others exercise their franchise. In this Parliament and in the other parliaments of Australia, those who are elected make the decisions by which this country should be governed. It is because of that fundamental principle that I believe the proposition that Senator Kane put forward tonight is most appropriate for debate. I hope that as the debate continues this Senate will show in no uncertain way that it stands for the prin ciple that Parliament, and not any section of this community, should be the dominant influence with regard to the laws under which Australians shall be governed.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Senator Wright in concluding his address made a very important statement which I direct to the attention of honourable senators. He said that the United States of America had a record of industrial unrest much greater than that in Australia. The facts are, of course, that, in Australia our level of industrial unrest compares more than favourably with that of. any similar developed country. Any similar industrialised country generally has more stoppages of work than has Australia. So the only case which Senator Wright and the Australian Democratic Labour Party have made is that some of the strikes may be unnecessary. The Democratic Labour Party makes the point that a lot of the stoppages are occasioned by political motives and that that should not bc the role of the trade unions.

Senator Little:

– We do not say that.

Senator BISHOP:

– The proposition by Senator Kane puts 2 views. It refers, first of all, to:’

The developing practice ‘ of using industrial trade union organisations to effect purposes of a political character, not designed to or having the ‘ effect of improving the industrial conditions of the members . . .

Then Senator Kane, who led the debate for the Democratic Labour Party, talked about political strikes. He related a number of cases where in his opinion the strikes were not related to trade union activity. I suppose when Senator Little speaks in a little while he will have forgotten those great arguments in the Australian Council of Trade Unions when the great Trades Union Congress, which represents today something like 2 million trade unionists, debated whether it would have international . . affiliations. It decided to’ affiliate with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which is a moderate organisation. It then disowned the move which was then made that it should have some sort of affiliation with the World Council of Trade Unions.

Senator Kane:

– There should be nopolitical influences.

Senator BISHOP:

– The honourable senator has said that we should have no political influences but he has himself taken part in the work of the trade union movement which determined-

Senator Byrne:

– That would be industrial, would it not?

Senator BISHOP:

– No, it is not industrial. Let me read something which was published as far back as 1964. Everybody is attacking poor old Mr Hawke who can look after himself, but I want to say a word in support of him. I refer to something which was done in 1964 when the late Albert Monk was president of the ACTU. This is something which government supporters say is politically motivated action, that is, the condemnation of discrimination on racial grounds. I am referring to the apartheid question, the Springboks* campaign in Australia. The December 1964 issue of ‘The ACTU Bulletin’ carried a statement from the executive of the ACTU. The chief of the ACTU then was Albert Monk and the secretary was Harold Souter. He still holds that position. What is suggested in this statement could not be done with the sort of policies advocated by the DLP and which the Government wants to put into operation. The statement reads:

That the ACTU make representations by deputation to the Commonwealth Government to initiate and support, in the United Nations Assembly, world-wide sanctions, including diplomatic, economic and an arms embargo on South Africa, and the Australian Government to implement such decision in Australia in accordance with the United Nations Assembly deliberations.

The ACTU also to request the ICFTU-

That is the Internation Confederation of Free Trade Unions, an international body which finds acceptance by both right and left of the trade union movement - to re-examine the question as to whether a world boycott could be instituted by all Trade Unions throughout the world, to boycott the handling of South African goods.

Today the Government supports the DLP. It is very significant that if the Government which wants to take the old dog collar Acts out of their secret places and place them on the trade union movement in 1971, is not prepared to apply them today because of troubles in its own Party. For many months it has been probing the Australian electorates to see what support it may have for an attack on the arbitration system and its relationships with the ACTU. This Government has been very lucky over the years. It has had a trade union movement which has, in fact, directed its political aims to the Government, on occasions making industrial activity around it, but generally speaking, it has been trotting up to the Government for years what were in fact not just industrial aims but political aims. To change the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is obviously not just an industrial aim: it is a political aim.

Finally, the Government by political action has to agree to something. May I mention the penal provisions of the Act? For years we in the Senate and in the other place have been debating the right to impose the penal provisions. They are in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but in the years subsequent to their introduction the Government, because of the case put up by the unions and also because of militant action by the union - action in the workshops, in the factories and on the waterfront - conceded that some alteration should be made. The alteration was made because the Government was satisfied that it had to give way on the penal provisions. Apparently it wanted to re-impose them, but after negotiations with the ACTU under the leadership of Albert Monk and Bob Hawke, it decided to let them go by. But, of course, there are warnings in the air. There have been warnings by the new Prime Minister. Mr McMahon, who has his own great problems of changes in the Cabinet.

If the coalition Government had been secure and stable, and if it felt that it had the electors behind it, it and not the Democratic Labor Party would have brought this matter before the Parliament. It would have decided to bring into the Parliament today fresh laws to hamstring the trade union movement. What was its excuse? It was the Springboks’ tour. Whose responsibility was it? In the eyes of the world the South African Government is condemned. The Ministers in this Government say that the South African Government carries out a policy which is wrong. All the international sporting organisations have condemned the South African Government, but ours is the only government which has invited into Australia a team-

Senator Sim:

– Who invited them?

Senator BISHOP:

– The Rugby Union Association supported by the Government, supported by the Prime Minister and supported by honourable senators opposite who are running around like little puppets saying: ‘Yes, you have to keep politics out of sport.’ The Government created the situation. It was warned over the years that such a policy would bring about disturbance and confusion in the Australian electorate in all States. What was said by Senator Wright about Don Dunstan is not righted by Mr Tonkin. What the trade union movement said in those 2 States - in my State anyhow - was: ‘We will offer rio facilities’. They made arrangements to impose appropriate bans on places which would house, accommodate and provide facilities for that sporting team because’ it should never have been brought into Australia.

As I have said, since 1964 the Government has been warned by decisions which have been made known to it by the trade union movement, that such a policy is wrong. Tonight the Democratic Labor Party says: ‘Look, we are independent. We will vote for whomever is right’. But we know from experience and from the statements made by Democratic Labor Party leaders that their purpose is to keep the Australian Labor Party out of office. The Government talks about this new technique of the trade unions. It is not a new technique. These political aims have always been part of the history of the trade union movement and of the Australian Labor Party. Senator Kane, of course, used only part of the story. Some of the information he quoted is accurate.

The Trades and Labour Council was formed in my State in 1883. It laid down policies which were, not just industrial; they were political policies as well. One of them has not yet been achieved, that is one vote one value. As recently as the time of the last Hall Government in South Australia the trade union movement went on to the streets and to the parks and demonstrated at stop work meetings against this discrimination against the rights of electors.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Dishonest gerrymandering.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator O’Byrne to refrain from interjecting.

Senator BISHOP:

– Of course it is gerrymandering. How can anybody properly say that when a union seeks political justice, the right of political assembly, freedom for individuals, action against discrimination on the grounds of colour, race or creed, it is chasing political aims which are . not really a task of the trade union movement? History shows clearly that they are part and parcel of the trade unions’ task. Many unions are registered today under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. One of them is the Australian Workers Union, a representative, of which we have here with us. Other unions also have political aims written into their rule books which are accepted and registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I am a former secretary of a Trades and Labour Council. If . you look at the rule books of Trades and Labour Councils and that of the Australian Council of Trade Unions you will see that one of their objectives is to assist, kindred organisations both inside and outside Australia. The socialisation objective has been partly achieved.

The trade union movement has such aims because it is not possible otherwise to get all sorts of freedom from industry. Every negotiation which takes place between the trade union movement in Australia and the Government is a political consultation. If there is a confrontation, it becomes a confrontation on political grounds,- but it has its origin in the relationship between the employers and labour. So the trade union movement has not become sick of the Labor Party. It has become sick of the dilly-dallying of the Government. The Labor Party has offered a challenge, and so has the trade union movement. If the Government does not accept the proposition, let us go to the electorate and find out who was right about the Springboks. What is the Government’s case on the Greek ships?

Senator Hannan:

– You are joking.

Senator BISHOP:

– Oh yes,, we issued the challenge but you would, not dare. The reason why no Government supporter has introduced this motion is because they, all know that the people are disgusted with them and with the influence of the great newspaper monopolies on the Government. Let us get on to the other question of what the Government has done for the working class and the trade unions. In every major industrial case in this country the Government has sent a representative before the Arbitration Commission and has declared its opposition to the trade union claims. Is it surprising that the trade union movement is calling for price control? Of course, the Liberal Government says that it does not believe in price control, or says that it cannot apply price control as it lacks the constitutional power. The Labor Party and the ACTU have asked the Government to convene a conference of the State governments to apply a form of price control.

As somebody pointed out quite strongly there will be industrial activity and socalled militant action for as long as the workers cannot be assured that the wage increases granted to them will be maintained. T refer to an example already appearing on the statute book in New Zealand where such price control legislation has been applied over goods and services. In addition there is scope for proper wage increases and control over profits and prices.

Senator Gair:

– And price control over union tickets, too.

Senator BISHOP:

– That is another thing you ought to know about because you were in the Labor Party for long enough. You ought to know the tricks of the trade. You received deputations.

Senator Gair:

– I know where you buried your dead.

Senator BISHOP:

– Perhaps you do. The surprising thing about the Democratic Labor Party is that it does not get behind the Labor Party to help to chuck out the Government. That is the only way to* solve our present problems. Let us go to an election. 1 want to refer to another 2 matters. In the United Kingdom today a. great campaign is being waged to maintain some shipyards. The DLP and the Liberal Government say. that the workers should not take over the shipyards. In the United Kingdom a group of workers, has taken political action to maintain shipyards. The British Trade Union Congress 2 days ago met the Northern Ireland Federation of Trade Unions to try to establish a peace arrangement and to keep the union movement together. That is a political purpose.

Senator Kane:

– Not a political strike.

Senator BISHOP:

– Of course it is a political purpose. I leave the observation to Senator Kane as to the stand of the DLP in this matter. Is it not a proper aim to seek peace? Is it different from the matter of the Greek ships? The trade union movement in Australia has tried to form an affiliation with people in Greece who have been penalised and victimised. It is no different from the struggle against the Fascists during World War II.

Senator Gair:

– You have Georges here. What more do you want?

Senator BISHOP:

– Senator Gair used some information earlier against Senator Cavanagh but he forgot to tell everybody that it was a time when national security was involved. Broadly speaking, the union movement gave support to the Government’s in many countries through a no strike policy. I wish to make a final point, because my time is running out. The great trade unions of the world, including the German Confederation of Trade Unions, did what they could, as did the Scandinavian trade union movement and the International Federation of Transport Unions. They tried to act together in a political matter and in respect of war aims. They helped the war effort and the struggle against tyranny and aggression. If the trade union movement in Australia today cannot seek support for its colleagues in Greece and those who are in gaol with no trade union rights, there is something wrong with society. Until this Government acts on the advice of the Labor Party and the trade union movement-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I have heard New Zealand mentioned once or twice during this debate. Senator Bishop referred to New Zealand. Tt is a fact that recently the New Zealand Government placed on the statute book legislation which attempts to contain the inflationary position existing in that country, just as it exists here. The legislation provides that increases in wages greater than 7 per cent must not be granted. The trade unions are trying to buck it. They demand increases of 18 per cent, 20 per cent or more. When

I was in New Zealand a few weeks ago I discovered an interesting position. We have heard talk about the tour of Australia by the South African rugby team. In New Zealand an organisation was formed - I forget its name - with the objective of doing away with all sorts of racial discrimination. It had a wonderful victory in that it scared away from New Zealand a team of hockey girls from South Africa. It was hailed as a great victory, but the Labour Leader of the Opposition in New Zealand did not go along with that view. He differs very much in his views from the Labor people in this country. A Press report stated:

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kirk, yesterday criticised violence and hypocrisy in demonstrations in Australia against the South African rugby team.

Mr Kirk was quoted as saying:

When a protest in a democratic society ceases to be persuasive-

Apparently the protests here, particularly in Queensland, were not persuasive - and becomes abrasive, it turns people against the cause they are pursuing.

The crux crf what he said appears in the report in bold black type, as follows:

If the Labor Party was the Government, he said, he would not be prepared to tell a sporting organisation to call off a tour by a South African team.

We have heard from Senator Murphy and Senator Kane that during the latter part of the last century there was a dire need for trade union organisations to improve the lot of the workers who were at that time without any doubt labouring under conditions of oppression. Senator Murphy went on to say that they forged a political weapon. Only some of them did that. To this day only some of the trade union members vote for the Labor Party; not all of them, by a long way. They have forged this political weapon in the form crf the Australian Labor Party. Now it is proposed by the same people, or at least the militants among them, and the Communist dominated trade unions to circumvent the political weapon they forged and to circumvent even this Parliament. I do not think much comfort can be taken by the Australian Labor Party from Mr Hawke’s remarks when, in my view, he was excusing himself. He said, relative to trade unions in

Australia indulging in political strikes and similar activity:

It is like the law of physics. It is inevitable; if there is a vacuum, it will be filled.

That comment was reported in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on 24th June 1971. The only construction that we can put on that remark is that he thought that the Opposition in this place and in another place formed a vacuum. Senator Murphy went on to say that he thought it was quite right for trade unions to indulge in political strikes and to express their opinions in that way. 1 am one of those people who believe that a trade union or any other organisation is quite entitled to express its opinion on any matter, but when it converts that opinion into an onslaught on the general community and on the economy of this country, when these people inflict hardship upon their fellow workers and fellow men in an attempt to advance a particular political view I do not go along with them. Very few people in this country would agree with their action. In supporting his contention that it was legitimate for a trade union to do that, Senator Murphy mentioned employer organisations and said that they expressed opinions, as of course they do. But they do not take punitive industrial action to bring those opinions to fruition. They do not indulge in lockouts and action of that kind.

Senator Little:

– The unions did nothing about the Russian ballet being here because they like the Russians.

Senator Gair:

– And the Moscow State Circus.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Lillico will be heard in respectful silence, as other honourable senators expect to be heard.

Senator LILLICO:

– It has been mooted that primary producer organisations be so organised as to be able to say to the rest of the community: ‘Unless you do this, that and the other we will cut off your food supplies.’ I have heard that subject discussed. If this is to be the pattern, why should not any organisation go on the rampage and give expression to its political views in the same fashion as some trade unions are doing today? Along that way lies the path of anarchy - nothing more or less than that. Some months ago there was an illegal strike by the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association of Australasia, the members of which individually recoup, I suppose, 3 times as much as the average dairy farmer. I heard a reference to that effect only yesterday. The action by the union was inimical to the whole Commonwealth, but because of Tasmania’s vulnerable position the strike amounted to a blockade of that State. There was a buildup of goods to be exported from Tasmania and for several weeks after that the shipping which was available was not able to catch up with the movement of goods that had piled up during the course of that strike. Not long after that, because the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia decided in Melbourne that it did not believe in the Springbok tour of Australia, it was decided that there should be a fresh sabotage of Tasmania. Good God! Who could go along with such a proposition?

Senator Georges:

– Would you prefer to sabotage humanity

Senator LILLICO:

– That is not a sensible interjection. As a result of the action by the Waterside Workers Federation, as reported in the Press in Tasmania and featured in other newspapers last week, there have been substantial dismissals from 2 major industries in Tasmania, those industries being Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Pty Ltd at Burnie and the other similar industry at Wesley Vale.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They cannot sell their paper.

Senator LILLICO:

– I will tell you why they cannot sell their paper.

Senator Poke:

– Because they cannot get orders.

Senator LILLICO:

– The reason is that production was so intermittent and, as Senator Marriott said, so irregular that Japan moved in and people who had previously bought from Tasmania began buying paper from Japan. That situation is the result of the imbecilic proposition that ships trading to Tasmania and around the Australian coast should he tied up because Mr Bull was not in favour of the Springbok tour. Several hundred people in Tasmania have been put out of work as a result of this action and the manager of APPM has said that it will be some months before the industry is fully productive again.

Senator Marriott:

– No wonder Mr Harradine could not swallow it.

Senator LILLICO:

– I give him all the credit in the world for the stand he has taken. I am one who does not believe in my own State being sabotaged in that fashion for a reason that has nothing whatever to do with terms and conditions of employment. Senator Bishop referred to the Clyde shipbuilding yards. Let me remind the Senate of what happened in that industry. Britain lost that mighty industry, the greatest shipbuilding industry in the world, because no-one could be certain as to when a ship would be delivered; it might be next year or the year after. Because of industrial chaos, strikes and similar action no-one who lodged an order with that shipyard could be certain that the ship would be delivered. As a result they placed their orders elsewhere, in most cases with shipyards in Japan. I wonder whether those same people who are trying to reconstitute those shipyards look back and think about the wonderful job they have done in sabotaging that big industry in Britain.

Senator Wright referred to the number of working days lost in this country - I think he said because of political strikes.

The unions went on strike because they did not agree with the Budget, particularly with the pension increases. The way to demonstrate, according to them, was to increase costs by means of a strike and make it harder than ever before on the old age pensioners. Those same lost working days are the major cause, or one of the major causes, of inflation and increased costs in Australia. I agree entirely that until some positive direct action is taken, as indicated by Senator Kane - whatever the action may be - we jusl cannot afford to allow the situation to continue. It is little comfort to say that the position in Australia is not as bad as it is somewhere else. The economy of the United States is threatened, and one would be moderate in saying that the economy of the United Kingdom is staggering. Wilson, the Labor Prime Minister, was bedevilled by this when he was in office. I support absolutely the motion proposed by Senator Kane.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I would have thought that this vital subject would have justified a longer period than is permitted to speakers under the Standing Orders relating to urgency motions. The position I face is that I am restricted to IS minutes. Some attempt is to be made in the future to restrict us even further. It is unfortunate that I must waste some of the time allotted to me. in order to address a few remarks to you, Mr President, about the behaviour of some senators during the course of this debate. We have heard much about what brings credit to the Parliament, but I think that we must look at those who observe the laws of the Parliament and the laws of the land. This Parliament is the highest court in Australia and we should take cognisance of the reaction of senators to it. During your absence this afternoon, Mr President, and when the Chair was occupied by the Deputy President Senator Cant raised the matter of whether Senator Kane who moved this motion was acting within the Standing Orders because he appeared to Senator Cant to he reading all of his speech. As you well know, Mr President, that is a breach of the Standing Orders. Honourable senators who were here last session know that throughout the session Senator Kane read from documents far beyond his capability to prepare. We had to sit and listen. It was decided by my Party that as such action is a breach of the Standing Orders-

Senator Little:

– I rise to a point of order.

Senator Keeffe:

– What is wrong with you?

Senator Little:

– The same thing that is wrong with the honourable senator. My point of order, Mr President, is that a ruling was made that Senator Kane was not reading his speech; he was referring to copious notes. I understand that doubt has now been raised about that ruling. This is an insult to the honourable senator who occupied the Chair at that time.- The point of. order is that the matter was ruled on and a reflection is now being cast on the occupant of the Chair at that time.

Senator Willesee:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. I do not think I need waste very much time on it. Obviously Senator Cavanagh is entitled to use whatever arguments he likes to raise provided that he acts within the Standing Orders. Obviously this is so. I am sure that more will be heard about this question of reading speeches. The papers already have been -tabled and Senator Cavanagh has had a chance to examine them. I submit that he is acting within the rules of the debate. I submit also that it is material that if the documents on which the discussion was based was prepared outside this building and given to an honourable senator to read, then Senator Cavanagh has every right to advert to that matter in the normal course of debate.

Senator Byrne:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. As Senator Little has said, Senator Cavanagh is now purporting to canvass a ruling from the Chair. He purports to reflect on the decision of the Chair on that occasion. If Senator Cant disagreed with the ruling of the Chair at that time, a procedure was available to him. The honourable senator was invited to use it and it was indicated that that course would be followed. The Chair indicated at the time that a course was open to Senator Cant if he wished to follow it. No objection was taken and no form of registration was used to indicate objection to the ruling. Therefore the ruling stood and has been unchallenged. I do not think it can be challenged now. It certainly cannot be challenged in the context of a reflection on the occupant of the Chair at that time.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Speaking to the point of order-

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the honourabie senator speaking to the point of order?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, Mr President, I might as well get it in some way if I cannot get sufficient time in the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I trust the honourable senator is not using this as a device.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. I want to sincerely assure honourable senators that . 1 uphold the ruling made on that occasion. It was one of the best rulings I have heard from the Chair. I uphold it in its entirety. The point I was trying to develop is that someone in this chamber defied the Chair. The ruling of the Deputy President was correct. It was deliberately defied and this I will prove if this point of order is disallowed.

The PRESIDENT:

– No point of order is involved in the matter raised. The ruling of the Deputy President was not being canvassed. Senator Cavanagh will proceed with his argument.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Thank you, Mr President. The ruling of the Deputy President was that a precedent has been set in this chamber for the use of copious notes. Therefore he reminded the honourable senator that if he stuck to that precedent there was no breach of the Standing Orders. He did not permit the reading of a speech but he permitted the use of copious notes. The honourable senator who was then speaking continued reading his copious notes. Therefore, we understood that they were copious notes and that he was not reading a document. After he completed his speech I acted within my rights under the Standing Orders and asked for the documents to be tabled in the Senate. The Senate, obviously aware of my suspicion that there may have been some contempt of the Deputy President’s ruling on that occasion, decided to examine them and, by resolution, agreed that the documents be tabled. Upon the instruction of the Senate the documents were tabled. They now are the property of the Senate and are available to any honourable senator. Whether the honourable senator was in contempt of the Deputy President’s ruling at that time can be proved, far better than by anything I can say, by reading Hansard tomorrow and comparing his speech with the notes which are now the property of the Senate. We have brilliant Hansard reporters who, it will be found, can report identically the copious notes which the honourable senator was using in breach of a decision that he was not allowed to read a speech. The mover of this motion, who wants to condemn some trade unions for what he calls illegal acts, in my opinion defied the highest of the judicial tribunals of Australia. I am referring to the upholder of the law who wants to condemn workers for something they did. Rather than misquote the honourable senator I shall read from the copious’ notes. The pages are numbered - there are 16, Mr President - and we find-

Senator Mulvihill:

– Are they double spaced?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– They are double spaced, well typed and well worded. If honourable senators doubt that what 1 propose to say represents a true reading of the copious notes I ask them to look at tomorrow’s Hansard. We find these words on page 2 of these copious notes:

Formed in the wake of the industrial revolution at a time when the human dignity of the workers had no champion or organised strength to defend it, the trade union within a century achieved a transformation no less dramatic than the industrial revolution which gave it birth.

Would not those words spur you?

Senator Webster:

– That was a part from which the honourable senator intended to quote.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Of course it was and he quoted it word for word. He then came to a full stop and started a new paragraph on page 2. He said:

At the time of the foundation of the unions in England and Australia the founders had a very important choice to make. They could use the growing strength and organisation of these bodies to create dissent, violent agitation and revolution against the state, or they could- proceed within the framework of the British parliamentary system. At the time of which I am speaking the British parliamentary system was far from perfect.

Senator Murphy, in his contribution to. the debate, gave the history of the trade union movement. He went back as far as the Tolpuddle martyrs, who were not followers of the industrial revolution. They were agricultural workers in England who were deported to Australia because they were found guilty, under British law, and convicted on a charge of conspiracy. They had the audacity to band together to improve their conditions. This great man, Senator Kane, the leader in the condemnation of the unions, does not know his history well enough to know that in Britain the people had no choice. The initiation of the trade union movement in Great Britain brought about a revolution against the British system of justice at that time. In accordance with British justice, which Senator Wright upheld tonight, these men were sentenced and were transported to Australia. The great saviour of the nation, Senator Kane, who would condemn the workers and who is trying to uphold the principles of freedom and justice, has a history. Let us look at his history, as stated In a book called

The Split’, written by Robert Murray. According to the book, the honourable senator was regarded as a Com in the union. An excerpt from that book states:

  1. G. ‘Barney’ Piatt, the affable, First World War ‘digger’ who was State Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union, had been under attack in his union for a decade from a rebel group, the best known and most active member of which was J. T. Kane, the new Assistant Secretary of the ALP. The rebels considered Piatt bureaucratic, too friendly with the employers and something of a Tammany Hall character. He considered them power-seeking wreckers. Over the years, the feud became extremely bitter.
The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I hope the honourable senator is not reading from copious notes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am quoting. I am prepared to table the document, without the necessity of someone moving a motion. The excerpt continues:

John Thomas Kane was born in Lithgow in 1909 and was a miner for several years. Later he became a truck driver and was active in the Lang Labor Party in the 1930s. A friendly, kindly but aggressive and somewhat devious man, he had a talent for organising and a strong instinct for reform. Ironically, as he later became Federal Secretary of the Democratic Labor Party, he was considered by many union leaders in the late 1940s to be on the far left wing and even a camm’. It was: on these grounds - but the real reason was presumably the internal feud . . .

That is the history of this great champion of the system of ‘ law and order in Australia. I deal now with page 5 of the copious notes to which he referred. This can be verified by a perusal of tomorrow’s Hansard. He said:

I do not mention the cost in loss of production because I want to stress the losses suffered by workers . . . They affect not the bosses but the very people and their wives and families that the trade unions claim to defend.

I submit that before any unionist takes action in a dispute he considers this loss. It is a deprivation to his wife and family. No-one acts capriciously to deprive his family of income, for this very reason. Therefore, any call for workers to down tools, which would mean that they would lose income, would have to be for. a just cause. Time will not permit me to go into these copious notes in detail. On page 11 of these copious notes he told us of the penalties imposed by Dr Evatt’s Approved Defence Projects Protection Act. Senator Hannan tried to interject and asked Senator Kane to repeat the penalties. Senator Kane suggested that that Act was all we needed to correct the present situation. That Act contains provisions more severe than the penal provisions of any other Act. That is Fascism in its extreme. This man, who was once said to be left wing, who was once thought of as a Com and who is now in the Democratic Labor Party, wants to gaol people. That would impoverish families. The families would have to make sacrifices. He wants to do that so that we can live under a better system. That is the type of individual that Senator Kane is. He ignored the ruling of the Deputy President. What does law and order mean to him? What did law and order mean to him when he was trying to unseat the officials of the Transport Workers Union in New South Wales in the 1940s? Now he is the champion of this system of law and order because a section of the community, which is fighting for. justice, does not vote DLP.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired. ‘

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Senate should be indebted to Senator Kane for two reasons. The first is that he has prompted a debate on this matter of urgency, namely:

The developing practice of using industrial Trade Union organisations to effect purposes of a political character, not designed to or having the effect of improving the industrial conditions of the members of these organisations and not directly and immediately related to industrial issues but for the purpose of effecting political decisions, properly resting within the Constitutional power of the Commonwealth through its elected Parliament and its instrumentalities and thus usurping the functions of Government.

The second reason why the Senate should be indebted to him is because this debate has provided the people of Australia with a remarkable revelation of where the Australian Labor Party stands on this issue. At election time its members go through the pretence of asking the people to vote for them, giving electors the misguided idea that in the Parliament and through the Government they would determine the political decisions to be made. In fact that is but a pretence. They know - and all the Labor Party senators know - that the decisions which they make will be the decisions which are dictated by the union organisations which control the Labor Party of which they are members and, through the Labor Party, control every decision which they have to make. I think the revelation that has been made tonight is that in this chamber - and speaking to the people of Australia - the Labor Party senators will confess to the use of industrial power to achieve decisions. That is a negation of all that our democracy and our parliamentary system stand for.

We have had given to us instances of political strikes in recent years. We will forget the political strikes of the Chifley era, when the Chifley Labor Government was prepared to introduce legislation to deal with the unions which intended to use their industrial power politically. This is a chapter in Labor history which the present Labor Party senators will conveniently forget. We will deal with the present position. We have heard from Senator Kane and Senator Wright the many instances of political strikes’, of the trade unions which would call stoppages because they disagreed with a decision of a court that a person was not eligible, because of a criminal conviction, to sit in the Legislative Council of Victoria. We have heard of the political strikes because there was an objection io a decision of the Government to engage our forces in Vietnam, notwithstanding that the people had confirmed that decision in two successive elections. We have heard of the political strikes over social service issues and because the Australian Council of Trade Unions did not like what was in the Budget. We have had a political strike because, while liking the Russian ballet and liking the Moscow Dynamos and liking everything that comes from leftist countries, it does not like what comes from South Africa and therefore that must be banned. We have had the constant sight of Greek vessels being denied the services which ought to be given to them because they are trading with Australia and bringing Australian citizens back from overseas. But no, some unions in Australia will do nothing whatever to facilitate the movement of overseas Australians back to Australia.

We have not heard from the Australian Labor Party over the last 5 or 6 years any condemnation of the use of industrial power for political purposes and I challenge any one. of the Labor senators here tonight to give me one example of the Labor Party having said that it disapproves of the use of industrial power for political purposes. Honourable senators opposite cannot do so because they are wedded to a system which will permit the use of industrial power to thwart the wishes of the Government elected by the people of Australia and claiming the electoral authority which comes from having a mandate given at ah election. In short the Australian Labor Party is not concerned to respect the wishes of the people. It prefers to acknowledge the mandates and dictates of a few union bosses who through the solidarity concept can bring a number of unions behind them. That is a fact which should be exposed and reiterated constantly because it is one of the facts of life that should be made known to the electors of Australia.

If we must have chapter and verse, which sometimes the Labor Party is interested in having, there is the decision made at the last conference of the Australian Labor Party. Lauded in the Press by journalists who are inclined at the present time to put a favourable interpretation on everything the Labor Party does irrespective of its intrinsic demerits and who denigrate everything the Government does and ignore the positive record of achievement which is there for everyone who wants to look at it, there is contained in the Press . coverage of the Launceston conference a decision which highlights the point I am making. The conference accepted a policy statement, made I might say by Mr Whitlam, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Labor Party. The conference decided on his recommendation that the embargo on the export of merino rams should not be lifted until the majority of persons affected had decided by referendum or other fair means in favour of removing or relaxing the embargo. The lifting of the so-called ban on the export of merino rams was a decision made in accordance with the law of this land by the Executive under a power which was granted by an Act to which the Australian Labor Party was not objecting at the time it was introduced in 1929. The ban on the export of merino rams was imposed by the union movement in this country. It was an arbitrary, naked exercise of political power by an industrial organisation. And what does the Australian Labor Party do,’ the supposed political arm of this organisation which is committed to democratic parliamentary leadership? It backs the decision of the industrial organisation.

I have detected with some difficulty because of the constant interjections that some honourable senator has been asking: What has the Parliament decided? 1 will tell him what the Parliament has decided. The Parliament decided back in 1929, and honourable senators opposite know which government was in power then, that this particular decision was to be exercised by proclamation, and the Parliament has never denied that or contravened it or made any decision to the contrary. If anyone suggests to the contrary I say bluntly that he is being dishonest. I appreciate with some sympathy the difficulties honourable senators opposite are experiencing because when one speaks the truth it hurts and the Australian Labor Party knows that on this issue it is cornered because it is using extra-parliamentary tactics to achieve its purposes. One has only to refer to statements which have been made by some members of this Party over the years. Only last year we had Dr Cairns - I wonder whether any Labor Party senator is going to disavow Dr Cairns on this occasion - saying, and it is recorded in Hansard:

The weaknesses of Parliament have been widely recognised. They will not be cured by accusations of anarchy and mob rule whenever anyone decides to do something about it. Democracy is government by the people, and government by the people demands action by the people, lt demands effective ways of showing what the interests and needs of the people really are. It demands action in public places all around the land.

He said other things too and those things were related to democracy being expressed in the factories, in the streets and in public places wherever people are to be found. He was advocating a course of civil disobedience. This is part of the Labor Party’s tactic at the moment to exercise power in all the places where it can exercise industrial power. 1 believe and reiterate that this is something which ought constantly to be made known so that the people of Australia realise it. What is implicit in it? It is not that the people of Australia through their elected government must determine what are the laws, what are the limits of action, what are. the freedoms to be ascribed to the. Australian people. It is not that at ail. It is that some unrepresentative bosses, representative of and responsible to nobody, should decide who ought to make these decisions and that, of course, is a negation of democracy. It is the path of a dictator. The decision simply to impose a black ban here, to call a strike there, to refuse services to somebody in one area, to say to one individual that he will not be able to market his wool or he will not be able to market his products, is an unrepresentative type of decision because the person who makes it is answerable to no-one. Or perhaps I should say he is answerable to members of the unions, and members of the unions are not representative of the people of Australia. ‘

Decreasingly over the last few years the numbers of the Australian work force who are members of unions have diminished so that we have at the present time approximately only 50 per cent of the total work force who are members of the unions. What about the rest of Australia and the other electors? They have no voice at all. The Austraiian Labor Party says that it does not matter about them, if the unions say what is to be in their interests and for their benefit that is the final determination. We can see this attitude in what was decided with regard to the tour of Australia by the South African rugby players because if anybody has the right to say who should come into Australia or who should not come into Australia 1 should hope that the people of Australia would believe that that right ought to be vested in the Government having the electoral authority given to it by the people of Australia. Of course, the Australian government said there was no reason for refusing entry to the South Africans, just as there was no reason for refusing entry to any other group. But what did an unrepresentative group of people headed by Mr Hawke and the Australian Council of Trade Unions executive say? It said (hat it does not matter what the Australian Government wants, lt said: ‘We shall say that these people shall not have the freedom of movement throughout Australia which is the entitlement and right of any person in Australia.’ So we had black bans. We had the imposition of bans on people who ordinarily would give services to the South Africans. If they did give services they were to be denied their liveli- hood. It did not matter about the employees of those people. They could be denied their livelihood also.

What is implicit in that type of attitude? It is that a small group of persons can dictate to the people of Australia what the Australian Government has said is not to be dictated. I reiterate that they are an irresponsible group because they are answerable to nobody for their decisions. If such action can be taken in respect of the South African rugby players maybe it can be taken in the case of the South African cricket players. Maybe they will be as successful as the South African rugby players and the people of Australia will derive the same satisfaction from their visit, but the point I make is that if that can be done to anybody from overseas it can be done to people in Australia. A remarkable statement was made by a gentleman called Mr Slater, the Federal President of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union, which should have received more publicity than it did. He was reported in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ of Friday, 25th June as saying:

We know where the troublemakers at Perth Airport live and we will take a look at whether they will get any mail or not.

That is the point which we ought to acknowledge.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I feel a certain sympathy with the last speaker, Senator Greenwood, an ambitious man who has recently been raised to the purple. He fears that the chill political winds may rip his new robes from him almost before he has become used to wearing them. Therefore he has reverted to the tired old. smears which have been the stock-in-trade of his political party for so many years. The supporters of this shoddy little propaganda exercise have strayed so far from the point that it may be appropriate to remind the Senate what we are debating. We are not here to debate whether the Australian Labor Party supports strikers going on to building sites, tearing down the work and assaulting the men on the site. We are not here to discuss whether the Labor Party approves of violence by demonstrators. We are here to discuss a subject matter which has been framed presumably with some thought and with plenty of care by its movers. The terms are as follows:

The developing practice of using industrial Trade Union organisations to effect purposes of a political character, not designed to or having the effect of improving the industrial conditions of the members of these organisations . . . Ant’ so on.

One would have thought that the first thing we would have had from the supporters of this proposition would have been a definition of terms. I think it would have been enlightening to be told of the precise line of demarcation between an industrial and a political matter. But we have waited, in vain for any such definition.. The reason is perfectly obvious. It is because no such line can be drawn. Every now and then we read in the editorial columns of the daily papers pious exhortations to the unions to develop from their old-fashioned basis of merely being concerned with the wages and conditions of their members and to advance into the 70s with new ideas and a more broadly based programme for their members. When an attempt is made by the unions to act on this advice we get this sort of reaction: Get back to your old simple narrow operations of concerning yourselves merely with wages and conditions.

Let us look at some of the things which the unions not only here but in other countries have been concerning themselves with in recent years. Let us decide whether the unions are stepping outside their legitimate sphere of interesting themselves in these matters. Is it not permissible for. a union to be interested in the matter of housing for its members? Is that an industrial matter within the terms of this resolution? Is it not permissible for unions to be interested in the matter of credit banking and co-operative societies? But would not that step outside what is acceptable according to the terms of this proposition? Is it not permissible for unions to be interested in matters of transport? But that also would surely be outside the unions’ sphere of interest. One could go 7 n Consumer protection is another such iter. According to the framers of this subject for discussion that would be’ an impermissible activity for a trade union. Yet as we all know it was the activities of the much maligned Mr Hawke, the bete noire of the Attorney-General (Senator’ Greenwood) and his like, on the question of resale price maintenance which prodded this laggard Government into finally doing something about the matter. But according to the framers of this proposition that is something which the unions are not permitted to do. Are not the unions permitted to be interested in the subject of environment? I cite an example. When a drill was set up on the Great Barrier Reef and unionists refused to man it the authorities were so ashamed that drilling operations ceased and a royal commission was set up to investigate whether any drilling should take place on the Barrier Reef at all. As yet drilling has not been resumed. Have the Australian people anything to blame unionists for in taking that action? Should they not rather praise unionists for saving this priceless national heritage. But according to the words of this submission that is something with which unions should not concern themselves.

The same remarks apply to the agitation which is engaged in by unions and others over the iniquitous and scandalous Clutha development, which was approved of by the Attorney-General’s associates in New South Wales. Are not the unionists who live in that area concerned both for themselves and their children with the environment in which they live and in which these children grow? Is this something about which unionists should not be concerned merely because the matter does not concern wages and conditions? Are not unionists interested in matters of health, or in tariffs which might affect their employment, or with education and pensions? After all, unionists do grow old. But if we listen to the framers and supporters of this proposition these things are beyond the charter of trade unions. Where do we draw the line? Of course, much has been made of the actions of unionists over the recent apartheid business. Senator Wright was incautious enough to state that the actions of the anti-apartheid demonstrators in Australia had involved Australia in international ill will. If the honourable senator had any familiarity with what has been written in overseas papers in recent months he would know that the only ill will which has attatched to Australia over the Springboks tour has been the ill will caused by the Government in flouting all the international agreements - which were referred to by Senator Murphy - in allow- ing the Springboks to come here at all. Ill will attaches to Australia throughout Asia because we are branded as a bastion of racism for allowing the Springboks into Australia. This is far more harmful than anything the demonstrators may have done.

We are constantly told by the present Government that our future lies in Asia. Whether we like it or not we are almost a part of Asia. We will have to live wilh the Asians. Does it help our future and does it help us to live with the Asians if the only thing they know about Australia is that we hang on to America’s coat tails by sending troops to Vietnam and that we are one of the few countries which will allow Springbok sporting teams to come to Australia? Do the unions do Australia any ill by taking a stand against this sort of thing? We should at least be thankful that they and those who support them do something to counter the evil name which Australia gets throughout Asia by allowing . these teams into the country.

Senator Gair:

– Two wongs don’t make a white.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a fine interjection from Senator Gair on my left. I oppose what he said. Senator Gair who takes issue with me on this question of racism interjects. I shall quote the honourable senator aloud so that the people of Australia will know what he said. He said: ‘Two wongs don’t make a white’. No wonder Senator Gair does not mind the Springboks coming to Australia. But as I was about to say, there is also an element of sour grapes in this motion that comes from the Democratic Labor Party. As Senator Murphy mentioned earlier, there are many unions affiliated to the Australian Labor Party and there are a few - a very, few - affiliated to the Democratic Labor Party. Senator Little interjected when Senator Murphy was speaking

Senator Little:

– This was in regard to the Melbourne waterfront.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is right. They are proud of the fact that they have one or two small unions affiliated to them. They would obviously like to have more unions affiliated to them. If they did one could imagine Senator Gair, Senator Little and Senator Kane coming into this chamber and boasting about the great groundswell of feeling fir certain issues instanced by demonstrations and perhaps even strikes by unions that were affiliated to them. One can imagine them boasting about some demonstration by one of their unions against the recognition of China; for the continuation of the Vietnam war; or in favour of the Springbok tour or if we believe the sentiments of Senator Gair, in favour of apartheid itself. One can also imagine them boasting about demonstrations in favour of more or harsher censorship or against the visits of the Russian ballet, a Chinese ping-pong team or perhaps even in favour of the Greek colonels regime. But, of course, they cannot boast about these things because, except for a. tiny few unions affiliated to them, they do not have unions. They do not have any causes with which to fire the enthusiasm that makes people demonstrate.

What are they suggesting? They are suggesting that the democratic process is exhausted by electors going to the polls every 3 years and then lapsing into inactivity until they get the opportunity to go again. In the meantime, presumably, they are to resile from all political action. I suggest to the supporters of this motion that life is not like that and only a negative reactionary party would have us believe that it is or that it should be.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The Senate is debating a matter of urgency. The concise subject of the debate initiated by Senator Kane is:

The developing practice of using industrial trade union organisations to effect purposes of a political character thus usurping the functions of government.

The debate has been quite interesting because we have had the opportunity of listening to two sides of considered opinion in this chamber. Government speakers have sided with the comments made by Senator Kane. They have said that they see some danger, and some disadvantage to the Australian community, arising from political strikes. On the other hand, a series of Opposition senators - not all Opposition senators - have rushed forward to place their names on the list of speakers. Generally, I would suggest, a group of senators within the Australian Labor Party, except perhaps for one, would be considered to be of the left wing of that Party. 1 hope they will reflect on the comments that they made this evening. If they ever seriously hope to take the reins of office in this federal Parliament, as they so aptly proclaim across the chamber every day or so, they will have put to them the points that they have argued for this evening, namely, that unions should have the right to take political action and so force a government into taking actions which the elected majority of individuals would not desire.

This view was expressed by the last speaker. I think his comments, naive as they are in questioning what may be considered political strikes as against those which are seeking some industrial benefit for members of a union, illustrate the very simplicity of his colleagues who have spoken. There is no doubt about what the Senate is debating and that many of us are concerned about strikes in the community. I refer to the great incidence of strikes that are being generated in the community. I wonder whether members of the Opposition are as concerned as the Government is about the great harm that is being done in our community. I refer to the comments made by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget Speech when he said:

In the last 3 y,ears the annual loss of working days has been 1.1m, 2m and 2.4m.

This is very serious for our community and I imagine that responsible members of the Opposition feel likewise. As I see the position, strikes generally not only have an effect on commercial enterprises, thus creating what we see today as an inflationary trend - a trend which I attribute greatly to the general labour situation and the incidence of strikes - but also cause a loss of wages to individuals. .

If one were to calculate the value of the millions of days lost through strikes surely the result would be of concern to those members of the Opposition. But not one of them has come forward and said that this is a matter which should in some way be suppressed. I believe that there should be a right to. strike but the benefit that a strike is likely to bring should be carefully considered and calculated. In the political area we find unions have held strikes relating to the moratorium, the merino ram exports ban, the results of civil and criminal actions, the exclusion of brothers from

Parliament, anti-war meetings, law and order, pensions, compulsory unionism and the Springbok tour. As is well known, the threatened strikes are perhaps’ the greatest problem that we face. I refer to the power of one man, not necessarily with the support of the individual members of a union, who say: ‘We will force this business enterprise of that commercial undertaking to take steps to force employees to join a union*. These are the matters which 1 believe the Government and Senator Kane see as objectionable in our society and objectionable they certainly are.

It would be most interesting to take each point, debate it at length and discuss what are the very serious implications that they have in our community. I suggest that some of the actions which have occurred within the last 2 years are no more than potentially criminal in our society. 1 believe the actions of Mr Hawke in many instances and the power that an individual in his position can take over the whole community, or sections of the community, can wreak havoc within this society. If, indeed, in another country ‘ an individual had power to demand that employees of a business join an industrial organisation and pay dues to it so that he could act in a political way, many of us would regard it as one of the worst things that could happen in that community. I do not exaggerate the situation when I suggest that it is a Mafia-like action. I realise the significance of that comment, but I do not doubt that that will be the position in years to come if this situation is allowed to continue.

The position is that there has not been one comment by any member of the Opposition, no matter from which unions they may claim to come and no matter which sections of the working class they may suggest they support, against he actions of lying down in the street or prohibiting other individuals from going about their duties.

Senator Devitt:

– Or sacking a Prime Minister.

Senator Hannan:

– That is stupid.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Senator Hannan is quite right. We hear the stupid comments of members of the Opposition.

Senator Hannan:

– Inane.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Inane comments. I am attempting to put to the Senate the fact that wc do not hear from the once wonderful Labor Party a proposition in support of even some of those leaders of unions who have opposed this deprivation of the freedom of the individual which occurs by forcing strikes.

Senator Murphy is very vocal in his references to human rights and what should be permitted. But he does not stop in one instance to take apart and look into the situation of how some of these strikes have denied the very right of the individual to go about his business as# he would wish. His comments in this regard will go down as perhaps the worst of any leader of the Labor Party, a party which should be reflective of the views of the whole of the union movement - indeed, of the whole of the labouring force in this community. His views were completely one-sided and towards those of the left wing.

Let me quote some statements on this matter of illegal strikes. Perhaps members of the. Labor Party will laugh at the comments of Laurie Short; but he is the National Secretary of the. 60,000-member Federated Ironworkers Association. He said:

Many unionists are against the ACTU becoming too involved in political issues and appearing to usurp the functions of the elected Government. - There is concern that this involvement and the violence associated with some demonstrations could rub off against the Labor Party and weaken the appeal of both.

A lot of trouble is attributed to Mr Hawke because he has become synonymous in the public mind with the ACTU although he is only a member of the ACTU Executive.

Senator Keeffe:

– Who. is your authority?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I trust that Senator Keeffe will just be quiet while I complete these quotations. I know that he would wish to represent more than one little section of his backing. Mr Harold Turner, the Federal President .of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters .and Joiners, said:.

One would expect-

Senator Keeffe:

– Oh!

Senator WEBSTER:

– I hear Senator Keeffe laughing at this individual. On 5th July Mr Harold Turner was quoted as saying:

One would expect Bob Hawke to devote all his time and energies as President of the ACTU’ to industrial matters. If he wants to be a politician let him be one. But he cannot do justice to both roles.

Mr Joe Riordan, the Federal Secretary of the Federated Clerks Union, said-

Senator Mulvihill:

– Do not quote him.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I mention to you, Mr President, that members of the Labor Party in this chamber are laughing at leaders of unions which they attempt to represent. Mr Joe Riordan said:

Unions are traditionally involved in politics, but this does not mean they have to take political action or even have a right to take political action.

Our union will not take part in political strikes because we do not feel that they are our business. Mr Hawke and the ACTU should observe the difference between union and political action.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The bosses’ union.

Senator WEBSTER:

– We have a peculiar situation in which an attempt is made to deny me the opportunity to quote the statements of leaders of various unions who oppose political strikes in our community. Whether members of the Opposition care to listen or to laugh, I will proceed to say that on 28th June 1971 Mr J. Maynes, the Federal President of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia-

Senator Mulvihill:

– To what party does he belong? He is not one of ours.

Senator WEBSTER:

– He is not one of yours. 1 can see that the Federated Clerks Union will find no support from the Labor Party in this chamber. I make it known that the members of that union will receive only derision from members of the Opposition in this place. Members of the Opposition ought to be completely ashamed of themselves for adopting that attitude. I believe that this is an important union, and if they do not think so they ought to take the time to stand up and say so. Mr Maynes issued a statement under the heading ‘Halt Political Strikes and Bans’, which read as follows:

Unions and unionists would have to call a halt to political strikes and bans if unionism in Australia was not to be threatened, said Mr J. Maynes, Federal President of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

The FCU would not be involved in the stop work proposals of the Moratorium Day nor for that matter with stoppages on Social Services Day (21st July).

He said that unionism was being threatened by the activities of a group of communists, con-men and Johnnys-come-lately

We find that when political strikes are called many unionists who wish to be free and to express their opposition to what the current President of the ACTU puts forward are very quickly excluded from their union.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You have never been at a union meeting in your life. You would not know the atmosphere.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was a member of the Timber Workers Union before Senator Mulvihill was ever a member of any union. I found a wonderful fraternity in the Union in Victoria. I do not know what he had in New South Wales; but at least the Timber Workers Union was a pretty good group. The point I was making was that there is a very big section of people within the Labor Party and the trade union movement which has received no support from anyone who has spoken from the Opposition side this evening.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– In speaking to this motion, I congratulate Senator Webster on quoting one of the powerful trade unions of this country which happens to be led by a member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The bosses’ union.

Senator LITTLE:

– We get an instant reaction. The amazing fact is that if there is a big union which is led by the Democratic Labor Party the members of the Australian Labor Party in this chamber want to disown it; but if it is a union led by Communist Party officials it seems to be greatly beloved by them and not only is it accepted but its policies are slavishly supported. I can understand the disappointment that a big union should be led by members of the Democratic Labor Party. But I cannot understand why members of the Australian Labor Party do not exhibit exactly the same disappointment when they realise that a great many of the most powerful unions which were once led by Labor men are now led by members of the Communist Party. They show no concern at all. That may be one of the fundamental reasons why we are discussing the proposition that we are discussing here tonight. lt is a very clear cut proposition, namely, the misuse of the tremendous economic power that has developed in the great trade union movement of this country for purposes that are not industrial. If members of the community, trade unionist and others are prepared to continue to permit the development of this trend, then the day must come, of course, when there will be retaliation, when others in the community must have the same right to break the laws and to try to force the hand of Parliament in order to have their wishes imposed upon the community as a whole. We can see the day coming perhaps when employer organisations or other organisations will promote lockouts because the Russian Circus is coming to Australia or because some friends of the Labor Party are coming to Australia from some other country.

If a person uses the argument here to justify the strike of industrial power for some cause in which somebody believes then he must of course, if he is a democrat, support the right of others to do exactly the same thing for a cause which is near and dear to his heart. But, no, one has to be right in one’s causes. A person has to bc sure that he is right. He has to be as sure as Hitler was that only he has the right to misuse the power that is tied up in the organised strength of the trade union movement and in the organised strength of other sections of the community - religious if you like, friendly society if you like, employer organisations if you like. Trade unionists do not believe that they have special rights. It is a new trend in trade unionism for a trade union official to feel that he is superior to the law, that he can use violence in the streets and defy the normal processes of law in this country, that he can call on industrial stoppages to impoverish the economy of the nation and the workers in particular. They are the ones who suffer most and they have no say.

In spite of the airy-fairy nonsense talked by Senator Murphy let us face how the trade union movement today really functions. I am not one of those people who object to paying political levies. I pay them. I pay money to the Australian Labor Party because I am a member of a trade union organisation that has made a decision to pay money to the Australian Labor Party. Because it was a majority decision of my colleagues in my union I make no protest that part of my subscription to the union goes to the Australian Labor Party. That is a decision of the union. Although it is being used for a political purpose, that is not using the power that we are talking about here tonight, namely, the power to order the workers out on strike over the issue of the Springbok rugby tour. Who are the people standing around the ground cheering the players on? Were they all bosses? We should use our common sense. They were trade unionists who wanted to ge there and watch the football.

I smiled at the purity of the Labor Party here tonight on ‘ this - matter of racial discrimination. It is going to show the world that this country is pure on racial discrimination. It is going to stop work. It is going to show the sincerity of the Labor movement and the trade union movement 1 have in front of me the headlines of the newspapers of 21st June 1971. That is. not so very long ago, is it? The headline reads:

ALP-

That is the Australian Labor Party; let us be sure who it means - ends colour bar in policy on migrants.

The new purists who have suddenly discovered on 21st June 1971 that apartheid is wrong are calling on the industrial organisations of this country to strike because a football team dares to come from a country that supports the same apartheid policy as they were supporting up to 21 st lune. If the trade union officials who support this sort of thing are foolish enough to do so, if the Labor Party senators here who support this sort of thing are foolish enough to do so, do not tell me that the trade unionists who work in the boot factories where I worked and in the transport jobs where Senator Kane worked, the clerical workers with whom Senator Gair once worked, and the school teachers with whom Senator McManus once worked are as silly as those people who believe that this sort of purity is going to clean their slate. When I was in the Labor Party- I moved for the abandonment of the White Australia policy at Labor Party conferences . in Victoria. I could get a seconder, or I would second his proposal; I am referring to Albert Monk. We could not get anyone- else to even support the proposal. Today the members of the Australian Labor Party want to go out as the great purists on a question in relation to which our own house is not entirely in order. Whatever may be our individual ideas on this question, if anybody can lay claim to being a purist over the last quarter of a century at least I can.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What are your views?

Senator LITTLE:

– My views are such that there are in this country today at least 5 young Chinese familes who regard me as their Australian parent, and 1 am proud of the fact. My record on this question - Senator Mulvihill can put his record alongside mine if he wants to - has been that of a purist for 25 years. If the honourable senator’s record is as good he should look around amongst his colleagues to see whether they can equal it. If his record is as good as mine I will be pleased to know that I have a fellow Australian who is broad on this question, because it is a question dear to my heart and in relation to which we should all be broad.

But whatever may be our point of view on this matter, the question before the Senate is whether there should be industrial action to force the Government, the rest of the community or anybody else who may not agree with us on this matter. Is this a matter to be decided in the factories, in the workshops, in the trade unions, on the streets, at the football matches or at the cricket, or is Australian policy to be decided by the elected members of Parliament? If we disagree with those policies are they to be resisted? Nobody is suggesting this. It was not suggested by the mover of the proposition that the rights of the trade union movement be interfered with, except in the misuse of power.

I would like to read some extracts from a document which gets very close to the heart of this question. It begins in this way:

Australia must not become an imperialist armed camp like Palestine. If Australia’s policy was one of peace, of friendship with all peaceful nations, of loyalty to the United Nations Charter, we would have disarmament, lower taxes, higher living standards. Workers and farmers of the dry north must fight for peace. They must demand that the rocket range be scrapped and that the extension of the pipeline must be made to their own towns for their own peaceful needs.

Do honourable senators agree with that? I hear no voices. They are suddenly lost in a sea of uncertainty. I will let the mystery out of the bag. I know that everybody mistakenly thought that that quotation was Labor policy, because that is Labor policy today. But that is a quotation by the late H. V. Evatt from a Communist Party publication. The article continues:

The rocket plan is part of the Attlee-Devin and Chifley-Evatt policy of turning Australia into an imperialist base. This threatens early involvement of Australia in any future war fought with guided rockets and atomic bombs.

The legislation to which my colleague Senator Kane referred was brought down by the Chifley Labor Government not to stop trade unions from taking an interest in political activities or expressing opinions but to stop the use of industrial power to interfere with the rights of the Government to govern.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It was never enforced.

Senator LITTLE:

- Senator Cavanagh, says that it was never enforced. He should know. He could not get into the rocket range because Mr Chifley said that he was not a person to be allowed to enter the site of a defence establishment. But he is right when he says that it was never enforced, it never had to be enforced because the terms brought down by a Labor Government conscious of its responsibility to this nation were so severe that nobody dared to whisper about a black ban on the rocket range. It never had to be enforced because the penalty was a fine of over $1,000 or 6 months to 12 months gaol or both, depending on the circumstances under which one was indicted. So the problem was cured.

I come now to the excellent contribution to the debate by Senator Wright. He enumerated all the industrial political mistakes that have been made over the last couple of years. He told us about the Springboks. He told us about the trade union official who was charged with violence, and he told us about many other things. But with all due respect, let me say this to the Minister and to his Government. These things have all happened. The workers of this country have been denied their fundamental right to work on those days. The economy of the nation has been torn asunder. What has the Government done about it? That also is implied in the proposition that the DLP has brought before the Senate. It is all right for the Government to outline its position, but it was challenged to do something about the situation and has not. That is why the DLP has been forced to offer its advice to the Government and tell it what a Labor Government did when it was challeneged in a similar manner. That we are oppostd by Labor senators on a matter such as this is beyond my understanding.

We are speaking here tonight for the people who are being hurt the most. I refer to the working people of this country who are harmed when they are ordered to stop work. They mutter and murmur, but out of loyalty to their industrial organisations they comply. They are terrified that cries of ‘scabbery’ would be hurled at them if they did what they want to do - go to work in order to provide for their families the standard of living they desire. It is in order to help and protect those people that we have raised this question. Those people suffer again as economic circumstances in this country force inflation to spiral upwards still further. Is it common sense for the industrial movement of this country to say in respect of social service legislation that its members will strike for a day? Even the pensioner organisations pleaded with them not to do it because pensioners on fixed incomes understand the effect of a one-day stoppage on the price spiral. They understand that they are the ones who pay for the luxury of trade union officials’ exhibiting their tremendous industrial strength in the positions they hold. They are able to order a stoppage of work throughout this country for a day as part of a political demonstration. Senator Mulvihill, who is interjecting, is too well versed in trade union affairs to claim that the unionists are willingly stopping work for such purposes.

Mr President, sufficient has been said about this matter to indicate’ that the view inherent in it is in the interests of the people of this county. If I speak any longer I - will deny the Senate an opportunity to vote on the issue by supporting the motion. For (hat reason I move:

That the question be now put.

Senator Cant:

– Mr President, will you read the question upon which we will vote?

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is that the question be now put, and there can be no debate on it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The original question put:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.55 a.m.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 30

NOES: 23

Majority .. . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin affirmative.

page 119

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I present the following reports by the Tariff Board:

Artificial flowers, fruit, etc.; carnival and entertainment articles, etc.; Christmas trees, decorations, stockings, etc.

Burial and cremation caskets, of wood, unassembled; gramophone record covers, of paper or paperboard, printed or embossed; sails and tents; hoes, rakes and drags, being hand tools; vacuum pumps, including those used with milking machines; and petrol dispensing nozzles, automatic shut-off type (New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement).

Vegetable oils.

I present also the following reports by the Tariff Board which do not call for any legislative action:

Acetylsalicylic acid (Dumping and Subsidies Act).

Chain and chains (Dumping and Subsidies Act).

Elastomeric fabric and elastic fabric, knitted or crotcheted.

Sulphur and sulphuric acid.

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

Cathode ray tube display terminals.

Cherries.

Flue-heated economisers.

page 119

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES TRUST

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Act 1953-1965, I present the annual report of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Trust for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 119

QUESTION

POSTAL AND TELEPHONE CHARGES

Ministerial Statement

Senator GREENWOOD:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

Pursuant to ‘, section 96 (m) of the Post, and Telegraph Act 1901-70, I present the fourth statement relating to Post Office prospects and capital programme for . 1971-72. I ask for leave to make a statement relating to proposed postal and telephone charges.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is there any objection? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My colleague the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has referred in his Budget Speech to new postal and telephone charges which are to be introduced during the financial year 1971-72. The legislation relating to these will be introduced during this session. For the benefit of honourable senators the proposed adjustments are set out in some detail in the schedules now available to them. The increases in the charges for telecommunications and postal services are proposed to be effective in the main from 1st October 1971.

As recorded in the White Paper on Post Office Prospects and Capital Programme 1971-72 at the beginning of the financial year 1970-71 the overall Post Office trading profit was estimated at $30m; by the end of the year this had changed to a trading loss of $2m with a loss on postal operations of $25m and a profit on telecommunications operations of $23m. The long-term forecast for the financial year 1971-72 was a modest profit. Without an adjustment in charges the current forecast is a loss of $36m - $35m in postal and $lm in the telecommunications side. The deterioration in the financial position is due largely to new wage awards. During 1970- 71 some 50 new awards affecting Post Office staff were granted and these will add $77m to Post Office expenditure in 1971-72, compared with a 5 year average increase of $40m.

In addition, arbitration awards to industry generally have had an effect on prices of materials and services used by the Post Office and increased prices will add about a further $10m to expenditure during 1971- 72. In the face of the abnormal increase in labour and other costs which must be met in 1971-72, the continued demand for services and the excessive pressure this places on available resources, and the serious deterioration in financial prospects for the future, the Government has decided to increase certain charges for postal and telecommunication services. The proposals which I will later present to the Senate are expected to provide $50m. in 1971-72 and $90m in a full year. The estimated overall trading position for 1971-72 will then be $36m profit with a $53m profit in telecommunications and a $17m loss in postal.

page 120

TELEPHONE SERVICES

When introducing a Bill to the House at this time last year proposing certain increases in telephone charges, I mentioned that the rental structure that was then in force did not nearly cover the recurring annual expenses borne by the Post Office in relation to the facilities provided. Accordingly, each of the three rental categories was increased, as well as the service connection fee and the rental for some other miscellaneous telecommunications facilities. The new charges were based on the economic situation of the Post Office at the time.

However, since the new tariff structure came into operation on 1st October 1970. the very substantial salary increases awarded throughout have added to Post Office operating costs and dramatically altered the 1971-72 financial results forecast last year. As a consequence, there is no alternative other than to make further adjustments to the telephone tariff structure and it is now proposed that the present rental charges in each of three classes be further increased. The present annual rentals for a basic telephone service, depending on its location, is $47, $31 or $23. It is proposed that these charges be increased by $8, $6 and $4 respectively which will mean that subscribers in State capital cities, Canberra and Newcastle will pay $55 per annum for a basic telephone service, and those in provincial areas will pay either $37 or $27 per annum depending on the number of subscribers they can call for a local call fee and on whether they have continuous service or not. The one-third reduction in rentals which is given to blind persons and certain classes of pensioners will be maintained.

It is proposed also to increase the service connection fee by $10, making the fee $50. Telephone call charges have not been increased since 1967, despite rising costs, and the Post Office, as a business undertaking, has no alternative but to increase these charges. It is proposed to increase local call charges from 4c to 4.75c with a corresponding increase in trunk charges. The fees for particular- person, reversed charge and fixed time calls are also to be increased. The Telex call fee of 5c per meter registration has not been altered since the automatic Telex system was introduced in 1966. It is proposed to increase this fee to 6c. Fixed fees for installing, altering or removing miscellaneous equipment (as distinct from the installation of a new or removal of an existing service to a new address) are to be increased. Present charges which have not been altered since 1964, do not cover costs. It is estimated that the variations will bring in additional revenue of $35m iri 1971-72 and $69m in 1972-73.

page 120

POSTAL SERVICES

With estimated postal losses of $25m in 1970-71 and $35m in 1971-72 at current tariffs, a general increase in rates is unavoidable if rising costs are to be recovered. It is expected that the increased charges will bring in $15m in 1971-72 and $21m in a full year and reduce the estimated postal loss to $17m in 1971-72. Although there was an increase in the basic postal rate last year the wage rates payable to postal staff have been increased since then by an average of 16 per cent. These have had a particularly adverse affect on the postal services because some 70 per cent of its costs are associated with labour. In the last 3 years postal wage rates have risen by about 40 per cent.

page 120

LETTERS AND OTHER ARTICLES

The existing basic rate of 6c will be increased to 7c, for the first ounce in respect of letters and for the first 2 ounces in respect of other articles. There will be no change in the rates for heavier weight letters and other articles.

page 120

PUBLICATIONS REGISTERED AT THE G.P.O

The existing general rate for registered Australian books, newspapers and periodicals of 6c for the first 6 ounces and 5c for each additional 6 ounces will become 7c for the first 6 ounces and 6c for each additional 6 ounces. These concession rates represent, in effect, a substantial subsidy to the publishing and printing industry and to many organisations, ranging from religious, charitable and welfare organisations to social and recreational clubs. It is debatable whether this subsidy is an appropriate charge on the Post Office’s finances. It is necessary, therefore, to continue the action taken in recent years, to reduce the extent of the postal loss from this concession.

The rate for Category ‘A’ publications will be increased to 7c for each 12 ounces on the total weight of the consignment, subject to a minimum per article charge of He This means that most country newspapers and periodicals, and the publications of religious, charitable and welfare organisations, and of educational, scientific, technical and agricultural bodies have the dissemination of knowledge as their principal object, will still be paying only He postage per article compared with 7c at normal printed matter rates. Each item must be handled a number of times between posting and delivery.

Registered newspapers and periodicals in Category B, including those published by professional, business, union, commercial, social, recreational and motoring organisations, will pay the following rates:

For delivery from the office of posting: 2c first 2 ounces. ic each additional ounce.

For delivery elsewhere: 2ic first 2 ounces. lc each additional ounce up to 8 ounces. ic each additional ounce thereafter.

The registered publications will still enjoy a substantial concession.

These increases on bulk postings of Category A and Category B publications will operate from 1st March 1972 to give publishers and organisations time to adjust subscription rates. Category A publications will continue to be registered, at least for the time being. However, because of the need to contain increases in the loss from this concession area no further registrations in Category B will be allowed after 31st December 1971. Existing Category B publications will retain their registration as long as they comply with the eligibility conditions.

A new Category C, at economic postage rates and requiring compliance with conditions to reduce postal costs, will be introduced. Controlled circulation publications, sent on request by publishers to defined customer groups, and not previously eli gible for registration will be eligible for the new Category C. These publications, mainly heavy business magazines, are at a great disadvantage compared with comparable registered publications. In addition, newspapers and periodicals which would otherwise have been eligible for Category B will, after 31st December 1971, be eligible for registration in the new Category C. Conditions for page inscriptions, format, and supplementary material in respect of registered newspapers and periodicals will be varied bo meet more satisfactorily present day needs of publishers.

page 121

BULK PRE-SORTED AND HOUSEHOLDER MAIL

Adjustments are being made to the postage rates for letters, other articles and registered books posted under the bulk pre-sorted mail service. Many customers are taking advantage of these lower rates and the Post Office is benefiting from the economies of higher mail volumes and compliance with mandatory pre-sorting and other conditions. Rates for heavier weights have been converted to a 2 ounce basis. In the Householder Service a reduction of up to 25 per cent for postings over 100,000 is proposed in order to meet competition from private delivery contractors and retain existing business. This service will continue to pay its way because no sorting is required, the articles being addressed simply to ‘The Householder’ and delivery is spread over seveal days.

page 121

OTHER POSTAL ADJUSTMENTS

The rates for parcels will be increased, averaging 10 per cent for domestic and 20 per cent for overseas. The fees for many labour intensive special services, which fail to cover costs by a big margin, such as registered post, certified mail, and messenger delivery services will also be increased. However, the maximum compensation payable on registered mail will be increased to $150 and compensation of up to $20 for loss or damage in respect of certified mail will be introduced. Regarding overseas mail, airmail letter rates will be increased by 5c per half ounce, 2c per half ounce in the case of New Zealand, and aerogrammes by 2c, because of cost increases in the handling component and the need to cover processing costs on incoming mail which is nearly twice the outgoing volume, despite a 25 per cent reduction in conveyance rates.

British Commonwealth preference rates for overseas surface letters will be abolished; few Commonwealth countries have this now and Canada has just eliminated it. As far as the general public is concerned, this will have relatively little effect as their most common form of surface communication overseas is greeting cards which may be sent at the 7c printed papers rate proposed. A new rate category for all registered newspapers and periodicals, posted in bulk to overseas will also be introduced, the charge being the same as for Category C in the domestic service. Other changes include a sliding scale of fees relating to volume, for business reply items, and an allowance of lc in the postage on grouped articles. I will elaborate further on the reasons for the increases when introducing the proposed legislation later in the session.

I now turn to the new fees for broadcasting and television licences. These were referred to by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. There will be no increase in the pensioner rate in either broadcasting or television licences fees. As to other areas, the broadcast listeners, hirers and lodging house licence fee for zone 1 will be increased from $6.50 to $8.00, and zone 2 from $3.30 to $4.25. The television viewers licence fee will increase from $14 to $19 and the combined receiving licence, to cover both broadcasting and television, will increase from $20 to $26.50, and a new combined lodging house licence will be included with a fee at $26.50. All the proposed adjustments are detailed in tables, copies of which are available to honourable senators. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate those tables in Hansard.

page 128

ADJUSTMENTS OF FEES FOR BROADCAST LISTENERS’ AND TELEVISION VIEWERS’ LICENCES

(As from 1st October 1971)

page 128

INTRODUCTION

It has been announced that, from 1st October 1971, the fees for broadcast listeners' and television viewers' licences will be increased. The fees for pensioner licences will not be varied. The facilities for the national broadcasting and television services are provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Post Office. The provision and running of the transmitters and transmitter buildings and the technical equipment involved in getting programmes from a studio to the transmitter are the responsibility of the Post Office while the Broadcasting Commission provides and operates the facilities required for the production of the programmes. There have been suggestions that these services should be financed wholly from taxation receipts, but it has been the practice in the past for listeners and viewers to contribute a major share of the costs, through licence fees, to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and it is not proposed that this arrangement be varied. The Post Office is responsible for collecting these fees. The existing licence fees were last varied in 1968 but since that time the excess of expenditure over receipts has grown from $14 million in 1968-69 to an estimated $31 million in 1971-72. The deterioration in the overall financial position of the services has been due to mounting wage costs, and higher operating and maintenance costs with the expansion of the services. A new type of licence is being introduced, from 1st October 1971. A combined broadcast/television licence will be available for lodging houses where both broadcast and television receivers are provided for the use of guests. This action is being taken to cover the motel situation where both facilities are provided in suites. The new combined lodging house licence will offer a saving of fifty cents over the cost of the individual licences. {: .page-start } page 128 {:#debate-125} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES {: #debate-125-s0 .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania -- I present the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances relating to the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 4 of 1971, the Evidence Ordinance. Ordered that the report be printed. {: .page-start } page 128 {:#debate-126} ### JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Motion (by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) agreed to: >That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951-1966 **Senator Guilfoyle** be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. {: .page-start } page 128 {:#debate-127} ### AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT {: #debate-127-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I present the following papers: >Audit Act - Finance - Report of the AuditorGeneral for the year 1970-71, accompanied by the Treasurer's Statement of Receipts and Expenditure. {: .page-start } page 128 {:#debate-128} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-128-0} #### DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS {: #subdebate-128-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Is Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 5, formal or informal? {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- Formal. standing committee on education, science and the arts Motion (by **Senator Cavanagh)** agreed to: >That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts the following matter - The petitions presented to the Senate on 17th August 1971 by Senators Webster, Poyser, Byrne and Cavanagh concerning the granting of deductions from income for taxation purposes. general business Motion (by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) agreed to: >That Notice of Motion No. 1 1, General Business, be brought on forthwith. mcmahon government **Senator willesee** (Western Australia) (I O.IS)- On behalf of **Senator Murphy** I move: I suggest that the 2 propositions embodied in this motion are undeniable. If you accept that the Government is unstable and subservient to outside influence, then you must come to the conclusion that that ds injurious to our nation. The parliamentary system under which we operate is known as the Westminster system as distinct from that practised in the United States of America and some of the newly emerging countries. Our system provides for the appointment of Ministers by the Prime Minister, under the Liberal Government. In addition, he allocates the portfolios. The job of the Minister is to present policy and provide drive to his department. It is not the job of the department to make policy. The department has to follow the lead and drive of the Minister and provide such things as the technical knowhow, the routine, the expertise and the continuity for which our country has become very famous. A Minister is something more than a politician and something more than a parliamentarian. He has to become an administrator. Statesmanship has the opportunity to blossom, provided there is fertile soil, in persons elevated to these positions. It is essential that they rise above the pettiness and personalities which unfortunately are found in the lower echelons of politics. When one sees the situation today - the tremendously unfavourable publicity that the Government has been getting, not only in Australia but overseas - one wonders where all this started. If we examine the situation, this started with the deterioration of the Liberal Party. It started at the time of the unfortunate disappearance of the late Harold Holt. The Liberal Party was put in the unenviable and sad position of having lost its leader and of having to elect another leader overnight. If at that stage the Party had taken a statesmanlike view and examined very carefully not from a point of view of personalities and not from a point of view of some kind of imaginary charisma that would enable it to be able better to do battle with the Labor Party or to enable it to gain or to maintain government, but from the point ot view of looking at the statesmanlike qualities and experience of the people who were offering themselves as candidates, a lot of the mistakes that have followed would not have taken place. Possibly all the mistakes that followed would not have taken place. Everybody in this building absorbs the atmosphere and the atmosphere always seems to leak out from this building to the Press. The whole of the atmosphere was one of personalities and of a clash between one man and the senior member of the other Party in the coalition. I refer to the Country Party. The senior member of that Party intervened. That is the type of approach to which I refer. I believe that if we examine this situation - and all of us should examine it because it is one which should not continue if the influence is not to continue and do injury to the nation to which all of us owe so much allegiance - we will find that there is no doubt that the wrong approach was taken at that stage. Since then there has been a playing of politics. The Government has forgotten the job of governing. Party factions, petty factions and personalities have crept in. Appointments have been made not on sheer ability and not on administrative ability but on whether this man would advance the cause of that faction, whether he was a friend of the person making the appointment or whether his appointment would please some outside body, Possibly appointments were made in gratitude of favours done in the past. Appointments were governed not by the ability or the statesmanlike qualities of the candidates but by all the things which I have mentioned. This should never have been allowed to move into the top echelon of government. Obviously the moving of Ministers from one portfolio to another - not because they had expertise in a particular folio but because the change might get them out of the country or because it might move them away from certain discussions which might take place - culminated in excluding senior Ministers from meetings at which they had every right to be present. A government cannot operate under that kind of system. It is bad administration, and the business of government is administration. Politics is just the tip of government. If one had been watching the events of the past 2 or 3 years one would have thought that politics was the whole iceberg and not one-eighth of it. There is a vast civil service in the other seven-eighths of the iceberg. It is waiting for a lead. The frequent changes cannot do anything but confuse the civil service. The job of Ministers is to lead and to control a department, not to be controlled by it or to confuse it. The vast Public Service has a set of politics of its own. These politics will feed on weak Ministers, on quick changes of Ministers and on Ministers who are inexperienced and who start to lean too much on their departments. There is an art and a skill in the relationship between both sides - between the permanent head of the particular section of the Public Service which a Minister is governing and the Minister. It is when those 2 are welded and fused that we get good administration and progress in the community. When one looks at the changes - and let me be fair and say immediately that there must be changes, that people must grow old, that people must want to retire and that from time to time junior Ministers must be moved up to senior portfolios; all this is accepted and ail this has taken place - one sees the effect of the changes. I start by mentioning what I might term the junior portfolios, with no offence to those Ministers. At least one change in the last year has taken place in the Ministries of Housing, Navy, Interior, Trade and Industry, Primary Industry, Shipping and Transport, Supply, Immigration, Labour and National Service, Treasury, Aboriginal Affairs and Tourist Activities. This is not a new government. This is not a government that is finding its feet. This is a government which, I think I am right in saying, has had a record term of continuous government in Australia. It did not have teething troubles. This would not be normal in a government with such experience. I suggest that the changes were made because of the reasons that I have mentioned already. The effect of the changes is more important in the sensitive portfolios - those which have a very great bearing not only on internal policies but also on external policies. It seems that the changes are taking place when great pressures are being exerted from overseas both in trade and in the political side of government. These changes have taken place because of political and personal manoeuvres. Some of the senior portfolios have been used as administrative Siberias. I ask this question: Do honourable senators opposite or does anybody listening tonight believe that the appointment of **Mr McMahon** as Minister for Foreign Affairs, the appointment of **Mr Bury** as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the appointment of **Mr Gorton** as Minister for Defence were for administrative reasons, or were the appointments made for personal reasons? One of the greatest problems that have faced governments and nations over the years is the question of Vietnam. It is possibly the most divisive issue that has hit not only Australia but the world. The situation is dangerous and exasperating, lt is going through tremendous changes and tremendous pressures are being exerted. During this time we have had 3 Ministers for Defence who have had a tremendous responsibility not only in this sensitive area but also in co-operating with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in dealing with other nations that are involved also. We have had 3 Ministers for Foreign Affairs in 6 months. This is at a time when the United States of America is making very radical moves in Asia. Do not underrate the situation in Pakistan and India. It could produce a world war if something is not done particularly quickly. Our nearest neighbour, Indonesia, is getting over 25 years of a lost weekend and is making valiant strides to rehabilitate itself from all the traumas or the problems which it has. We have a vested interest in assisting that nation, knowing that we have to live with it for as long as the world spins. The withdrawal of the United States and Great Britain from the area is in turn causing the Asian nations to look even more to the continent of Australia for assistance. Meetings of the Asian and Pacific Council and the South East Asia Treaty Organisation are continuing. Those organisations are under some pressures and some criticism. Yet in 6 months we have had 3 Ministers for Foreign Affairs. We should dwell for a moment on the situation with other Foreign Ministers, particularly Asian Foreign Ministers, who are trying to establish a rapport and unofficial meetings which are so important. They are important because of the state of flux in the area at the moment. Throughout the whole of Asia today - and when I speak of Asia I include Australia and New Zealand - there is no problem in the political field that is not related in some way to the Chinese problem. There is no problem in the economic field which is not related in some way to the Japanese problem. Japan is on the verge of making another great leap forward. When it does get under way with the huge amount of capital that it is going to export it will have a tremendous influence not only on the Asian countries but also on Australia and New Zealand. The whole of our mineral development will be affected by it because it must be realised that Japan today is no longer a cheap manufacturing country. It can manufacture just as cheaply in Australia. It can manufacture much more cheaply in the Asian countries, and the Japanese are very anxious at the moment to export their pollution. They really mean pollution and not just a word we talk about from day to day. Although it only came about in the last few days it has been mooted for at least 12 months that there would be a de facto devaluation of the American dollar and this could very well be one of the most frightening things that could happen to the world and to this area because it is aimed directly at Japan. It is aimed deliberately at Japan to make Japanese exports on to the American market more expensive. Because these manufactured goods of iron and of textiles are based on the original ingredients that come from Australia - the iron, the steel and the wool come from Australia - it follows almost automatically that if Japan is unable to export and sell its manufactured goods, that will affect Australia which is supplying it. The relationship with Ministers and the continuity of policy is so essential in this area because the emerging countries above all want to be able to look ahead for at least the 5-year plans which most of them are moving towards, and many want to look beyond that. While Australia is doing that the Government is changing Foreign Ministers at the rate of one every 2 months. In the field of health, which is bedevilling the Government, unless the Government can get on top of it and give to the Australian people the health programme they want, the question of the quality of life becomes a mere empty expression. The new Minister for Health **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** has inherited this portfolio and he has inherited also, as I pointed out to him today, 72 questions on the notice paper - more than any other Minister has to contend with. This shows some of the problems and the interest of all members in both Houses of this Parliament. I do not think a day goes by when a senator does not ask a question on education. This is a great field about which the Australian psople are worrying and talking. I do not know whether they have the answers. If they do have the answers, certainly we have not supplied them with what they need up to this time. Surely this is a portfolio which needs intense and continuous effort. It cannot be just picked up from day to day. Yet we have had 3 Ministers in half of this scholastic year. We have had 3 Attorneys-General this year even though law and order has been the gimmick that the Government has been trying to use from time to time over the last 2 years. We have been hearing all sorts of things about the inadequacies of our industrial relations. We hear them from both sides. We have both the trade union movement and the employers federations anxious to get together because they realise we cannot continue with the situation we have where we are automatically fining people $1,000 and defying every law that has been written. At a time when the whole of Australia wants to do something about it the Government is not settling down to deal with this very sensitive area. We also have inflation to which no answer has been found. We have a rural crisis which is getting worse every day. And while this goes one we have these petty jealousies and these petty squabbles becoming worse every hour of the day. There is no doubt, unfortunately, that politics in this Parliament where they should be at their zenith are now at their nadir. **Mr Gorton** revealed in his articles that while he was Prime Minister the Cabinet was unworkable. It was so because of all the things he mentioned. I do not want to go into them because we have talked enough and have read enough about them. But there was the Prime Minister of the day saying that the Cabinet could not work. There is no doubt that the Government has taken its eyes off the business of government. All the weaknesses of men, the hate, the envy, the spite and the ambitions, have taken over from the jobs the Ministers were appointed to do. This is demonstrated by the leaks that have been coming from the Cabinet, particularly over the last few months. I do not pretend that leaks are not a part of government. They are a great way of conditioning the public and this Government uses that method always with a Budget. Always before a Budget it frightens the living daylights out of us with what it is going to do. The Budget is never as bad as it is expected to be. This one is bad enough but not as bad as we expected. It is a good trick. I have no qualms about letting the Government use it. This is what is called the controlled leak. But when there are leaks of this sort, whenever the Press is trying to get leaks of this sort from the Government or from the Public Service we will find a fair amount of inaccuracy. The point is that over the last few months these leaks have been completely accurate. The dismissal of **Mr Bury** was headlined in the Press 2 days before it took place. This Budget shows the accuracy of the leaks. I know enough about politics to know that one side leaks out to the Press what it thinks the other faction does not like. I make no denial that I have lived in an atmosphere of this in a party other than the Liberal Party. Thank God it is getting over it. It was interesting when **Mr** Bury was making a statement to the Press and he summed this up. He said that the place leaks like a sieve and this must break down trust. It was also interesting when he was asked why it developed and he said: 'I do not think it was cause and effect. It was a decline in standards, standards of honesty and decent behaviour.' ls it any wonder that instability is inevitable in this situation? I turn to the second point mentioned in the Opposition's motion, that of the subservience of the Government to outside ' bodies. This is always an arguable case and because of that I will quote only from the defence and not from the attack. I quote from an article in the 'Daily Telegraph' entitled 'The Telegraph and **Mr Gorton.** Setting the record straight'. The article said: > **Sir Frank** was informed by **Mr** McNicoIl that there seemed little likelihood of- **Mr McMahon's** being elected leader, and that **Mr Gorton** was favourably regarded. That was an understatement because **Mr McMahon** was unable to stand. The article continued: > **Sir Frank** asked **Mr McNicoll** to speak to **Mr Gorton** and inquire whether, if he became leader, be would retain **Mr McMahon** in the Treasury. > > **Mr McNicoll** had a private conversation with **Mr Gorton** at the home of **Mr W.** C. Wentworth and explained the situation to him. That would hardly be a tranquil place to be having a discussion of this sort. The article continued: > **Mr Gorton** said that he admired **Mr McMahon's** ability and his capacity for hard work; and that if he **(Mr Gorton)** got the leadership there was no reason to think he would not do what he could to put **Mr McMahon** in the Treasury. > > **Mr McNicoll** reported this to **Sir Frank** Packer in Acapulco. > >After **Mr Gorton** had been in the Prime Ministership for some time, rumour circulated that he intended moving **Mr McMahon** from the Treasury. Questioned about this - They questioned the Prime Minister about his intention - he hinted that changes could be made, but that they were unlikely. Shortly afterward he moved **Mr McMahon** from the Treasury. Despite this the Telegraph continued to give **Mr Gorton** support - at a time when the Australian newspapers were becoming increasingly critical. At this time the Bulletin, whose policy is often completely opposed to that of the Telegraph, published some critical articles by Alan Reid about **Mr Gorton's** conduct of his 1969 campaign. When these attaaks became too vitriolic **Sir Frank** Packer told the Bulletin to stop the attacks on **Mr Gorton.** The change of attitude of Consolidated Press towards **Mr Gorton** came when he made statements to the House which were considered untrue concerning his dealings with certain journalists. At this time **Sir Frank** Packer telephoned **Mr McNicoll,** who was on holidays, and asked him to return. On his return, **Sir Frank** asked **Mr McNicoll** - who had been a fervent Gorton supporterhow he felt in view of the latest developments. **Mr McNicoll** said: **'Mr Gorton** has lost me', and wrote in the Sunday Telegraph the editorial suggesting that Gorton must go. Under the system which is worked by the Liberal Party it is the complete right of the Prime Minister to make what portfolio adjustments he feels fit. Yet in defence of this proposition **Sir Frank** Packer made statements when he was obviously putting undue pressure on to the Government. Let us be quite clear about this matter. Everybody tries to put pressure on the Government. This is the right of citizens. Every day every honourable senator has somebody in his office. Ministers have people coming to see them. Departmental officers have people coming to see them. Before Budget time the Government has big business and all sorts of people putting pressure on it. Nothing is wrong with this in a democracy, provided that the decencies are not overstepped. The crunch comes when the government ceases to govern and starts to be dominated by those people. This is what I suggest the Australian people are taking exception to today. I think the limit is passed when a newspaper leader says that it is time that the Prime Minister pushed a senior Minister out - namely, the then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party - and put him onto a back bench, The acme of good political manoeuvring is careful timing. The Prime Minister did not use that. He did it almost immediately. At least the decency of proper timing could have been observed. 1 repeat that a government must govern. It must not be pushed around by pressure groups however powerful those pressure groups might be. What would be the result if a man, interviewed on television, could say: 'This is what has to be done by the Government.'? Where would it end? Why not get another big industrialist and threaten the Government with overt action if it does not do the very opposite? Of course this would show up the whole farce. If this kind of action took place it would show the rest of. the iceberg. I shall relate very briefly to honourable senators something which 1 know happened many years ago. 1 suggest that if the Prime Ministers of this year had done what Curtin did when he was Prime Minister there would have been a very different end to this situation. During the war, not long after Curtin became Prime Minister he was approached by a big newspaperman who congratulated him and said that everybody had to put his shoulder to the wheel. Curtin agreed with that proposition. He said: 'After a few minutes I noticed creeping into the conversation phrases such as "If you do this **Mr Prime** Minister then we will do that". Curtin said: 1 want you to understand that you possess nothing which I desire. I want your help the same as I want everybody's help in the war effort. You have your job to do and I have mine, but I make it clear that you possess nothing which I desire.' Does it not strike the weapon out of the hand of anybody who is threatening or anybody who is trying to cajole to be told that he possesses nothing that you want? It is getting towards the time for the normal adjournment. **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson ought to have a chance to talk about this matter on behalf of the Government, because it is of tremendous public interest. I think the Government should have an opportunity to state its case. In a debate such as this there is a tremendous temptation to harangue, to abuse and to take the temporary political advantage which obviously we could do. I have tried to refrain from doing this. I hope I have succeeded. If I were to do this it would be a shadow, because I would be doing the very thing of which I am accusing the Government. I suggest that it is quite unarguable that the situation which exists in the Liberal-Country Party coalition, supported by the Australian Democratic Labor Party and, to date, the 3 independent honourable senators, is injurious to our nation. {: #subdebate-128-0-s1 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP (10.44) - This motion, which was put down by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate **(Senator Murphy)** and to which **Senator Willesee** spoke on behalf of the Opposition, is the reflection of a motion which was put down on 17th August in another place by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** there. Some of the phraseology in this motion follows the phraseology of the motion which was put down by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. I think that is about where it ended. Quite obviously the Australian Labor Party held a Caucus meeting and decided that the motion would be put down in both places. I say this in fairness to **Senator Willesee,** who has led for the Opposition in this chamber. That is about where the similarity ended, because whatever I am going to say about what happened in the other place 1 go on record here as saying that **Senator Willesee** has argued his case - though I do not agree with it - with dignity and respect for the parliamentary system. He has not employed the unfortunate element of personalities which permeated the case which was put by **Mr Whitlam** in the other place. Of course inevitably we are in a situation where the main game is played early and the reserve game is played at the time when the main game is normally played. In other words we are having this motion in the after effects of the clash which happened in the other place when the motion was put down and a vote was taken. The vote was defeated without any variation in normal party affiliations. The great prospects of what was going to happen as a consequence of the great motion put down by **Mr Whitlam** proved to be completely misjudged, misguided and, in fact, completely inaccurate. I am going to follow the pattern of **Senator Willesee,** who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and respond, I hope, in a dignified and proper way which I trust usually becomes me although sometimes I become a little anxious. But the fact is that we must look at the issue as it was put down by the recognised Leader of the Opposition. I read in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald' a heading 'Political humbug'. I am not suggesting that **Senator Willesee** used this phraseology, but his leader did and Hansard is here for all to read. The article states: >Yesterday's censure motion, curiously framed to invite attack against **Mr McMahon** personally rather than against his Government, was singularly futile. Labor was entitled to seek debate on the circumstances surrounding recent Cabinet changes, and **Mr McMahon** willingly made time available to them. In the event it was time wasted. Today I have willingly made time available at the first possible opportunity to have a debate in this place. The article continues: > **Mr Whitlam** set the tone of Labor's contribution by offering an exercise in gossip mongering, in speculative conspiracy theory and in abuse by innuendo. His intention apparently was to tempt Liberal dissenters to ruin the Prime Minister and propel the coalition parties into some kind of wilderness - And so on. In the event, that did not happen. In the event, it is being debated here. **Senator Willesee** bases his argument on 2 heads. He says that these various changes have created a state of instability. Then he referred to various portfolios which changed and I think he referred to the portfolio of Minister for Health which I have assumed. He mentioned that 1 am confronted with 72 outstanding questions upon notice. If the resolving and the answering of those 72 outstanding questions were the limit of my problems I would be far more relieved because health - let us face it - is a most difficult and complex portfolio. But after all it is proper to say that I am a very senior Minister in the Cabinet. It is proper to say that I have been a Minister for *7i* years. It is proper to say that I have had a lifetime experience in some of the side issues of health at any rate, and if Health is a difficult portfolio - and all of us on both sides recognise it is - I think I have a responsibility as a senior Minister to accept the challenge and do what I believe to be right in the interests of government and the people of Australia. Since there was a reference to me and the Health portfolio all I say is that I am not unaware of the problems or the challenge which the acceptance of it will be both physically and mentally. But because I hold a senior position in the government and on the Executive, if I am to sit here I have to be prepared to accept that sort of situation. Equally this is true of the Foreign Affairs portfolio. **Mr N.** H. Bowen, who is the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is a former Attorney-General and a member of the Cabinet. He has not had as long political experience as I have but it is equally true to say that he- has held responsible portfolios. He is a lawyer of great eminence. Before he entered politics he was probably one of the leading equity lawyers of the Commonwealth. With his experience he is admirably suited to assuming responsibility for the high office of Minister for Foreign Affairs. The same is to be said of **Mr Fairbairn,** who is now the Minister for Defence and who has held the portfolios of Air, National Development and Education and Science. I do not think that it is arguable - and this is on **Senator Willesee's** own sayso - that our Government is based on ministerial responsibility backed up by a Public Service which has been trained, which is experienced and indeed which does not have any political affiliations - although there are some that try to make members of the Public Service have political affiliations. As 1 say, the Public Service is geared, trained, experienced and competent to give the service of government. I want to make the observation to **Senator Willesee** that the Wetsminster system to which he referred does provide that the right to make changes in the composition of his Cabinet is one of a Prime Minister's prerogatives. This has never been argued before. 1 am surprised that it is being argued now that the Prime Minister should not have that prerogative. I could go further. T could say that we on our side of politics do not attempt to tell the Australian Labor Party what it should do in its own domestic affairs. We sit on the side and say: 'If you make some changes it might be more advantageous to us politically'. We might criticise them in that sense. But Her Majesty's Opposition has a responsibility just as the Government has and the affairs of the Labor Party should not be made the occasion, as they were yesterday in another place for an attempt to blackguard the character of people because a change has been made. I could easily embark upon a heated argument as to whether it was wise to make a comment about what happened to **Mr Daly** when he was removed from the shadow cabinet. I could reflect upon the position of the spokesman for the Australian Labor Party on immigration matters. I do not want to go into those things. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- He has not been removed from the shadow cabinet. You are misinformed on that. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON: Let us take another one. I could talk of the man who was the shadow minister on primary industry matters. I could ask whether it was **Dr Patterson** or someone else. But it does not matter, because that is not the way in which we debate such matters here. All I am saying is that ever since there has been a Parliament - and this would have begun in the mother of parliaments - the Prime Minister has had an inherent right to re-arrange his Cabinet. Equally, the Opposition has this right in respect of its own affairs; it has responsibilities in a democracy as we have. Since members of the Opposition constitute the official Opposition they have the right to move their various members from office to office as they see fit according to their own procedures and by their vote. I want to talk about only one other matter and I shall do so very quickly. I refer to the question of injurious influences. I believe that **Senator Willesee** did not make a case in relation to that matter. His remarks were directed at one newspaper. I do not intend to bite the bullet on that. Suffice it is to say that I have cuttings, as he has, not only from the paper to which he has referred - and in passing this was the 'Daily Telegraph' - but also from the Age', and from the leading article of the Herald' of Wednesday, 11th August, which I think was the day before the changes were made. I have one from the Melbourne 'Age' of 11th August and one from the 'West Australian' dated 12th August. In fact, I think that the 'Daily Telegraph' requoted some of the other papers all of which, as they have the right to do, expressed views as to what they thought should be done. I thought that **Senator Willesee** was perilously close to advocating that these papers should not be able to do that. Whilst a government, or an opposition too, does not necessarily let newspapers call the tune on what it is going to do the papers will still write about it. They still think they have the best political judges in the world; they still think they have the best economic writers in the world. They will always continue to write and the people like to read what has been written. But the final decision is a decision of a government; it is a decision of an executive. In the minute and a half which I have left I would say that it has been demonstrated by the vote in the other place yesterday that the Government has solidarity. AH its supporters voted with it against the motion that was proposed by the Opposition. They did so because they believe, and they know, that the Government has the capacity to give the people of Australia the form of government that they need and want. This Government has been able to give the people security. I was listening to the previous debate and heard some very stern words about national security and the industrial wing. I say that the people have confidence in this Government. The people believe that this Government is acting in the best interests of the whole nation. When the happy day comes and there is an election, the people will reaffirm what they have reaffirmed every time since 1949, namely, that our way of government in a democracy is a better way than the system advocated by the Opposition, and it will give stability to the people of Australia. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 136 {:#debate-129} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-129-0} #### Tourism {: #subdebate-129-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question. That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-129-0-s1 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland -- I will not detain the Senate for very long. I wish to raise a matter of urgency and in doing so I direct my remarks to the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. The matter relates to a company known as AustAsian Cruises Ltd, which operated in my home town area of Townsville some months ago. To help the Minister, I am quite prepared to give him what documentation I have. I intend to quote a couple of cases but I shall not give the proper names of individuals lest they be disturbed in some way although I have been told that I may use the information given to me in any way that is necessary in an effort to recover money owed to them. This company probably started off on an honest basis but somewhere along the line it certainly went very much wide of its original intentions. Tens of thousands of dollars have been paid in deposits on cruises; in some cases full fares have been paid. 1 have one case which I propose to place before the Senate this evening. There is no chance today of the recovery of any of this money. The reason I raise this matter in this place is that I believe that tourism is one of the most important industries today. If there is not some law which protects people in these circumstances, there ought to be one. At some subsequent date some sort of legislation may be needed to bring this about. I also want to know whether it is within the powers of the Federal Minister to assist in the tracing of the people who have disappeared with the money owing to the large number of customers who in some instances have lost the whole of their life savings. The company, as I mentioned a moment ago, is Aust-Asian Cruises Ltd. The principals of the firm are: **Mr Ian** Calder Malcolm Little, **Mr S.** Shirley, his brother **Mr L.** Shirley, **Mr S.** Soonjarotaai and **Mr Albert** Sidney Heaton. I understand that some of these people have left this country and are in Bangkok, Djakarta or some other foreign area. I believe that, in view of the fact that there is some responsibility on the Federal Government to encourage the development of tourism, equally there ought to be a responsibility on it to help people who are involved in circumstances such as these. The case that I quote is one of a gentleman who saved up all his life to go on a cruise. He was told that a deposit of $200 was required. The total fare was to be $2,400.50. Subsequently he paid the total amount of money. But some weeks ago he was told that the cruise had to be shortened considerably because the ship that was to take the tourists had a propeller that needed repairs. Originally the cruise was to take in Hong Kong. The company contacted this gentleman to see whether he was prepared to take the shorter tour. He assured the company that he was and wrote to it to that effect. The company then replied to him stating that $680 would be returned. He did not see his S680; nor did he hear anything more from the company. When he endeavoured to ring the firm he discovered that the telephone had been disconnected and that the birds had flown. The police have done a tremendous job in trying to trace the principals of the firm. They really have worked hard on it. Because of certain difficulties it is possible that the money that has been paid in by all these people will not be recovered. There are some people who are not prepared either to go to the police or to come to me with an official complaint saying that they have lost their deposit of $200. Although they feel rather sad about it, they probably do not want to be embarrassed by their neighbours finding out that they have been taken for a ride - which, of course, never eventuated. I suggest that one way in which this matter could be looked at is by the Federal Minister ascertaining whether there is any fund from which or any way at all by which these people can have all or part of their money returned, or whether there is any action which can be taken at the Federal level to endeavour to trace the principals of the firm if they have left this country and make them face up to their responsibilities. I do this solely with the long term thought that tourism, being one of the major industries of this country, must be encouraged, and if this is the sort of thing that is to happen there ought to be protection for people who, as I mentioned a moment ago, desire to spend $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000, which they have probably spent a lifetime in accumulating, on a decent overseas tour or maybe even a round the world tour. I leave the matter in the Minister's hands. {: #subdebate-129-0-s2 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP -- I should like to have the material from which **Senator Keeffe** has quoted and anything else which he can let me have and which could help in this case.I will direct to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities **(Mr Howson)** the honourable senator's remarks as reported in Hansard and any other material he has, together with the recommendations he has made. I can add little to this matter, except my own comments. To some extent, the work that I do is involved with the tourist area and very often 1 am concerned when I see advertisements encouraging people to subscribe to or to make application to join various clubs and to pay deposits when I know from my own experience that there are cases such as the honourable senator has mentioned. I have a lot of sympathy with the people who are so placed. I will do what I can to see that at least the matter is thoroughly taken up. It may well be that the Commonwealth has some problems here. It may well be that this is a State responsibility. But that does not necessarily mean that there is not something that can be done in an effort to help. I shall do as I have indicated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 August 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710818_senate_27_s49/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant