Senate
9 September 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 579

QUESTION

CIGARETTES

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Health aware of the reported intentions of 3 State Governments to act on their own initiative in legislating for health hazard warnings on cigarette packets? Is it correct that the New South Wales Minister for Health, Mr Jago, stated that, in this matter, New South Wales would follow if the Commonwealth set the lead? In view of this readiness by the States to co-operate with the Commonwealth will the Minister take urgent steps to frame suitable legislation for presentation to the States for their concurrence?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

On several occasions - again as late as yesterday - I responded on this issue and pointed out the willingness of the Commonwealth to act iri unison with the States on this subject. I was delighted to see in the Press that 3 States, including New South Wales, have publicly declared their intention to co-operate. Of course this still leaves the resolution of the problem with the States which have not yet indicated their position. 1 repeat that there is willingness on the part of the Commonwealth to co-operate with the States on this issue. In my judgment and in the judgment of my predecessors the efficacy of the proposal would be very much impaired unless we could obtain uniformity in the matter. Nevertheless 1 repeat my promise that I am using my best efforts to get all the States into a position of co-operation. There can be no risk that, the moment we obtain that co-operation, there will be any delay at all in the implementation of the proposal.

page 579

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– J ask the Minister for Civil Aviation when he will make an announcement concerning the application by Trans-Australia Airlines to operate routes in north western Australia, particularly on the Perth-Darwin route?

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

– Before very long.

page 579

QUESTION

LAW AND ORDER

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Because several State commissioners of police were unable to guarantee the maintenance of law and order if the South African cricket tour proceeded and, apparently, this advice was accepted by their respective State Governments, at the earliest opportunity will the Minister raise this serious matter with the State Attorneys-General so that the public may be assured that a small minority of people in the future will not disrupt the lawful pursuits and pastimes of the citizens of this country?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I think that all Australians deplore any situation in which a small but determined minority, by resort to violence and by threat of a denial to the majority of people of their ordinary civil rights, can impose its will upon the majority. That is something which should give concern to every Australian. If what I have read in the newspapers is correct, it is a fact that commissioners of police in some States have expressed concern about, their ability to maintain law and order in those circumstances. I think it is a situation upon which every Australian should reflect, because it is of grave concern that minorities can create such a situation. I shall give consideration to having a discussion on this at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It should be recognised that the maintenance of law and order within Australia is essentially a matter for the State police forces and it must always be a matter of judgment whether discussions on that issue are to be initiated by the Commonwealth Attorney-General.

page 579

QUESTION

EYRE PENINSULA

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for National Development give me any reason why question No. 1281 standing in my name and asked on 25th August, inquiring whether a request had been received from the South Australian Government for financial assistance from the Commonwealth Government to complete the LockKimba pipeline, has not been answered when the knowledge is in his possession, as evidenced by his reply to a question without notice yesterday?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think the honourable senator is slightly confused. He does not have to expect any discourtesy from me; he will never get that. The explanation is a simple one. He had that question on notice. I was asked a question about this matter yesterday and 1 gave the limited information that I had. The same information will be given to the honourable senator in the normal process of answering questions on notice. If he wants information from me he may always ask and I will do my best to get it for him.

page 580

QUESTION

POLLUTION

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts a question relating to the environment. In view of the waste of natural resources and the undoubted polluting effect of nonreturnable soft drink bottles and beer bottles, will the Minister consider legislating for a Commonwealth ban on such one way bottles? Will the Commonwealth insist that a sizeable deposit be charged on soft drink bottles and beer bottles so that they will be returned for refill and not thrown away? If Commonwealth legislation is not possible because it intrudes into the province of the States, will the Minister request that each State legislate in such a manner?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The practice in the Senate has been not to ask the Attorney-General questions that relate to policy or that involve matters of law. However, if the Attorney-General wishes to answer the question, he may do so.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The matters which the honourable senator raised are wholly within the province of the State governments. From time immemorial those matters have been covered by laws which relate to litter. In the present context, litter problems are said by some to assume an importance as environmental problems. Whether laws should be passed about what shall be done with bottles and cartons after they have been used is essentially a matter which should concern the State governments or local government bodies. In this area the Commonwealth’s responsibility is exceptionally limited. It is a matter, I suppose, for discussion at some appropriate stage, if the Commonwealth wishes to initiate it with the State Ministers. I indicate that I will refer the honourable senator’s comments to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts.

page 580

QUESTION

MUDGEE MEATWORKS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry a question relating to the dismissal of meat workers in the Mudgee district of New South Wales. Does the Minister feel that this trend of rural unemployment will continue? If so, in regard to meatworkers, will he seek to examine the practice of the stevedoring authority which, in cases of waterfront redundancy, offers workers employment in other ports if no local employment is available? As a natural corollary to this question I ask the Minister whether early talks could be arranged between himself and federal officers of the meat workers union.

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

– I have not any details as to why these dismissals have taken place, but I shall seek that information. 1 would not think at this stage that this is something that will snowball. In regard to the rest of the question, I think would have to refer it to the Minister for Primary Industry and obtain some information for the honourable senator.

page 580

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. What is the current situation regarding the proposed construction of the Dartmouth Dam? Have costs increased beyond 10 per cent during the period in which construction has been delayed while awaiting the agreement of Mr Dunstan of South Australia? If costs have increased beyond 10 per cent, will this necessitate a new agreement and, if so, will this place the construction of the Dartmouth Dam in jeopardy owing to the changing attitudes pf some of the partners in the River Murray Commission?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I anticipated that South Australian senators would have an interest in this matter, so earlier this week I asked the Minister for National Development whether I could have some information to give to the Senate. He has done so. As’ I am sure the honourable senator will have noted, it was announced recently by the Premier of South Australia that legislation had been introduced into the State Parliament with a view to ratification of the amending agreement which was approved by the other 3 parliaments concerned last year. When this legislation is proclaimed, this will complete the authorisation- for work to proceed. However, it may be recalled that the agreement provides that if the estimated cost of a work - in the case of Dartmouth, $57m - rises more than 10 per cent above the estimated cost at the time the work was approved, then the Commission shall notify the contracting governments so that the position may be reviewed. Thus the estimate will have to be checked, and the Minister for National Development is not in a position to say what the outcome of that check will be.

page 581

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Civil Aviation aware that British European Airways is now in the final stages of introducing fully automatic landings for its aircraft and that 12 runways in Europe are now so equipped? Can he indicate what steps are being taken in Australia to introduce such equipment on Australian domestic airlines?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I am so aware. Indeed, I did some work on this matter when I was in London recently. The Department has been investigating this matter very carefully. We have had officials of the Department overseas looking into it. The matter is under very close investigation both as to requirement and as to capital cost. I think it can be said that there are some airports in Australia - not all - where this could be extremely useful.

page 581

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Senator Webster proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation) -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Under what standing order is the honourable senator raising his point of order?

Senator Poyser:

– The standing order which, I understand, states that a question without notice similar to one on the notice paper cannot be asked.

The PRESIDENT:

– I uphold the point of order.

Senator Webster:

– On what grounds, Sir?

The PRESIDENT:

– On the ground that there is a similar question on the notice paper.

page 581

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Has world experience shown that many airlines which operate at marginal profitability or worse tend to cut back on vital maintenance and air safety practices with the result that such airlines have a substantially higher accident rate than those with moderate profitability? Whilst appreciating the great desirability of effecting reductions in air fares to enable a growing number of people to avail themselves of air travel, will the Minister assure the Senate and the people of Australia that at all times the maintenance of the greatest possible safety measures will take absolute priority over all other policies?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I certainly will. I think it is known to the Australian public and to the Senate and does not really need much reinforcing, but I am pleased to give the assurance that safe flying has No. 1 priority in the Department of Civil Aviation. This is what the Australian people expect. It is always our consistent aim and intention. Civil aviation is an industry with problems which stem from a tremendously fast growth rate.” It is the growing arm of transportation and good standards and methods of behaviour are extremely important for public safety and the public interest. It is perfectly true that figures disclose that as an airline’s profitability declines, maintenance and safety standards similarly decline. Therefore one has always the concern that to be safe, flying has to be conducted by operators who are able to be economically successful. Without that one enters the realm of the possibility of increased danger.

I could produce figures to demonstrate that belief, although they would take some time to prepare. Fundamentally it is true that the position is as the honourable senator expressed it. In fact, one could say that at a certain point cheap flying could end up as no flying. I noted a Press report this morning that a notable charter company in England that was advertising very cheap fares to Australia has gone into bankruptcy. Many people are trying to get their money back from that company. That is one reason why Australia has always taken the view that a charter operator should, as far as possible, be a scheduled airline company. With such operators people can be sure that they will have safe and efficient flying, and that when they pay their money they will fly.

page 582

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. During my campaign to abolish probate taxes I received many letters from pensioners asking me to request the Government to alter the laws to enable a pensioner to earn up to $15 or $20 a week if he so desired in order to augment his pension. Many thousands of pensioners are capable of taking a parttime job, suitable only for a pensioner, but if they do so and the authorities find out about it, their pensions are reduced. I had 2 pensioners working for me during my campaign, but they could earn only $3 and $4 respectively a week without affecting their pensions.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Negus, you must get to the point of your question. You must not use question time as a method of making a statement. You must ask a question.

Senator NEGUS:

– I am sorry, Mr President and senators. The point is that I am asking the Minister why it is not possible for pensioners to earn some money without affecting their pensions. Most of them are prepared to work and to pay taxes and I think it is wrong that they are not permitted to do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You must not express an opinion, Senator Negus. You must ask your question.

Senator NEGUS:

– Yes, Mr President. I ask the Minister why pensioners are not able to earn money to augment their pensions.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The position is that pensioners are entitled to earn sums of money without affecting their right to a pension. According to the amount of money they earn the amount of their pensions is diminished. The relevant figures are readily available and I shall undertake to arrange for the honourable senator to be supplied with them so that he can inform the pensioners who worked for him of their correct entitlements.

page 582

QUESTION

SOVIET SPORTING AND CULTURAL BODIES

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister been advised of the vicious sentence of 9 years imprisonment imposed on Ukrainian Valentyn Moroz in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for allegedly conducting anti-Soviet propaganda? As Moroz’s crime was to advocate the preservation of Ukranianian culture, will the Australian Government express its abhorrence of such sentences? Has the Government received from champions of democracy in Australia any request to deny admittance to Soviet sporting or cultural’ bodies, such as the Russian ballet, until the Soviet Union changes such policies? Has the Government had any approaches from religious or other organisations to prohibit the Moscow circus until freedom is restored in Czechoslovakia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The 4 questions posed by the honourable senator were addressed to me as Minister representing the Prime Minister. I am not aware of the correspondence that he indicates might have been sent to the Prime Minister, but 1 shall endeavour to get some information for him. I feel bound to say that, like the questioner, I personally have some extraordinary anxiety about the substance of a protest when people will get up and protest and do all sorts of things in relation to one group of people but will not do it in relation to other groups. That is an implication of the question which I shall refer to the Prime Minister.

page 582

QUESTION

MARRIAGE ACT

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– In addressing a question to the Attorney-General I refer to the answer that he gave to me yesterday concerning, the Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church, in which he stated that the Attorney-General who preceded him had not been disposed at that stage to recommend the proclamation of this church because he was not satisfied as to the long term stability of the church. Under what right and with what authority has his Department made such a decision, based as it is on the nature and future prospects of this religious body?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator referred to an answer to a question which 1 gave yesterday as to whether or not the Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church would be proclaimed as a recognised denomination for the purposes of the Marriage Act. My answer indicated to him that my predecessor had informed the secretary of the church that he was not disposed at this stage to recommend proclamation of the church because he was not satisfied as to its long term stability. The answer went on:

My predecessor indicated that the then existing situation in this regard would no doubt become clearer before very long.

As I understand the position, this church has been in existence for less than 12 months and one of the requirements to be considered when decisions are made as to whether a denomination will be recognised is that the church is likely to be a permanent body.

The view taken by my predecessor and the view I share is that you must allow some time to elapse before you can see whether a denomination is likely to have some long term stability. J think the answer clearly indicates that that position will become clear in due course.

Finally, may 1 say that if the position were to be otherwise than I have stated it would simply be a matter of any group or organisation declaring itself to be a church and expecting that under section 26 of the Marriage Act, the Attorney-General would recognise such an organisation as a denomination. That 1 think would make a farce of the decisions which are to be made under that section. I am aware of the position of this church and I would expect that in due course, as my predecessor said, the position as to whether it will have a long term existence in this country will become clear.

page 583

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister ‘representing the

Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has any thought been given to the possible embarrassment and/or harm that could come to our overseas diplomatic staffs and their families from anti-Australian demonstrations that could understandably be organised as a reaction to the larrikin type protests and demonstrations occurring from time to time in Australia outside and in the grounds of foreign diplomatic staffs who are honouring this country by their presence in our land? Does the Minister believe that some appeal should be made, particularly to members of the Australian Labour Party, both in and outside Parliament, not to encourage such demonstrations in this country either by precept or example?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– No experience has come to my knowledge of any such untoward behaviour in respect of our diplomats abroad. With regard to that part of the honourable senator’s question which would invite me to admonish members of the Australian Labour Party, I would renounce that operation as something in vain I would let them share the responsibility that is properly in the judgment of the public for supporting violent minorities.

page 583

QUESTION

MISUSE OF QUESTION TIME

The PRESIDENT:

– My predecessor on several occasions over the past 7 or 8 years admonished the Senate for the misuse of question time. Question time is a time set aside so that honourable senators may seek information. At the present moment question time is degenerating into a propaganda forum. It is my intention to see that question time in future functions on the basis on which it was devised.

page 583

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In reference to the Minister’s reply to my question yesterday about the continuing crisis over wool sales, despite his description yesterday of my question as balderdash, will he now answer these questions:. What is the aim of the. Wool Commissions’s purchasing policy in the long term? When is it expected to achieve this aim? Has the Wool Commission any idea what the approximate cost will be, or is it true that the Government has placed no ceiling on the purchasing activities of the Commission? What are the broad Government guidelines for the Commission? Has it a charter endlessly to spend taxpayers’ money in the pursuit of a totally unrealistic policy? What evidence is there that the Commission’s policy to date has increased prices being paid by the main wool buyers at the current sales?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I will not make any attempt to answer the honourable senator’s question because I believe it covers a lot of policy matters and should go on notice. However, I think I should ask the honourable senator where he gets all his information about the wool industry.

page 584

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS AND PROTESTS

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question. Is it not correct to say that the Commonwealth Government sold democracy down the drain when it failed to give the Australian Cricket Board of Control a lead to continue the tour of the South African cricketers? Does the Government’s bowing down to the demonstrators on this occasion mean that, in the event of demonstrators entering the chambers of this Parliament and shouting, tinging bells and blowing whistles, the parliamentary business will be closed down, which would be regarded as another success by the demonstrators but which would strike another blow against democracy?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The honourable senator’s question can be divided into 2 parts. I shall respond first to that part of the question which related to the cancellation of the proposed tour of Australia by a South African cricket team. I propose to read a Press statement that the Prime Minister released last night in relation to this matter. It is in the following terms:

The Government has consistently expressed the view that visits of international sporting teams should be arranged between the sporting bodies concerned and that politics should not be introduced into sport.

Grave practical difficulties are, however, associated with the cricket tour. The Australian Cricket Board is best able to assess these difficulties. It has obviously taken account of the possibility that a minority would be prepared to go to extremes to disrupt the tour.

I appreciate that the great majority of Australians wanted the tour to proceed, but I recognise the Board’s problem in arranging a successful tour in the face of the difficulties.

I refer now to that part of the honourable senator’s question which related to the possibility of a disruption being caused in the Parliament by demonstrators. That is clearly a matter which would come within the responsibility of the Presiding Officers, who I know have the will and the capability to preserve the dignity of the parliamentary institution. It would be deplorable and disgraceful if any attempt were made to disrupt the proceedings of the Parliament. I hope that no member of the Parliament will countenance any attempt to interrupt the processes of democratic government.

page 584

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator POYSER:

– I wish to ask a question of you, Mr President. At whose direction and for what reason was an attendant taking the names and times of departure of persons leaving Parliament House at 15 minutes past midnight this morning?

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to say, first of all, that Senator Poyser did me the courtesy of coming to see me this morning in a state of disturbance about the matter he has just raised. As a result of his visit I had inquiries made into the incident that occurred at the front entrance of Parliament House last night in which Senator Poyser and Senator Keeffe were involved.

Honourable senators may be aware that this building is patrolled at night by 2 nightwatchmen who are on the staff of the Joint House Department. Some few weeks ago it was established that one of these men, without specific authority, had adopted the practice of stationing himself at the front door during the night instead of patrolling the building. The reason given in justification for doing so was that there were quite a number of people who require to be let out of the building after the front entrance was normally closed - the front doors are closed one hour after the rising of the latest sitting House - and delays occurred unless a man was immediately available to unlock the door for them. The housekeeper who is in charge of the nightwatchmen was informed that no changes in the duties of his staff should have been made without the approval of the Secretary of the Department and that, before such approval would be given, some evidence to justify the need for an officer to be posted at the front entrance all night would need to be produced. The housekeeper was accordingly asked to provide some figures on the incidence of traffic passing through the front door between the normal closing hour and 7 a.m. the next day. At no time was it requested that the names of any persons be supplied as names had no significance in this context. Unfortunately, however, it seems that the officer concerned misunderstood his instruction in asking for the names of persons he could not personally identify, which led to the incident which Senator Poyser mentioned in the question he addressed to me a few minutes ago. 1 feel I should add some additional information for the benefit of the honourable senators. The security of this building has been a preoccupation of mine since you elected me to the Presidency. At the present moment I am arranging for 4 additional officers, for example, to be stationed at the Senate end of this building in order to maintain the security of the lobbies and the corridors.

The next matter I wish to draw to the attention of honourable senators is that we have a highly mobile society these days, because of both aircraft and motor vehicles, and the national capital has changed from a bush capital, as it used to be described, to a metropolitan centre of interest to the people of Australia. Parliament House, therefore, has become a centre of interest. This same mobility tends to attract to the area of interest to the general public numbers of people - the numbers I cannot discern - who can create disturbances and cause pain, anguish and worry to the people whose duty it is to work in this place. Therefore, it is my intention to have this matter looked at in depth. While doing this I shall draw the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the practice of Parliament having attached to it and grafted on to it executive offices which cause a good deal of traffic in and out of this building not related to true parliamentary proceedings. This adds to the difficulty.

page 585

QUESTION

LIGHT AIRCRAFT

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence seen an article entitled ‘Service Wrangle Threatens New Plane’ which appeared in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ on Wednesday, 8th September 1971? Is there any substance in the report that a row between the Royal Australian Air Force and the Army is threatening the future of the Government Aircraft Factories Project N light transport plane? If there is, will the Minister take urgent steps to have the matter resolved quickly and thus avoid any further disastrous effects on the aircraft industry’s already under-utilised capacity?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I think I may be excused for saying that Project N is near and dear to my heart. It was during my term as Minister for Supply that the decision was taken to proceed to build prototypes in the hope that we would be able to create finally a viable aircraft such as the Project N aircraft. Basic to the issue, of course, is the order book. As I have said before in this chamber, the order book is significant enough to justify tooling up for a type of aircraft. Built into this is the hope - it has been the hope all along - that the Service departments would state a requirement. In other words, if the Army or the RAAF says that it has a requirement for X number of aircraft we then have the first hard core of orders on the way.

I understand discussions are going on within the Services about indicating a requirement, but I would not think this matter would be in the order of disputation that the honourable senator has picked up out of a Press comment. In the final analysis it will be the Minister for Defence who will report to the Government on this matter and who will make the decisions on it. I am very confident - I say this now as Minister for Health and not as Minister for Supply - that Project N will have a requirement and that it will prove to be a wonderful achievement on the part of the Australian aircraft industry.

page 585

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

The PRESIDENT:

– ‘Earlier this morning Senator Webster rose to ask a question and I applied standing order 99, as I know it, which appears in Chapter XII. This relates to anticipating matters that are on the notice paper. I subsequently discovered that I have a strangling precedent around my throat set my Mr President Givens in 1914 as a result of which a practice has arisen which will allow Senator Webster to ask his question if it is rephrased in such a way as not to embarrass me by forcing me once again to apply the standing order. I call Senator Webster.

page 586

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether he is aware that a number of air services conducted by various commuter airlines throughout Victoria and, indeed^ throughout other States has ceased operation and has left a number of aerodromes idle? Do these aerodromes represent a considerable investment of funds by the Commonwealth and municipal authorities? Will the Minister assure the Senate that he will give close consideration to any application by municipal councils for renewed use of aerodromes which are under their control?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, 1 am aware of the problem of the cessation of flying by certain commuter airlines in Victoria and some other parts of Australia. I am equally aware that the Commonwealth has investment in some of these airfields as do some of the local government authorities. The honourable senator may be’ aware that Senator Poyser has a question on notice which is rather similar to his question. Having all those things in mind, I say to the Senate and both honourable senators that this is a matter of concern to myself and to the Department. The problem substantially flows out of the fact that there has not been enough traffic from those centres to support the normal business of flying an aircraft. That is the essential part of the problem. In Victoria it is very much a compound of the alternative methods of transport to Melbourne, both by road and rail. In Queensland it is very much a problem of the rural difficulties and droughts. I am concerned about those airfields and the fact that there is no communication by air from those centres. But how does one balance the economies of the business against the fact that there- are not enough people flying to warrant the aircraft which is needed? The problem is continually watched. I do a lot of travelling to look into the matter. I am trying to find solutions. I understand the problems which the honourable senator poses and also those posed in Senator Poyser’s question which was put on notice.

page 586

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is supplementary to the question asked by Senator Poyser a few moments ago. I preface my question by saying that last night I refused to give my name when asked to do so at the front door. I ask you, Mr President, to inform the Senate whether the lists of names of the persons concerned last night and the times of departure will be destroyed?

The PRESIDENT:

– In my reply to Senator Poyser I said that the names of the persons leaving Parliament House were of no interest to the Joint House Department. They are not. Therefore I shall order that the list be destroyed if it has not already been destroyed. But this will in no way impede me from examining the problem of the security of this Parliament.

page 586

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– -I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of the known Joss of business by Qantas Airways Ltd to charter operators and the announced decision by Qantas and the Minister to form a charter organisation to regain this important trade, will the Minister advise what progress has been made and on what date the charter company is expected to commence operations? Further, in view of this planned progress will the Minister advise on the possibility of having the notice of dismissal to young pilots which is due to become effective shortly, lifted? Many of these young people left early careers, university courses and so on to become Qantas cadets and they now face almost certain inability to obtain employment in Australia or elsewhere.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Qantas Airways Ltd has lost some business to charter flying but, . on the other hand, if the honourable senator looks at the figures which I gave earlier he will see that there has been a dramatic expansion in charter flying to and from Australia by the scheduled airlines including Qantas. But there are problems in this area and Qantas approached the Department of Civil Aviation and myself for permission to form a separate subsidiary charter company along the same lines as British Overseas Airways Corporation and Condon Airlines operated by Lufthansa German Airlines, Martinair operated by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and sundry others. Within 18 hours of my being approached Qantas was given permission. It is their commercial business and their operations responsibility, not mine, to form that company and get it going. Having done that it is their business to see that they make it a success, not mine. But I do take an intense interest in the matter. I am conscious of the problem of the dismissal of the pilots referred to. It will be acknowledged by all honourable senators that the Department did everything possible in that issue to try to help with the problem.

I make one further observation, which would be of interest. All the world’s airlines have problems. The larger airlines probably have more problems than the smaller ones. Recent reports on this matter, particularly the BOAC report issued a couple of days ago, put the matter very well. They state that to be economically successful in this business a company can cut costs only to a certain point. Beyond that it has to grow its way into success. That applies to Qantas as much as to BOAC or any other airline.

page 587

QUESTION

EXPORT OF BARLEY TO TAIWAN

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the fact that soon after the broadcast of a question asked by me yesterday about the delay in loading barley on the vessel ‘Welly* at Port Lincoln arrangements were made to commence loading this morning - I understand it has been delayed further by rain - will the Minister ascertain why permission to load this cargo was refused from the time of arrival on 25th August 1971 until after my question was asked yesterday? Was any part of the delay due to instructions issued by the Australian Barley Board?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday Senator Cavanagh addressed his question to either of 2 Ministers - the

Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport or the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Senator Cotton decided to answer the question. He has some information, so I refer the question to Senator Cotton.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As at the beginning of play today this was the information I had: I understand that the delay referred to in the honourable senator’s question was occasioned by the failure of the purchaser to, supply the required shipping documents at the time the vessel arrived. However I am told that after action by the Australian agent the vessel commenced loading today. Loading is expected to be completed on Tuesday, 14th September. I am told that waterside workers were not transferred as it was expected that loading of the ‘Welly’ would commence at any moment. Today the honourable senator has added some extra information which seems to me to call for a further reply. If loading commenced, as is stated in the information that I have, and if it has now stopped, I would want to ascertain why it has stopped.

page 587

QUESTION

COMMUNIST CHINA

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the latest gallup poll which shows that 56 per cent of Australians are in favour of recognition of Peking as the legitimate government of China? Did the figure rise from 39 per cent in March, before the Australian Labour Party visit to Peking, to the present 56 per cent as indicated in the poll taken in August? Will the Government accept this poll as evidence of the desire of a majority of Australians for the Government formally to recognise Peking’s legitimacy as the Government of China?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator asked a question which impinged upon policy. As he is a new senator, I think it would be well to remind him that questions relating to policy are out of order. In late September there is to be a plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly and I think it will run until the end of the year. In all the circumstances, it would be inappropriate and improper, for me to make any comment. The question clearly relates to a. matter of policy. I did not see the actual gallup poll figures in their particularity but, as I was informed, the figures given by the honourable senators are something of the order of those that appeared in the Press.

page 588

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION

Senator POKE:

– I address my question to the Minister for Health. Does his statement yesterday that the Government was reconsidering its promise to set up a national health insurance commission really mean that plans for such a commission have now been scrapped? If so, what credence can the public place on such promises which were firmly made when Mr Gorton was Prime- Minister? Is this a further step in the de-Gortonisation of Government policy since Mr McMahon took over the Prime Ministership and placed his predecessor on the back bench?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONMr President, your admonition about political propaganda might well apply to this question, too. For the same reason as I have suggested that a number of other questions be placed on the notice paper, I suggest that this one be placed on the notice paper also.

page 588

QUESTION

CIGARETTE SMOKING

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, relates to the branding of cigarette packets. Is the intention of those who advocate the inclusion of a health warning on cigarette packets to deter people from smoking? Have there been experiments in such brandings in other countries? Is there any positive evidence that such warnings have, of themselves, resulted in a reduction in smoking? Alternatively, is the available evidence extremely conflicting, with some of it suggesting a reverse result including increase in the use of marihuana and the increased resort to sedative, tranquillising and hallucinatory drugs? Whilst fully appreciating the responsibility of health authorities to present existing medical opinion on important health subjects and whilst not challenging in any way the assertion that excessive smoking-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! My admonitions are not being observed. Senator Carrick, will you come to the point and not give information?

Senator CARRICK:

– Is not the whole question of addiction a greatly complex one for which medical science has, as yet, no practical solutions?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI do not think anybody could challengethe last part of the honourable senator’s question, namely, that the whole question of addiction is one which is not conducive to a simple or ready answer. The messages of the world rather convey some of the points that he made in his question. I said yesterday that there was an accepted and proven relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. I think there is an acceptance of that, medically. The proposal is, by way of advertising on packages, television and radio, to educate people to the implications of the risk. It is equally true, as Senator Carrick has said, that in some other parts of the world-

Senator Georges:

– Which parts,

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe United States of America is one that I can recall in which the incidence of smoking in the normal sense has increased and the use of the tobacco weed has increased.

Senator Georges:

– What are the figures?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIt seems that Senator Georges wants to answer the question. I am perfectly happy to sit down and let him have a go if he wants to.

Senator Georges:

– I know that it is a particularly difficult question to answer.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Thank you very much. Mr President, if you are going to allow that, surely I can have a go too.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am not going to allow it.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Thank you, Sir. I hope I did not sound discourteous to you.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have never known you to be discourteous.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI accept, Sir. This is a very serious matter. The questioner has suggested that despite these procedures upon which we are trying to embark we are still in a grey area as demonstrated by experience in other countries. I do not think that proposition is arguable, but that is not to say we should not continue to do what we are trying to do. It would be very difficult to relate the increased use of tobacco to known procedures that have been applied. It may well be that the natural increase in population has a bearing. All such factors should be taken into account. However having regard to the medical view, which has been very clearly expressed, that there is a proven relationship between cigarette smoking and medical health, we should continue our efforts towards education as to the risks in the hope that people will become aware of them. It may well be that as a consequence fewer people will adopt the habit of smoking. I smoke occasionally and I think the habit of smoking, with limitations, is very relaxing. Anything taken to excess can cause problems; for instance, excessive consumption of alcoholic liquor is harmful, but alcohol taken in moderation can be very relaxing and comforting. Having said that, under some provocation from Senator Georges, I rest my case.

page 589

DRUGS

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Georges, but I hope he will not be tempted into making statements.

Senator GEORGES:

– Most certainly not, Mr President. I seek to ask a question of the Minister for Health and I will not request the assistance of the Assistant Minister, if he exists. I refer the Minister to a letter written by an 11 -year old which appeared in the ‘Canberra Times’ on Monday. It complains of pep pill pushing. Will the Minister share the concern of the 11- year-old letter writer and ascertain whether these energy boosters, as they are called, are based on the illegal amphetamine drugs? Will he also have an investigation conducted to determine whether the widespread advertising of these pills on television and radio was authorised by his Department?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONMy attention was drawn to the letter referred to by the honourable senator. It was written, as he said, by a lass who gave her age as 11 years. I sought some information on the matter. My Department has closely investigated the formulation of such energy boosters and has found that the claims made for them in advertising are reasonable. Under the Broadcasting and Television Act all advertisements of a medical nature on television are subject to the approval of the Director-General of Health. The criteria used by my Department for censoring such advertisements are based on television programme standards land down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and, more particularly, a guide laid down by the National Health and Medical Research Council, which has recently been revised.

The new National Health and Medical Research Council guide to advertising places heavier restrictions on the advertising of vitamins and pain killers, particularly in relation to certain claims of efficacy and safety. The letter referred to by the honourable senator appears to relate to advertisements on television for Stimavite Plus’. The formulation is known and it does not contain any scheduled drug or any drug related to the amphetamine group, to which the honourable senator referred in his question.

page 589

QUESTION

RURAL RECONSTRUCTION

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry relates to the rural reconstruction scheme. Are there before the Department of Primary Industry proposals for variations of the terms and conditions of the Commonwealth rural reconstruction scheme? Have a number of State Governments requested amendment to that scheme? When can the Senate expect adjustments to be made and in what areas are those adjustments likely to be made?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I understand that each of the States has written to the Minister for Primary Industry expressing doubts about the effectiveness of some aspects of the rural construction scheme. . The Commonwealth’s position is that it wants the scheme to be implemented in the way provided for by legislation of this Parliament and any administrative difficulties that crop up with the operation of the scheme to be reviewed. The honourable senator will recall that at the time the legislation- was before the Parliament a review period was laid down to allow the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Act before July 1972. It will be necessary for the States to get together with the Commonwealth in time for the Commonwealth to amend the Act by July 1972.

page 590

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I address a question to you, Mr President. Why is it that nowhere in Parliament House, not even at the switchboard, can one find copies of telephone directories for the country dis tricts of South Australia? As this seriously inconveniences and at times makes impossible the work of members from SoUth Australia, will the position be rectified in the near future?

The PRESIDENT:

– 1 was not aware of the situation mentioned by the honourable senator, but anything that incommodes honourable senators in the discharge of their duties will earn my immediate attention.

page 590

QUESTION

WARNING LABELS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– -Can the Minister for Health now indicate his attitude to a view expressed by the retiring president of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia that a more effective warning label should be placed on packets of aspirin and APC powders?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The other day Senator Mulvihill asked me, I think, 2 questions which had some light and shade in them but which were really basic to the question of the labelling of aspirin. I am now able to say that the labelling of analgesic preparations is a matter for each State to determine. The Commonwealth has responsibility in this matter in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory only. The Commonwealth looks for expert advice on these matters from the National Health and Medical Research Council, which in November 1969 recommended that analgesics containing aspirin, phenacetin and paracetamol should carry the - following warning on the packet:

WARNING: This medication may be dangerous when used in large’ amounts or for a long period.

Expert committees of the Council have this matter and dosages under review. The legislation for the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory is at present being reviewed and an implementation of the Council’s recommendations will be considered as part of the review. The question of this type of medication is very important and I am hoping that the reviews will be expedited.

page 590

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– In addressing a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, I refer to Commonwealth payments to or for the States for 1971-72. For the 5-year period 1971-72 to 1975-76 the Commonwealth has undertaken to make additional funds of up to $3 7m available to the States for agricultural extension services. Will the Minister inform me whether it is a fact that specific purpose payments for assistance to the tobacco growing industry were applied only during the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. or is this assistance still a component of the present arrangement?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I will make some inquiries from the Minister for Primary Industry on that matter and let the honourable senator have the answer.

page 590

QUESTION

REFUGEES IN INDIA

Senator KEEFFE:

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise whether the Australian Government is prepared to increase its aid to refugees in India? Is the Minister aware that many thousands of young children are in danger of death through malnutrition? Will he advise also what sum has been contributed to date by the Australian Government to this country for refugee aid?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 will get the information that the honourable senator seeks and I shall also refer to the Treasurer his request for additional aid.

page 590

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FLAG

(Question No. 1265)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What is standard practice regarding the hours of the day during which the Australian flag is flown at Australian Embassies and Consulates abroad.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Instructions to overseas missions require that the flag be flown on Australian establishments from 8 a.m. until sunset. It is not Sown after sunset except inside a building or on important ceremonial occasions in accordance with local custom (when it is sometimes floodlit). Car pennants are usually flown when a Head of Mission or visiting Australian Minister of State is using the car for official purposes.

page 591

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the following terms:

Mr President, the House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951-1966, Mr L. H. Irwin and Mr Pettitt, members of the House of Representatives, have been appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in the place of Mr Dobie and Mr Robinson, discharged.

page 591

WAR SERVICE HOMES ACT

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the interim annual report of the Director of War Service Homes for the year ended 30th June 1971. When the final report is available, I shall present it in accordance with statustory requirements.

page 591

MEDICAL RESEARCH ENDOWMENT ACT

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Miniser for Health · New South Wales · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present the annual report on work done under the Act during the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 591

DEFENCE ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903- 1970, I present the annual report of the Royal Military College of Australia for the period 1st February 1970 to 31st January 1971.

page 591

MARGINAL DAIRY FARMS AGREEMENT ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Marginal Dairy Farms

Agreements Act 1970, I present a copy of an agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales in relation to the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme.

page 591

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIMARY AND SECONDARY INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I present the report from the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade relating to freight rates of the Australian National Line shipping service to and from Tasmania, together with the evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator YOUNG (South Australia) - by leave - I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

As honourable senators are aware, former Senator T. L. Bull, O.B.E., who was appointed Chairman of the Committee at its first meeting and who served in that capacity throughout the consideration of the reference and the preparation of the report, ceased to be a member of the Senate on 30th June last. Senator Prowse, the present Chairman, who became a member of the Committee after the report had been completed, has kindly proposed that, as Deputy Chairman, 1 should present this report on behalf of the Committee. At the outset, I thank Senator Prowse for his courtesy.

This is the initial report of one of the first of the new Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees established by the Senate in the development of its committee system. In its first reference, the Commitee was presented with a subject for inquiry .which is of very great concern to Tasmanians. The terms of reference, though fairly clearly defined, were not capable of effective consideration without regard to a number of highly relevant factors, such as Tasmania’s dependence on sea transport, its economic background and the pattern of its trade. It became clear early that too strict and literal an interpretation of the terms of reference would not permit the Committee to take into account these significant factors, which are pf importance in assessing possible alternatives to the present situation. The Committee also* felt bound te take cognisance of the fact that the Australian National Line’s services are an integral part of an overall transport operation. The Committee took the view also that, to establish a frame of reference permitting an objective and valid assessment of the appropriateness of the level of freight rates current on ANL services to and from Tasmania when it was given the reference, it needed to devote some attention to the operations of other shipping lines trading to Tasmania. The inter-relationship of all these factors made the exercise much more complex than it had first appeared.

The Committee devoted a good deal of hard work to a task which it realised from the start was of considerable importance to Tasmania. A number of problems were encountered’ in ascertaining the facts and arriving at valid conclusions. At 18 public hearings, some 60 witnesses presented evidence which revealed many facets of the basic problem. The Committee experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining specific evidence stating in quantitative terms’ the effects of the freight increases about which there was much criticism from Tasmanian sources. A number of witnesses acknowledged that they had difficulty in obtaining quantitative information, and this at times made the Committee’s task difficult. However, in the final analysis, the Committee believes that it achieved an effective understanding of the subject.

The Committee acknowledges the problems of Tasmanian industry in the economic marketing of its products. However, it believes that the problems of the shipping operators in the Tasmanian trade should be at all times kept in mind. We have in the report expressed our view that the operation of Tasmanian shipping services on a profitable basis is desirable in -the interests of Tasmania and Australia as a whole. But operators in the Tasmanian trade such as the Australian National Line, the Union Steam Ship Co. of New Zealand Ltd and William Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd, on the evidence presented to the Committee, are facing considerable economic difficulties because of rising costs of operation.

Transport problems are not unique to Tasmania, though in the Committee’s view that State has special difficulties. The Committee has recommended that the Bureau of Transport Economics be asked to undertake a quantitative assessment of Tasmania’s transport disabilities relative to the other States, in the hope that this will help to clarify the extent of Tasmania’s particular problems in marketing its products economically. The Committee pursued its investigation of these matters so far as it believed it had competence. However, as is indicated in the report, in many respects Tasmania’s special transport difficulties are related to matters which were not appropriate to investigation by. this Committee, and the Committee has not taken upon itself the responsibility of proposing to the State Government what it should do in relation to matters which are within the State sphere of responsibility. The Committee noted that the Tasmanian Government had engaged a firm, of transport consultants and expressed the hope that the study being undertaken by those consultants would enable the State Government to determine priorities and plans to improve the island’s transport situation.

The evidence presented to the Committee disclosed a considerable volume of cargo transportation overland between northern and southern Tasmania and indications of a continuing increase in this trend. This was caused by insufficient availability of shipping space at the closest port, and also by the need to take advantage of the most suitable shipping schedules. Another reason was that this practice assisted in obtaining the maximum utilisation of containers and other cargo handling units. The overland movement of goods in this way in association with shipping services attaches special importance to the role of the Tasmanian Government Railways, and particularly of its rail ferry service. Believing that the State ought to receive some assistance from the Commonwealth in efforts to rectify transport problems, the Committee has recommended that special consideration be given by the Commonwealth Government to any approach by the State for assistance for upgrading of Tasmania’s mainline railways.

The evidence presented to this Committee demonstrated the great concern of Tasmanians at rising transport costs. However, although the freight increases made in

August 1970 by the Australian National Line evoked much criticism and protest, much greater total increases in freight forwarding charges received less comment, appartently because they had been made regularly and gradually over a number of years. On the evidence received, the Committee came to the conclusion that sea freight represented about 40 per cent to 45 per cent of the total door-to-door charge and land leg charges some 45 per cent to 50 per cent with wharfage accounting for approximately 10 per cent. The Committee viewed with concern the increases in freight forwarding charges - the largest element in the total transport cost - and has dealt with them in detail in the report.

As the inquiry progressed, the Committee formed the conclusion that the ANL could be hampered in efforts to compete on even terms with private shipping lines. Several of the recommendations in the report proposed the removal of restrictions on the Line so as to allow it to act as a freight forwarder if it so chooses and to afford it equal opportunity with private operators to provide any additional tonnage required on the Australian coast. The Committee believes that these proposals will strengthen the competitive position of the ANL which carries the bulk of the Tasmanian general cargo trade, without giving it any unfair advantage over privately owned shipping lines.

In the evidence put to the Committee, the payment of subsidies on shipping services to Tasmania was repeatedly proposed. The Committee carefully considered all the proposals for various forms of subsidy and closely examined the implications of subsidies of various types. In the event, it came to the conclusion that the advantages were outweighed by the disadvantages. Therefore, it has not recommended the payment of any form of subsidy. Tasmanian members of the Committee, however, have attached to the report reservations indicating that they hold different views on this aspect, though they generally support the conclusions and recommendations of the report.

The Committee has also recommended the consideration of some rationalisation of passenger services to Tasmania, which are provided exclusively by the Australian National Line. The evidence clearly indicated that these are less profitable than cargo services and present special problems. The Committee believes that the feasibility of separating the two types of service should be investigated. The economic cost of operating outdated vessels and the capital cost of new vessels . impose upward pressures on freight rates, and the Committee, has recommended that as a matter of urgency the Government consider the adoption of a scheme to enable shipping operators to finance shipbuilding on easier terms at nominal interest rates in order to facilitate the replacement of vessels at reasonable economic cost.

It seems proper that I should emphasise at this juncture that the report now before the Senate was prepared by a Committee composed of senators representing all States of the Commonwealth. Though primarily of concern to Tasmania, it is not without importance for all Australians, I believe, and this was one of the considerations borne in mind by the Committee in its preparation.

I take this opportunity to express on behalf of the Committee appreciation to the officers of Commonwealth and State departments and to the officials of the Australian National Line and the private shipping companies who so willingly and capably assisted the Committee in its task. I wish to thank also the many other persons who presented submissions and gave evidence. Special thanks are extended also to the officers of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Reporting Staff, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library and the Department of the Senate for the many services provided, without which no Committee could function effectively, and particularly to Mr R. G. Thomson for his untiring effort and loyal support as Secretary of the Committee.

Finally, I wish on behalf of myself and other members of the Committee to pay tribute to the work of former Senator Bull, who discharged with great capacity the responsibilities of Chairman of the Committee concurrently with his other duties as Chairman of Committees of the Senate. We who served with him on the Commit^ tee know how earnestly he laboured to further the Committee’s work. By his wise and tolerant chairmanship he contributed in very great measure to the effectiveness and friendly spirit of the inquiry. The benefit of his considerable experience on other committees of this Parliament, and in public and industry affairs, was greatly valued by the Committee. He has left his mark in many ways on this report.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I think I should reiterate what Senator Young said about the extensive ramifications of our inquiries into this matter. These became obvious to us early and we felt that it should have been the subject of an inquiry placed in the hands of a select committee instead of a standing committee. However, I think it is fair to say that we accepted our responsibility and followed up all the avenues carefully, thoughtfully and as extensively as we could in the limited time available to us. The breadth of the inquiry and the fact that 3 reservations have been made by Tasmanian senators on the Committee warrants, we feel, more time being given to this debate than would be possible at this moment. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a future date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 594

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Byrne moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper.

page 594

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

I move:

That after consideration of General Business, Order of the Day No. 1, intervening General Business be postponed until after consideration of Notice of Motion No. 10.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That is after 8 p.m. tonight?

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 594

BUDGET 1971-72

Debate resumed from 8th September (vide page 575) on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Senate take note of the following papers:

Civil Works Programme 1971-72

Commonwealth Payments to or for the States, 1971-72.

Estimates of receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30th June 1972.

Expenditure -

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30th June Particulars of Proposed Provisions for Certain Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30th June 1972.

Government Securities on Issue at 30th June 1971.

Commonwealth Income Tax Statistics for Income Year 1968-69

National Income and Expenditure, 1970-71

Upon which Senator Murphy had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add: but the Senate condemns the Budget because -

it breaks the Prime Minister’s pledge to Parliament on taking office to bring into effect for 1971-72 a fundamental review of social services and of methods for adjusting them,

it contains no proposals to balance the finances and functions of the Commonwealth, the States and local government; and

it produces no programmes for high national objectives of social welfare, economic strength and national security.’

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– Mr President, I join with others who have spoken in the Budget debate in congratulating new senators who have made their first speech in this chamber. Probably the only criticism I have is that I expected the new Government supporters to bring perhaps a breath of fresh air into the Senate, but I regret to say that they are still stained . very much with the ultraconservatism which has become typical of the Government parties over many years. Before I utter the criticisms which 1 feel must be staled in a debate of this nature I shall make brief reference to some of the points outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) when be presented the Budget in another place a few weeks ago. He made great play on the increase in social services. On page 7 of the Budget Speech he referred to the increase in child endowment. I note that the payment for children under 16 years in institutions and for each child under the age of 16 years where there are more than 2 children in a family will be increased by 50c a week. In the field of repatriation the increases in pensions are being highlighted. In particular emphasis is placed on the special rate pension payable to a totally and permanently incapacitated war pensioner which will be increased by $3.50 to §42.50 a week. This amount is not even the base wage. I venture to say that 95 per cent of those who lost their health as a result of participation in war would probably be earning at least double that amount today. But the Treasurer is able - in Australian slang - to skite about the tremendous deal which these broken down people are receiving. On the previous page of his speech we note that the ordinary pensioner is going to receive an increase of $1 a week if he happens to be married or $1.25 a week in the case of a single person. So this sad story goes on.

Loans for war service homes which are the responsibility of a flourishing Government department which turns in a tremendous profit each year, will be expanded by an increase in the maximum loan from $8,000 to $9,000. Most honourable senators know that today in many areas that sum will not even buy the piece of land on which to erect a home. It has been said that the Budget has been made a soft one in case this Government, which is tottering at the knees at all stages, is forced to go to an election this year. It has been said, too, that the intention of the Budget was to curb inflation. Quite obviously, it is not going to curb inflation. We look at the payment of such things as pensions and child endowment. As usual they are going to take place several weeks after the delivery of the Budget. We note that child endowment payments to those with youngsters who are facing a continual struggle that the payment for the first child has not been increased since 1950 - 21 years ago. The minor concessions which are now being made are the first for several years. But mothers are still waiting for these payments and they will continue to wait for many weeks yet. On the other hand it is noted that increases in the price of petrol and cigarettes due to increased customs duty or sales tax are implemented almost immediately. On the day after the Budget was introduced a survey was conducted in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. I was able to find but from the person who conducted the survey for me that all garages - without exception - intended to increase the price of petrol within 48 hours. Yet no authority had been given for this increase. Shops in. this city increased the price of cigarettes the next morning. The increase in the excise should have meant an increase in price of about 2.2c per packet. I am not aware of any shop which did not apply an increase of 4c. I raised the matter of the pending price increase for petrol with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Sir Kenneth Anderson) on the day on which I obtained the information. The honourable senator agreed with me and said, I think, to use his words: ‘It is a very naughty practice’. He said that he would investigate the matter forthwith. The following day or the day after I was able to name 4 companies which were going to apply this increase. In typical fashion the Leader of the Government in the Senate then said: Put the question on the notice paper’. Today my question still lies buried on the notice paper. In other words, when monopolies are prepared to do this sort of thing the Government is not prepared to face up to its responsibilities. The Government lives in fear of the petrol companies and the cigarette manufacturers. We know that there are substantial handouts at times of strife in the Party and particularly at election times from the people I have referred to.

While 1 am uttering criticism in this field I must continue in this vein in relation to questions we have heard asked over the last week or two about cigarettes and the inability of the Minister for Health, the Department and the Government to face up to reality. It does not matter what anybody says - cigarettes are killers. But there is a great reluctance to come out and say so publicly. A few days ago a Minister in the other place was the first spokesman for the Government to say publicly that there was a danger. I say publicly that there is a danger from cigarette smoking, even though 1 am an addict. I smoke as much as the average person. I was shocked to hear the Minister for Health say this morning that he believed that there was some value in smoking as it relaxed part of one’s daily life. I think that is a shocking thing to say. Obviously those of us who are addicts are not going to be cured of smoking unless we have tremendous - willpower or unless we have recourse to some, of the medical methods of smoking prevention. Probably most of us do not want to give it up. But the young people of this country ought, to be discouraged at every possible point from commencing this habit.

Senator Gair:

– A recording should be taken of their morning cough. That might be good.

Senator KEEFFE:

– There is an advertisement along those lines which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board banned. I think it involved a well known actor and a well known actress. I have not seen the film because I do not think anyone is prepared to show it again. I understand 2 people reach a very romantic point in their evening entertainment. As they are about to kiss they have a bad coughing outburst and when they get over that they have forgotten about the rest of the matter. If that film were widely shown people would realise that tobacco can affect everyone’s life, right down to the lovemaking act. The point I am making is that the Government should have enough courage to say that the practice is dangerous to human life. It is our moral responsibility to discourage people from smoking, In the case of the Government it is its legislative responsibility to do so. I hope that some note will be taken of those words.

I say again that in future when increases are applied by way of sales tax or customs duty - if the Government survives to bring down another Budget - the Government should be prepared to police the increases in prices. Petrol increases in particular are passed through the community. The man who has to pay most is the man on the bottom of the ladder. He has to pay transport costs or he has to use his car to go to work. In addition, the increase is passed on to the commodities which he buys. I was surprised when, in the first place Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson showed some enthusiasm or interest in preventing smoking. But when the matter became a reality he buried it under the carpet. 1 suppose burying a matter under the carpet is a good old occupation as far as the Government is concerned. The tapered means test which was instituted by a previous Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who is still hanging on to his portfolio with 2 fingers brought into the pension field a great number of people who were experiencing hardship. They have been ignored again. They were given a supplementary increase when the Government faced a no-confidence motion earlier this year. It is difficult to obtain the exact figures, but it would appear that 181,000 pensioner will not receive lc of the paltry increases granted by the Budget. Recently 1 asked a question as to the state of the economy and I pointed out to the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Labour and National Service, that the Department of Labour and National Service had or was preparing to have food and employment vouchers published. The Minister for Works fairly spat across the chamber in disgust. I think ‘disgust’ is the word he used in reply! He might be interested to know that I am arranging to have copies of that reply distributed widely in my home State. It is obvious that my statement was nearer the truth than was the Minister’s.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has said that by Christmas 100,000 people in this country will be without a job. It is of no use glossing over that statement by saying that a lot of them will be school leavers. Today primary industry is employing only a fraction of the number of people it employed 5 or 10 years ago. People displaced from country areas are gravitating towards the cities. I do not think my home State would be any different from the other States. Many of the towns, particularly the small ones in the northern and western areas, are being depopulated rapidly. If one wants to buy a property or a home one should go to places such as Winton, Boulia, Richmond or Julia Creek. People there no longer have an income in the area. Graziers who have lived for a long time on the back of the sheep today are taking supplementary jobs in order to pay their rates. The Minister for Works talked in his usual sarcastic vein when he discredited the statements. He was bowled out the same day by the Prime Minister who said that by Christmas 100,000 would be unemployed. That is a very conservative figure. I assume that it will be very much greater than that.

I and I think many pensioners feel that the Minister for Social Services has been hamstrung by Government policies. He certainly has been stood over by the Prime Minister in relation to pension increases and fringe benefits. We have to remember that during the last year or so, and particularly during the last few weeks, there has been an all out assault on those people who still hold their pensioner medical cards to return their cards. The Department has refused to hand out cards. It is said that there is chaos within the Department. I have a photostat copy of a confidential report seeking further information about a pensioner who had applied for a pension adjustment. The woman pensioner was 84 or 85 years of age. The Department sent out this questionnaire:

Could you please advise if you are aware of the schools at which the abovenamed was educated?

If so, would you please advise the names of the schools and the period she attended these schools?

Your early reply would be appreciated.

Her pension was not adjusted because a stupid document like that was sent to check on her schooling. I could quote many instances of pensions being delayed for an indefinite period. If the Department is understaffed, it is the responsibility of the Minister to ensure that more staff are appointed. I venture to suggest that he does not know how the Department operates. He is too interested in the power game. As he said yesterday, at his ‘first’ birthday, he does not intend to resign; he will . stay there until he is forced out.

Today the people who are suffering more than anyone else because of the inconsistent repatriation laws probably are the youngsters who are returning from Vietnam. As we know, the withdrawal has been scheduled in such a way that 500 will have died before the Government brings the troops home. The figure will be a nice round one and it will be in the history books. Approximately 2,500 have been wounded and otherwise maimed as a result of their service in that country. I put the responsibility for one of the very great tragedies on to the Department of Defence. The accusation I am about to make is not a pretty one. A number of youngsters have come back to Australia sterile. While in this area they contracted a type of venereal disease which cannot be cured. Recently a young veteran said to me that he did not mind his Vietnam service; he was lucky enough not to get to the front line. He was able to go to the China beloved of capitalists - Formosa. He said that part of his R and R leave was to be supplied with a girl. The manager of the hotel said: ‘If you are not satisfied with that one we have 12 more from whom you can pick’. These youngsters are exposed to these kinds of conditions as a direct result of the policy of this Government.

I think a very great tragedy and something that should be on the conscience of members of the Government for a long time to come is the lack of provision of housing for these youngsters and others. Many of the young Vietnam veterans cannot qualify for a war service home. The Government can quote some cases in which they do, but it should not say that that applies to all cases because it does not. A relative of mine served as a sailor on 3 patrols in the Vietnam area. He did not qualify for a war service home until a bomb was dropped down the chimney of the ship on which he was serving. He came under fire. Therefore he qualified.

There are other areas in which money is available. The Australian Labor Party has consistently said that the whole taxation system should be restructured and that Commonwealth funds should be made available at cheap interest rates for home building or for helping young people to become established in life generally. There is an area in which money is available in unlimited quantities. It is in the field of hire purchase. I have on the notice paper a question seeking information as to whether the Government approves of hire purchase companies being taken over by outside, foreign owned banking institutions. I do not expect a reply for a long time because the reply will be embarrassing. It has been said by responsible Ministers, by the present Prime Minister and by his predecessor that the Government has no sympathy for overseas banking institutions which are trying to establish themselves in this country. Let us look at some of the profits made by hire purchase companies. Associated Securities Limited has just produced a balance sheet showing a profit of $4m. Australian Guarantee Corporation this year was able to make a profit of $11,833,543. Ten years ago the average earning per share in this company was about 6c. Today it has increased to 15.6c - almost treble in a period of less than 10 years. Customs Credit Corporation this year made a profit of $7,215,671. The per capita debt to the accredited hire purchase companies is $160. In addition to the recognised hire purchase companies, people can borrow small sums, and in some cases large sums, at exorbitant rates of interest from money sharks and money lenders. The people who are suffering almost inevitably are the younger people who are trying to get married and establish a home.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator KEEFFE:

– When the sitting was suspended for lunch I was referring to the colossal profits being made by hire purchase companies in this country. They are the companies of repute; but there is a whole number of other organisations which, whilst I do not classify them as disreputable, have no controls imposed on their activities. Some of them are privately owned and operate in conjunction with a retailing outlet. Some of them cover a number of retailing outlets. I believe that the Government would be well advised to look at the whole question of hire purchase and to ascertain whether in fact some business ethics cannot be made to apply to all these organisations.

This country has a very high rate of taxation. This has a bearing on some of the matters I mentioned earlier and a number of other matters about which I propose to speak in a few moments. In the United Kingdom taxation represents 30 per cent of the gross national product. In Australia the figure is only 2 per cent behind that. Some industrialised nations such as Italy and Japan, where the standard of living is increasing continually, have a much lower ratio of taxation in relation to gross national product. In Italy the figure is only 22 per cent, which is 6 per cent below the Australian figure. In Japan the figure is 16 per cent. So the figure in this country is 12 per cent higher than that in Japan. It never ceases to amaze me that, although we are so capable of socking the taxpayer in this way and we have a total Budget of about $9,000m, we are not able to apply some measure of justice in marginal cases in such fields as housing and pensions.

I wish to refer to a case in my own area in which a young couple applied for the home savings grant and were refused, allegedly because they had not complied with the terms under which the grant is made. Subsequently I took their case up for them.’ On 9th August 1971 I received from the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) a reply from which I will quote only the following paragraph:

I am informed that Mr and Mrs Riley commenced construction of their home on 1 8th January 1969. They were required, therefore, to have held savings In an acceptable form at that date and on the corresponding date in each of the years 1966, 1967 and 1968. Unfortunately they were unable to demonstrate that they held savings in an acceptable form at their savings date in 1968 as their savings at that date were held in accounts that had not been designated as Home Savings Accounts.

Here is a young couple who were eligible for the home savings grant, but because they did not designate that they were saving the money in their account for that purpose they did not qualify. The Minister went on to say:

In the circumstances the Regional Director was unable to approve their application and in view of the provisions of the Act I have no alternative but to confirm his advice.

It is a shocking state of affairs when a young couple can demonstrate their ability to save but because they do not designate their account as a home savings account they are refused the $500 grant. That is a case which could well be reviewed by the Government.

At the inception of the new national health scheme I spoke to the then Minister for Health about the refusal of doctors in some parts of Queensland to treat pensioner patients. He asked me to obtain evidence of specific cases and said that if I did so he would have a look at it. I did so before he was demoted or. promoted from that office. I was able to find a lady who had been refused treatment by 2 doctors. She was an ill elderly lady. I brought the evidence before the Department of Health and the Minister. Unfortunately a reply was not given then, and this - was one of the legacies of office which the incumbent Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) bad .to take over. I object to this as a departmental attitude and as a government attitude. The Minister said in his letter to me dated 18th August 1971:

I would explain, . at die outset, that the Pensioner Medical Service has been designed to function with a minimum of control by the Commonwealth and to preserve the personal relationship between doctor and patient “The Commonwealth hat no< jurisdiction in matter* which relate to the conduct of a doctor’s practice and relies upon the co-operation of the medical profession for the effective operation- of the Service.

It is expected, however, that where a doctor is unable to treat a pensioner he will refer the pensioner to another nearby doctor who is participating in the Pensioner Medical Service.

I was always under the impression that one of the first duties of a doctor was to treat a person who was ill. I am aware that some doctors do not participate in the pensioner medical scheme. This lady happened to be visiting a city in Queensland at the time. In all the circumstances, there should have been some moral responsibility on the doctor concerned; but most of all there is a great moral responsibility on the Government, even if it opts out of its legal responsibility, to see that the medical benefits scheme works. 1 suggest in all sincerity that the Government does not want it to work and that the Government is afraid of the doctors in trying to make it work.

About 18 months ago I raised in this chamber the case of Mr Ronald Carr of 29 Prosser Street, Toowoomba, who, after many years of service in the Royal Australian Navy, was discharged as a result of a very bad heart attack or a very severe coronary occlusion. He was discharged without any compensation at all and was not accepted for any of the fringe benefits to which an ex-serviceman with his length of service normally would expect to be entitled. 1 know that the department concerned has looked at this case on a couple of occasions and has denied responsibility. A doctor who treated this man in the Navy agreed that his disability undoubtedly had been brought about by his Service life; but that same doctor, before an appeal tribunal, denied that it had any association with his Service life. I have here the whole medical history of this man. Anyone who. wants to peruse it - even a layman - will see there indisputable evidence that there is an obligation on the Government to see that this man receives some sort of justice. With very great respect I suggest to the Minister for Health, who is in the chamber at the moment, that this man’s case ought to be looked at. If the Minister is not able to obtain the file, I will lend him mine. .

  1. come now to other areas. I propose to be. quite caustic in my remarks. I claim that this Government has reached a point of complete and utter political immorality. Only a few moments ago a lady was thrown out of this building. As I walked in a little while ago she was on the front stairs, making a very good statement to those who cared to listen to her. She was speaking in no uncertain terms and in very caustic language about the previous Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister. She is the woman who was involved in the incident in the other chamber the ‘ other night. She is an intelligent woman. Somewhere along the line she has received very bad handling by this Government. Now nobody will speak to her. The Government will not let her come into this building to state her case.

I wish to refer to some of the events which have occurred in the last few days and which are a clear indication of where the Government has fallen down and of the inability of senior Ministers to uphold the constitutional rights of this country. Honourable senators will recall that last Thursday week - the day on which the Parliament was to rise for a week’s recess - the House of Representatives was counted out. lt is always the responsibility of the Party in government to keep up numbers in the chamber and to provide a quorum. The Government failed to do this because too many Government members no longer care about such things. No blame can be attached to the Opposition regarding this incident. It is not our responsibility. The responsibility rests with the Government.

The unfortunate incident involving the lady who obviously has been treated badly by a certain Commonwealth department brought about the cessation of business in the House of Representatives for 10 minutes last Tuesday night, the first day that House sat after it had been counted out. Yesterday we had the obnoxious scene of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) ordering the destruction of notes and films associated with a Press interview. I do not think that such an incident has happened before in the history of this country. If a Prime Minister, a Minister or any person in public office makes a misstatement in a Press statement and regrets afterwards what he said, he has no right to adopt an arbitrary attitude- and order the destruction of notes and films associated with that interview. I hope that we will never again see such a thing happen.

Last night, a few minutes after midnight when members were leaving Parliament House, their names were being recorded at the front door. I was very grateful for the prompt action taken by Mr President this morning on this matter and for his promise that that record of names would be destroyed. He said that such a thing would not happen again. I am aware of the necessity for security precautions in and around Parliament House but the situation is serious when this stage is reached. I do not blame the attendant concerned. Some of the attendants here have onerous work to do. Their work involves some very unpleasant tasks. When this attendant stated to me unequivocally that it was Mr Hillyer who had given him the order to record names, I felt sorry. By the same token, I refused to give my name. I am a democratically elected representative of the people of this country, and I believe that a parliamentarian ought not to be restricted in any way. So my colleague, Senator Poyser, myself and 3 or 4 other people who were around at the time refused to co-operate. I shall continue to adopt that attitude. We are losing sight of democracy in this country. This assertion is borne out when we consider the few incidents that I have mentioned. I have another IS here with which I wish to deal before my time expires. If someone does not have a good look very soon at what is happening in Australia democracy here will cease to exist. Lord only knows, we have not much now in view of the law and order Bills which flow out of parliaments like pieces of paper off sanitary toilet rolls.

The Government has not even given a proper explanation for the slaughter of almost SOO youngsters in Vietnam. Honourable senators will recall that on 3 occasions I have been expelled from this Senate for raising this issue. The Government has always told us that proper documentation existed to show the request by the South Vietnamese for Australian troops to assist that country.

Senator Poyser:

– In an undeclared war. too.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes. As my colleague interjects, they were fighting in an undeclared war. There was an extreme reluctance on the part of the Government to produce any sort of documentation whatsoever on this subject. Finally, under much pressure the present incumbent of the office of Prime Minister was able to produce a couple of letters. I would suggest in all sincerity that they were not sufficient documentation to justify the commitment of Australian lads to an unwinnable war in which many of them have been killed.

Senator Poyser:

– They do not mean anything anyway.

Senator KEEFFE:

– They are similar to the pricing agreement that was made between Sir Henry Bolte and Prime Minister Holt in relation to the oil discoveries in Bass Strait; they did not mean a thing. They appear to have come off the top of somebody’s head and they had about the same substance in fact.

A few days ago, I had the temerity to ask the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) whether a Royal Australian Air Force crash launch had been used for a picnic. The Minister for Air in a very smart reply - I will not say that it was typical - said that the crash launch was used for a Sunday picnic. We were told that $295 was expended on that picnic. Nobody worried about the crew of that launch who had to work on their day off. It does not matter whether it was the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) or anyone else who was involved. My remarks should not be taken as a reflection on any of the Service heads who were on the boat that day; they were probably there under direction.

To the end of his reply to my question, the Minister added that I had been a member of a party which previously had used a crash launch. Of course I did. It was on a working day and I was on parliamentary business. That was not the point that I was making at that time. The point that I am making now is that even if the cost for a day’s fishing was $295 only-

Senator Poyser:

– It is dear fishing.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Barramundi is an expensive fish. It costs approximately $1 per lb. If those on this picnic caught 300 lb of barramundi and sold it to the local fish board they probably covered the cost of the trip but there is no suggestion that anybody caught any fish. I object to the misuse of public funds in this manner. I always have, and I always will. I have never been a critic of VIP flights if the aircraft are used properly. Until the time that the VIP scandal was exposed in the Senate, VIP aircraft were being used as taxis. Ministers were floating to Sydney for lunch and flying back to Canberra immediately after lunch.

Senator Little:

– The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate took some delegates to a conference in Perth too.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I do not know what you are crying about. You will get your chance to have a howl later in the debate. Take your opportunity then. These examples that I have given are the sorts of things to which we object. This is J 971. Ministers on affairs of State and parliamentarians on official duties are entitled to the use of means of fast transport. I regret what happened on this occasion following my question. I do not know whether the Minister for Air did this personally but he had somebody in his Department ring the RAAF base and say: ‘Before we reply to this question, get something on Keeffe’. That to me was the shabby action of a tiny little man. I hope that that is not the way that he continues to run his portfolio.

Let us look now at the subject of the Fill. The Government says that the country has no money, even though our taxation rates are among the highest in the world. Yet, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on a plane that has not yet flown here. Again, our touchy Minister for Air - no doubt he is listening to my remarks in his office; if he is not, he will be able to read them in Hansard - was asked the other day to reply to a question concerning a Press statement which was based on the fact that in a public speech in Perth he had criticised the Press and parliamentarians for causing all the doubts about the Fill. That statement is not true. The fact is that the Fill may never fly properly and there is no guarantee that it will be suitable for use in Australia anyway. At the rate delivery is taking place, it will be obsolete before we get it. Somewhere along the line, the Government should have had the backbone and moral courage to say: ‘We will cancel the order and we will find an alternative aircraft’. But this great picnic still goes on.

While we are on this subject, there is one other point that I ought to raise, namely, the refusal of the Government to table the Pentagon papers. One, I suppose, can understand the lack of courage in this respect when all that the Government can produce to show the reason for its commitment of Australian troops to Vietnam is a couple of scraps of paper. The Pentagon papers are one of the most historic documents of this century. They show that the involvement of this country, the United States of America and New Zealand in the Vietnam war was based on false premises and should never have taken place. Now. 2 million lives later and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage later, these matters have come out into public view. If this Government is not prepared within the next 2 months to table the Pentagon papers, the shame of its attitude will be with it and with everybody associated with the Government Parties for the rest of their lives.

Some criticism was made recently concerning the League of Rights. The Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Anthony! went to South Australia and cried great tears because, he said, the League of Rights was taking over. He did this in support of a member of the South Australian Upper House, Mr Martin Cameron, an ex-senator, who became famous in this chamber for finding rabbits on the front lawns. The Premier of Queensland - the man who said he would put Senator Georges and myself under continuous police surveillance because of our unpatriotic attitudes - has said that the League of Rights has very much in common with the Country Party and he would not be banning it. He is dead right, because the League of Rights now exerts a tremendous influence on the Country Party in Queensland in the same way that the National Civic Council has completely infiltrated the Liberal Party.

I wish to speak now about two or three other quite important subjects. The Department of External Territories has looked at a number of aspects of the employment of local officers recently and has produced certain findings which are not to the advantage of anybody, expatriate or otherwise, employed in Papua New Guinea. We have taken over that country. I get a little tired of having to complain about these things. Nevertheless, it is only because we are able to expose a few matters from time to time that we are able to rectify some of the injustices that have been perpetrated in the Territory. The older local officers who are nearing retirement will receive no retirement benefits or, if a benefit is granted, it will be completely inadequate. Events in the Territory at present have to be seen to be believed. They have been instigated by the attitude of this Government through the inefficiency of the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) and the actions of the landed gentry in Papua New Guinea. I make the charge that many of the riots there have been initiated not by black people but by disgruntled white business people and planters who do not want independence ever to come to the Territory. A few weeks ago the Hagen riots reached a serious stage. In my view they were started mainly by white planters.

Senator Wright:

– You are completely irresponsible.

Senator KEEFFE:

– As a Minister you would be the most irresponsible type that ever got into the Ministry. You are not due to stay there for long, however, because Sir William Bigears has you marked down for destruction. One of the great tragedies of Papua New Guinea is the death of Jack Emanuel, the friend of the Tolais. He was shifted around by the Administration because he was too friendly with them. I do not believe that a Tolai would be responsible for the death of Jack Emanuel. Irrespective of whether the planning was done in that area or some other region, the death blow may have been struck by a Tolai but the inspiration and planning for his death would not have come from the Tolais. He was one of the great men who worked as a kiap in the Territory. If we are not prepared to face up to the realities of the situation there will be a blood bath in Papua New Guinea in the immediate future.

Senator Wright:

– Which you obviously want.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Mr Minister, can you keep quiet? Within the hear future there could be a blood bath and the onus lies squarely with the Government to see that it does not take place. The country has been raped. Great stands of timber have been sold to the friends of the Government but the locals are getting very little return from them. With the use of gas and guns the Government has given to an overseas company the Bougainville copper riches and a big cut from them is going back to the United States of America. It is not going to the local people. Two or three days ago I asked whether the report of the World Health Organisation on the anti-malaria campaign, could be tabled in this Parliament. Obviously it is a classified document. One would think that in the face of a charge such as that made by the World Health Organisation the Government would be willing to bring the report forward in a hurry, but I do not expect ever to see it. The World Health Organisation charged that a large part of anti-malaria campaign funds was wasted because of bad administration. Meanwhile little kids still suffer from malaria and have their lives considerably shortened as a result.

Let us examine a couple more scandals while we are on the job. The moral responsibility to put a stop to this rot belongs to the people on the other side of the chamber. Honourable senators will remember that we discussed the Jetair deal. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), who is now at the table, had clean hands in the deal, I believe. He was not even in Australia when it took place. I would concede that the sum of money that escaped into the hands of the sellers of the aircraft concerned was very small by Budget standards. It was probably about $250,000 but the deal should never have taken place. My colleague Senator Wriedt and I have maintained a continual vigil and have asked a number of leading questions

During the last session I asked for details of the cost of ferrying the aircraft overseas. Somewhere along the line, in a speech, we were told that the cost would be $10,000. However, a supplementary question was asked because the information sought in the original question was not fully supplied. Again we had to wait until the answer came back that the cost would be $34,838. The contract contained adjustment clauses to take effect if delays occurred during the period of the ferry flights through forces outside the control of the contractor. To whom was the contract given? It was given to a subsidiary ot one of our oil companies which has been able to win 46 contracts from the Department of Supply worth a total of about $500,000. It is no wonder that the oil companies are very good friends of this Government.

Before leaving the subject of Papua New Guinea I wish to refer to a letter published in one of the reputable daily newspapers. It was signed by Mr Gagen Principal of St Paul’s Teachers College, and the principals of the other 11 teachers colleges in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. The letter states:

The 2 airlines operating scheduled flights In the Territory of Papua New Guinea . . . have withdrawn concession fares previously available for the travel of students of Territory teachers colleges. This conference wishes to draw the attention of the community at large to the situation created by the decision. To do this effectively, it is necessary to provide some background information.

The letter goes on to refer to the number of teachers training colleges and then includes the section to which I wish mainly to refer. It states:

Territory air fares are among the highest in the world; all travel is charged at first class rates (there is no economy fare available) which are much higher, mile for mile than charges in Australia. For most journeys there is no alternative means of travel. Publishing common fares, as they do, the 2 airlines are in a monopoly position. Third, the great majority of students are on scholarship allowances which have an annual value of between $250 and $450, according to the academic level at entry and the year of students’ course. For the majority the highest allowance received during a course is $350. All students pay compulsory residential charges from these allowances. The average residential charge paid by students amounts to approximately $160 in a year.

The students finish up with about $2 a week for pocket money. As a result of this decision it is likely that a number of students will have to withdraw from the teachers training colleges. This situation has been brought about by a government which claims to be guiding Papua New Guinea towards .independence and democracy.

Let us look at the home front. The people who are most maligned and who get the least assistance in Australia are the Aborigines and Islanders. The grant for Aboriginal aid this year was increased slightly but I maintain that it is still about fifteen to twenty times below what it ought to be. Yet the Government is able to find money to help the Jetair Australia Limited people or for a Sunday picnic. Heaven only knows, expenditure of this kind would be multiplied a dozen times over in cases that we have not time to look into or to probe for. We find that $9,000 is being improperly expended on the rennovation of a residence in New York, but in replying to a question on that subject we find that the Minister in this place justifies this illegal transaction. That is part of the political immorality of this Government. Two days ago in my city of Townsville an Aboriginal was sentenced to 7 days in gaol for stealing 2 boxes of matches, but a Government department under the control of a Minister may spend $9,000 plus, and the Minister comes into this Parliament and justifies the expenditure by saying that the work had to be done in the circumstances.

I do not know when the rot began to set in. Perhaps it was at the time of the disappearance of Mr Harold Holt that the crumble began. Many strange things are happening and, as I have said before, some day they will be exposed to the light of public gaze. Despite what is happening in Papua New Guinea at the moment we find that there is a full time Country Party organiser stirring up trouble among the indigenous people there in the hope that there will be riots, and the Government allows in a political organisation in Papua New Guinea a person who, according to very good local evidence, is associated with the United States Central Intelligence Agency. When members of the Pangu Party come down with militant or radical statements they are classified as Communists, but that is a very moderate party and the only cohesive political party in the Territory at the moment. But the Government will not interfere with the type of party that it wants to see in Papua New Guinea: AH this comes back to- Australian politics. Some day there will be a public exposure in this field and the documentation that is necessary to support an exposure is not very far away.

I am not the only one who has doubts. Very many people in reputable positions in Australia are seriously worried about what is going on inside the Government and what is going on inside the Liberal Party.

There is concern about the removal of Ministers. There was a time when there was a little bit of political stability in the Government. When I first came to Parliament the Situation was not too bad. At that time if one wrote to a Minister one could be fairly sure of receiving a reply within a reasonable time, but today one might wait for a year before receiving a reply on an important matter. We certainly wait for more than a year for a decision. The reason for this is that half the time these portfolios have changed hands 3 times while we are waiting for a decision to be made. How can we have stable government when every Minister in this Government at the moment is looking over his shoulder wondering whether he is next for the axe or the knife? How can a Minister make decisions when he is not able to sit down in a stable way and deal with the work of his portfolio?

I have talked about the problems of the Aboriginals. To me their situation is the greatest social shame in Australia. Housing conditions, health conditions and job opportunities for Aboriginals are non-existent in so many areas. But what happens? As soon as the Minister who is responsible for the portfolio gets his teeth into the job the portfolio is taken from him and given to someone else. I shall not be derogatory about the current Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), but probably the first time he saw more than 10 black people together was when he visited a Queensland reserve. But this is no reflection on him, if he is prepared to dig his toes in and get on with the job. However, I feel that he will not be left in that position but will go to another portfolio because it suits the Prime Minister to play political jigsaws. He cannot afford to leave a Minister in a portfolio for too long as the man might come to know the job and might become a rival for the position of Prime Minister.

Senator Marriott:

– What about Mr Fred Daly in immigration?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I missed that remark. Will the honourable senator repeat it in Australian so that I can understand it? What did the honourable senator say?

Senator Marriott:

– What about Mr Daly in immigration?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I do not know what the honourable senator is talking about. He is talking through his teeth. If he will write his question down and send it to me I will consider whether to give him a reply. As he is an Assistant Minister I do not acknowledge that he exists in this chamber. The Australian Labor Party has got so far in front of the Government in its statesmanlike attitude to matters that the Government would be afraid to have an election tomorrow because it would not last long enough to count its deposits, if they were returned to its candidates. The big trouble is that while the Government carries on with internal bickering, internal brawling, internal bloodletting and internal throat cutting, this country suffers.

The only big percentage increase for anybody in this Budget is that provided for the secret police. The Government must think that it will need them. The estimate for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation this year is $4,370,000, an increase of $700,000 on last year, but we do not know how this money is being spent. I would suggest that some Ministers who may be afraid of what is going to happen are arranging for some of this to be socked away in Swiss banks so that they can get their fingers on it after they are out of government. That is a shocking state of affairs.

Senator Cotton:

– Mr Deputy President, I think that is an extremely offensive remark which should be withdrawn. The remark applies to all Ministers of the Government and I think it is quite improper.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Objection has been taken to Senator Keeffe’s remark. I request the honourable senator to withdraw it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– May 1 have the words of the Minister’s objection? I did not hear them properly.

Senator Cotton:

– When the honourable senator receives his copy of Hansard he will realise that he said that Ministers were arranging to have money from the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation appropriation socked away in Swiss banks. That is a reflection on the character of all Ministers in this Administration. I resent it personally and on behalf of my colleagues and I want it withdrawn.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If I have upset the Minister I withdraw the remark. If I may continue, the criticism made against Labor’s trip to China was shocking, lt was suggested that we were creating all sorts of problems by sending a delegation to China, but this is the greatest thing that has ever happened for Australia. We had the terribly embarrassing situation of the Prime Minister saying that Mr Whitlam had been played like a trout, but at the same time the President of the United States was playing the Australian Prime Minister like a flathead. At the Liberal Party Conference in Tasmania the Prime Minister had a speech prepared and was ready to go in and castigate the Labor Party for its initiative in establishing contacts in the People’s Republic of China, but he found as he was about to enter the place that Mr Nixon had already arranged to go to China. Consequently, he had to re-write his story. I say again that the Prime Minister might have thought that Mr Whitlam had been played like a trout by the Chinese leaders, but it was nothing like the way in which the American leader played the Prime Minister like a flathead.

Senator Webster:

– No doubt there will be-

Senator KEEFFE:

– No doubt there are flatheads in the Country Party also. The honourable senator is just lucky that he was not involved.

Senator Webster:

– I was going to ask a question.

Senator KEEFFE:

– When I am an Assistant Minister the honourable senator may ask me questions, but not at the moment. The Australian Labor Party has shown itself to be the only viable political organisation in Australia today capable of giving this country proper government. The sooner the Australian people have an opportunity to vote at the ballot boxes, after a double dissolution, if necessary, the better it will be for Australia.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– Yesterday was an historic and impressive day in the annals of this chamber. The day was marked with a large number of maiden speeches, each of which reflected great credit on the speaker and on the State that he represented. I congratulate each of them on making really excellent contributions to this Budget debate. 1 was especially impressed wim Senator Bonner’s contribution and his deeply sincere plea for greater understanding and compassion for his people. I feel that all honourable senators would have a sense of pride that we have in our assembly one who is a member of the Aboriginal race, one who has an understanding of the problems of the people of his race in particular, and one who has shown in his speech last night a bigness in his approach to these problems. I wish him well as a representative of Queensland in this Senate and as one who knows intimately the problems of those people who form his background. I repeat that I am proud, as I am sure every member of the Senate is proud, to have Senator Bonner with us. 1 would like to take this opportunity of heartily congratulating the President (Sir Mangus Cormack) on his elevation to the highest office this chamber has in its power to bestow. 1 have no doubt that under his guidance the dignity and decorum of this place will be well maintained, indeed enhanced.

Senator Poyser:

– An unbiased altitude.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Certainly; marked with a completely impartial attitude to all members in this chamber. He has at all times stoutly guarded the rights, privileges and procedures of the Senate. 1 trust that this institution will grow in strength and influence under his direction. I wish him well, both in health and happiness and in the discharge of the high duties of his office. In like vein, may I congratulate you, Mr Deputy President, on your preferment to the position of Chairman of Committees of the Senate. 1 think it is a good thing to look in retrospect from time to time and evaluate the results of past policies of governments, their financial . administrations and the collective effort of all the people of Australia in attaining objectives which continually progress and grow bigger with the passage of time. As one looks back one’s spontaneous assessment must be that we are living in a pretty wonderful country. Sometimes I wonder how many of us really appreciate this. For a country of 12.8 million people to be able to have a national Budget of some $8,833m is a major achievement, but if a comparison is made with any country in the world it is realised that the ability to have a Budget of these dimensions is not something that has occurred of its own volition. I am sure it is the direct result of a responsible approach by the people of Australia generally to their various activities, and particularly of good government over the last 20-odd years. But we cannot expect our prosperity and progress to continue unless we look to the future with a high degree of realism in a number of matters in this era of great change and great challenge and, indeed, foundation laying of a really great nation.

I want to make a few general observations in regard to our economy and leave the detailed aspects of the Budget to the more appropriate time of Committee consideration. I refer to the fact that inflationary tendencies within our economy, present and potential, fairly give me the horrors. Here we have a danger which every one of us, through the whole gamut of society, must be aware of and to which we all must be very sensitive. If we are not prepared to toe the line in the commonsense, realistic way, then the progress we have made over the past couple of decades simply cannot be expected to continue. We cannot live in economic isolation away from our competitor countries in trade. We will not live for very long if we think we can curl up in a little isolated cocoon, ignore the business bases of international trade and have our own little Utopia all to our little selves. It just will not work that way.

So I draw attention to a few things that 1 think are fundamental to our national economic and personal well being. In the first instance, I commend the basic principles on which this Budget has been drawn up. It is essentially a Budget framed to meet a situation in which inflationary forces in Australia are of a strength and character which could be a potential danger to the whole economy. If ever there has been a time in our economic history when an absolutely responsible and realistic attitude has to. be taken to keep our financial structure on an even keel, that time is surely now. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has acted cautiously, I think, in framing this Budget. 1 do not believe that it can be described as repressive or harsh, but it has inherent in it a clear realisation that Australia is in the grip of serious inflationary pressures which simply have to be arrested. It is high time that we recognised that we have been singularly fortunate in Australia to have encompassed over the past couple of decades a period of outstanding national development, without the adverse experience of so called stagflation - a situation experienced by some other countries of comparative stagnation of the economy but at the same time with a high degree of inflation and simultaneously a high level of unemployment. This posit on has marked some overseas economies - powerful economies.

We have gone ahead steadily, solidly, with full employment and with a degree of inflation which is outstandingly lower in comparison with other developing countries. These conditions have not been fortuitous. They do not just happen to have prevailed. They are the direct results of good planning and management of our financial affairs and structure generally, and governmental decisions which have been beneficial to economic growth. I give full marks to the Government for its performance through the years and to our present Treasurer. Mr Snedden, for what I regard as a highly responsible attitude to the country’s finances, as indicated in the Budget which we are now considering. As the Treasurer points out, until last financial year inflation had not been a matter for serious concern to us for almost a decade. Through years of rapid development, ‘ in common with the experience of all rapidly developing economies throughout the world, there had been a degree of inflation, though comparatively less than that experienced by, say, Japan and West Germany, which have had quite a fantastic development rate.

Over the 5 years from 1965 to 1969 average weekly earnings in Australia rose by 6.5 per cent each year and consumer prices rose by 3.2 per cent. During these years we had a steady increase in population, with unemployment never exceeding 1.5 per cent of the total work force. These figures demonstrate that we can have sound economic growth and continuous full employment with only a moderate degree of cost and price inflation. I repeat that average weekly earnings increased by 6.5 per cent while consumer prices rose by 3.2 per cent. However, in the last 2 years cost and price inflation has gained a rather frightening momentum. This has not been the fault of the Government but is due, in the main, to forces outside its jurisdiction. Average weekly earnings rose by 8.9 per cent in 1969-70 and by over 10 per cent last year. This led to a 3.2 per cent rise in the consumer price index in 1969-70 and a 4.8 per cent rise last year. The rate of increase in prices in the June quarter of this year was in the 6 per cent range.

In speaking along these lines I do not wish to give the impression that I regard wage increases as being the only factor in a given situation, but inordinate wage demands certainly have had a major bearing on the whole matter. I want to see the highest wage levels the economy can provide, but the wage has to be effective in purchasing power. We should not lose sight of the vital importance of productivity in relation to wage rises because if we do, inflation, with all its evils and hardships, will no doubt ensue. Therefore it is not to be wondered at that the Government is concerned about the present general situation within the economy and that the red warning lights are flashing.

I hope it is not thought that 1 am exaggerating the situation. However, I do want to underline the fact that there are certain basic things that we have to take heed of right now or be very sorry about somewhat later. A general effort over the whole of the populace of Australia is called for to meet the present situation and to ensure that we continue to progress as we have progressed in the last 20 years, with consistent improvement to the benefit of all. The rather frightening trend of last year simply has to be halted now. If it is allowed to continue the unavoidable result will be increased economic and social hardship to many people, particularly those on fixed incomes, and jeopardy to our export industries, which are trying to increase their overseas sales in extremely competitive markets. The effect on our rural industries would be the same as placing the last straw on the camel’s back.

It is a simplification of the situation to say . that the whole matter boils down to the fact that it is not so important how fat our pay packets, may be but what those pay packets will buy. It seems to me that the public philosophy is developing that we can isolate ourselves from the competitive pressures within overseas economies and that we can afford prematurely to raise our standards of living beyond our internal capacity to remain competitive with other countries selling the goods we produce. That is surely a short-sighted view. It will be far better to pursue policies which retain the purchasing power within our personal and national earnings and give the competitive ability to increase our exports of both primary and secondary origin. I would like to see more people travelling overseas. In that way they would be able to note and evaluate for themselves how comparatively well off we are as a people. It would underline the need for all of us to retain this position.

I do not believe that governments can achieve all of the things which are necessary to ensure a stable economy. It is the obligation of everybody to act responsibly and fairly. We should not close our eyes to the fact that over the last few years productivity in industry has been showing a growth rate of 3 per cent a year but wage costs per unit of output have increased by some 9 or 10 per cent. I firmly believe that it would be better to have a gradual improvement without what I have referred to as inordinate demands or demands which are not realistic in respect to what can be comfortably and reasonably carried. We have to ensure our ability to do the things that we all aspire to do while ensuing that we do not find our situation weakened through an inability to balance our receipts with what we are required to expend from those receipts.

It seems to me that both management and labour have yet to learn to operate responsibly and effectively “in a full employment economy. I think that the whole community - capital and labour alike - has to realise this. There is much in our background in terms of real economic progress in the last 20 years or so. We are entitled to be proud of the progress we have made and of the betterment’ it has meant to our living standards generally. But I think we need to aspire to a greater sense of national pride and responsibility as we look to the future or we will lose the benefits of past achievements, lt is worth noting the real progress we have made, which is reflected in our budgetary capacity over the last 20 years. Our nation had a revenue of $ 1,683m in 1950-51 and an expenditure of a like amount. Five years later - in 1955-56 - the revenue rose to $2,367m and the expenditure rose to $2,537m. By 1960-61 we had steadily but surely increased to $3, 192m in our revenue and $3,224m in our expenditure. By 1965- 66 the revenue had increased to $4,767m and the expenditure to $5,022m. There was a big jump between 1965-66 and 1970-71. In the latter period the revenue rose to $8,030m and the expenditure to $8, 105m. We all know that it has been estimated that the expenditure this year will be $8,833,268,000. Surely that is something to be proud of. That is a reflection of the progress that has been made in our economy through the years. Without this progress the figures I have just quoted could never have eventuated.

Our export trade is basic to this growth. It is essential that within our cost structure we remain competitive with overseas markets so that our exports will continually rise. On an f.o.b. basis our exports have grown from $2,926m in 1966-67 - 5 years ago- to$4,221m in 1970-71. In 1966, 68.48 per cent of our overseas earnings came from direct exports, 18.96 per cent from invisible credits and 12.57 per cent from net apparent capital inflow. In 1970- 71, 62.13 per cent of our overseas earnings came from exports, 17.5 per cent from invisible credits and 20.31 per cent from capital inflow. I quote those figures to indicate that the hard core of actual export income has in that 5-year period actually declined by 6.35 per cent, that is, it has come down from 68.48 per cent to 62.13 per cent.

Senator Wright:

– That is only as a percentage.

Senator LAUCKE:

– As a percentage, yes, butI think it is of significance. Invisible credits are down slightly but dependence on capital inflow has increased by 7.74 per cent. I have never been opposed to an inflow of overseas capital investment. I think it has been the very mainspring, as it were, of our ability to develop our own resources with the rapidity and desirability that has been the case in recent times. My purpose in referring to these figures today is to indicate that we must realise our heavy dependence at this period of time on capital inflow in attaining our balance of payments situation and to show the difficulties of the situation. The situation does not give rise to any optimistic ideas that we can allow out costs to escalate merrily on the home economy and still expect our balance of payments via exports not to be seriously detrimented. It indicates we cannot expect to work fewer hours for more pay and still be able to sell increasing volumes of our goods on overseas markets at prices necessary to obtain those markets. We lean too heavily on anticipated capital inflow to keep our balance of payments situation soundly based. For these reasons I feel that we should not countenance the idea of a 35 hour working week and 4 weeks annual leave at this stage of our development.

The overall cost of introducing an additional week’s leave would be between $350m and $400m a year if production were maintained by recruiting additional labour and between $500m and $550m a year if production were maintained by working additional overtime. The corresponding costs of introducing a 35 hour week would be between $ 1,500m and $2,000m a year if production were made up through recruiting additional labour and between $2,200m and $3,000m a year if it were made up through overtime. Our economy could not afford cost increases of those dimensions. Our export potential would be vitally damaged, and I have no doubt that inflation would run riot.

In his excellent speech last night Senator Carrick referred to a very important aspect of finance between the States and the Commonwealth when he said - this has a deep appeal - that the State spending the money should be the body which collects the money. I must point out to him that whilst this is so right, we must look at it against the background of the well being of the nation to ensure that there are common standards throughout the nation, be it in education, in the provision of roads and transport, water reticulation, hospitalisation and all these things. Consideration has to be given to those States which are somewhat lesser endowed in natural resources than are others. So as we look today at the payments being made to States - they represent about one-third of the whole Budget - I feel that by the system we have we are ensuring the background for our national ability to develop and to maintain common standards in a way which would not apply were we to pursue the idea that all States raise their own revenue for their own purposes and then spend it. This would not lead to the situation we enjoy now. I say this as a resident of one of the less populous and lesser endowed States in comparison to other States in this nation.

I wish to refer to an industry in South Australia which is of real importance to that State, namely, the grape growing and wine making industry. In South Australia we produce between 70 per cent and 75 per cent of Australia’s wine and brandy. I am deeply concerned at the serious downturn in Australia’s wine sales since the imposition of the 50c per gallon excise on wine which was imposed in the 1970-71 Budget. To place the current situation in the right perspective it is necessary to take into account the wholesale sales of wine since 1955-56 and the growth rate percentage through the years.

In 1955-56 wholesale sales of wine in Australia amounted to about 10,000,000 gallons. By the following year there was an increase of 5.8 per cent. I do not want to bore the Senate with too many figures but we can trace the growth rate back to 1956 when the industry was having a rather difficult time. The growth rate in 1957-58 was 1.3 per cent; in 1958-59 it was 2.8 per cent; in 1959-60 it was 3.1 per cent; in 1960-61 it fell by .5 per cent; in 1 96 i -62 it increased by 2.3 per cent; and in 1963- 64 it increased by 6.8 per cent. I want to look closely now at the immediate past 5 years. In 1965-66 there was a growth rate in sales on the Australian market of 10.7 per cent; in 1966-67 it was 14.4 per cent and in 1967-68 it was 12.8 per cent. By that time sales amounted to 19,823,000 gallons. In 1968-69 there was a further increase of 1 1 .2 per cent, and in 1 969-70 to the point at which the excise was imposed the growth rate was 10.1 per cent. At that time we were selling 24,385,000 gallons of wine.

Taking those last 5 years from 1965-66 to 1969-70 the average annual growth rate was 11.8 per cent. If we accept an average growth rate of 10 per cent we can expect in this current year to achieve a sales figure of 26,823,000 gallons of wine. Looking ahead at the sales picture, estimated sales in 1971-72, using this 10 per cent growth rate, would total 29,505,000 gallons. This would appear to be in line with the assessment of revenue by the Treasurer in a full year after the imposition of the excise. The estimated amount was then SI 5m but the actual return from this excise was only Slim. That indicates the decline in sales since the imposition of the charge.

I have been informed by what I regard as authoritative sources in respect of clearances of wine on the local market that sales fell by 8.9 per cent in the September quarter 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 this year and by 17.2 per cent in the June quarter this year. These percentage reductions constitute a set-back of some 4.9 million gallons in projected wine sales taking into account actual sales when compared with the previous year. A direct loss of 2.4 million gallons in wine sales has occurred.

Senator Wright:

– In what year do you say that loss occurred?

Senator LAUCKE:

– This loss has occurred in the Budget year subsequent to the 1970 Budget.

Senator Wright:

– What were the sales then? Were they 24 million-odd gallons?

Senator LAUCKE:

– The actual sales in 1970 were 24,385,000 gallons. One has to view this matter also with an eye to the stocks of wine being held at the present time. It is usual for the industry to plan about 3 years ahead in wine sales. At the present time actual stocks held in Australia total 63,169,000 gallons. There has been a rise through the years. For instance, in 1968 51,379,000 gallons were held in stock. But with the expectancy in the industry of continuing sales as applied before the 1970 Budget the current stocks are at the level of 63,169,000 gallons which is a lot of wine. This year it is anticipated that the figure could be 68 million gallons. At the moment, inherent in this situation there is a supply of wine on hand which, given a large vintage this year, could really embarrass the processors and reflect very adversely on the grape growers’ ability to dispose of their perishable commodity.

Grapes are not like other rural products which can be stored. As I say, they are perishable. They have to be processed for one use only and that is the making of beverage wines or for distillation. They have no other use. Certainly, some variety of grapes can be dried but the wine grape as such has only one use and that is the production of wine. The levy of 50c a gallon on wine I have always regarded as a very vicious imposition. This is shown when related to production costs in the industry and the increase in the price of raw materials to the processors arising from the impost. On the basis of a yield of 140 gallons of wine a ton of grapes, the increase in basic cost to the wine maker per ton of grapes is $70. This $70 is more than the average return to the grower per ton of wine grapes sold over the whole scale of varieties produced in non-irrigated and irrigated areas. Overnight, the price of the raw material to the processor doubled. I recall very vividly that in 1964-65 in South Australia we had surplus crops which the wineries could not accept. A special pool was set up to handle the surplus grapes. They were processed into brandy and ultimately sold. At that point the growers were paid for their production.

Senator Wright:

– When did the honourable senator say that happened?

Senator LAUCKE:

– That was in 1964- 65. At that time in South Australia we had an arrangement on a governmental basis whereby an authority was set up to determine what the wine maker could afford to pay per ton of grapes and the need of the grower in regard to price to make his section of the industry viable. The Prices Commissioner of South Australia was chairman of the authority. Representatives of the makers and the growers would con. suit with the Prices Commissioner, indicate their cost of production, the prospect of disposal of the products and then work out a reasonable price to be paid for certain varieties of grapes in the subsequent vintage. In those times we found by agreement between manufacturers and suppliers of raw material that a few dollars a ton - say $4 or $5 a ton - would be a maximum possible increase. Here we have an imposition of $70 a ton which has created a crisis in the grape industry over-night in one fell swoop. Is it any wonder that the industry is so worried now, more particularly the growers who depend for their outlets on co-operative wineries? A very large part of our industry’s production comes from the River Murray area. Cooperatives Wineries are the main recipients of the vintages of the soldier settlers and other people who grow grapes in that area. Because of the incidence of the tax in the flagon trade and in the wholesale trade - which is the bulk of wine sales and which releases the production in volume - we find that through lack of sales the co-operatives have more in their storage areas now than they have had for a long time. Orders are not coming in, particularly for blending wines. We have a situation of real hardship lying ahead for the growers who supply those co-operatives and who rely for their livelihood on the disposal of their production by these organisations.

Senator Wright:

– Did the honourable senator say that the average return to the grower is less than $70 a ton?

Senator LAUCKE:

– Yes, on average, through all varieties. There are some varieties like Cabarnet Sauvignon and Riesling which enjoy a very high price. But the figure for a cross section of all varieties - the production in volume of the lower priced wines - is $70 a ton. That amount would be somewhat more than the average overall receipts for the grapes. The wine industry has a very proud history. It was established by the pioneers in the wine growing areas. Generations battled to build up their business. The family companies have not been dividend payers; they have been builders. I recall vividly a statement by the general manager of the biggest wine-making organisations in South Australia. He said: ‘We are not dividend payers; we are builders. We plough back into the industry all that we make’. From observation I know that this is so. These people have been nation builders in their own areas. They have battled through difficult times, without government assistance, for many years. They are ruggedly independent. They have planned for the future in a solid manner.

In the 5 or 6 years prior to the 1970 Budget there had been buoyancy in the industry. That buoyancy gave them an attractive income, an ability to expand and so on. The industry has not been an easy game for many years.. To see its progress arrested, as it has been by the imposition of the excise, does seem to me to demonstrate culpability on the part of the advisers who suggested that that was an opportune time to impose a charge on the industry. Thinking of the governmental involvement in war service land settlement schemes and of the financial obligations of individual settlers who grow grapes, I can see arising a most unsatisfactory situation in which, through an endeavour to obtain revenue, increased cost could well come into the picture. The imposition of the duty could cost the Government much more than it could ever hope to receive from the industry through the imposition of a duty of 50c on each gallon of wine.

Australia is not a large wine-drinking nation. Australian consumption is 1.96 gallons per person per year. In a French publication I have here the figure appears at 1.65. If we take the number of bottles consumed per person and if we consider that possibly one out of four people would take a glass of wine, that consumption works out at about 4 oz a wine a day.

Senator Wright:

– How many bottles a week is that?

Senator LAUCKE:

– It works out at about a bottle a week. The situation in other wine-producing countries is quite different. Italy has a per capita consumption of 25.93 gallons a year; France 24.39 gallons; the Argentine 19.22 gallons; Spain 13.63 gallons; and Germany 3.36 gallons. Germany is noted for its fairly high beer consumption, but it consumes twice as much wine as Australia and we are regarded as a fairly heavy consumer of beer by world comparisons. Austria has a per capita consumption of 7.33 gallons of wine per year.

Senator Little:

– How much are the people allowed to drink in Russia?

Senator LAUCKE:

– On this list of 45 countries there is no figure for the USSR or for the Democratic Republic of East Germany.

Senator Withers:

– Would you incorporate that list in Hansard so that all honourable senators can see it?

Senator LAUCKE:

– As it is the wish of honourable senators on my left to have these figures incorporated in Hansard, with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate them.

The endeavours of the wine industry to promote wine sales in Australia have been positive. There is a levy on fresh grapes, the proceeds from which are used for promotion purposes. In 1970 $525,000 was expended and it is expected that this year $518,000 will be expended. This amount is raised by the growers and is expended by the Wine Board, together with government assistance. There is a real contribution by growers to furthering the interests of their industry. They have not thrown up their hands in defeat but have really tried to improve the industry. In spite of all their efforts sales are decreasing and worry about the future and their ability to cope with what lies ahead is rising.

The grape industry is one of the few rural industries which have been viable in recent years. There is every opportunity for it to remain viable. I hope that the incidence of the excise on wines will be reviewed. I hope that the tax will be abolished!. I can see no justification for it when we compare the detriment that is being done to the industry with the actual gain to the Treasury. When one takes into account the loss of income tax from the growers through their reduced ability to sell their grapes on a buoyant market, the income of the wineries and the payment of taxes on that income, and the cost of collection, one finds that there is not much difference between those losses and costs and the actual excise levied. These factors do not reveal a national requirement to inhibit the growth and well being of an industry as has been done in this case.

Before concluding I refer to a very laudable action being taken by the Victorian Government in its assistance to and encouragement of industry to move to country areas to overcome the congestion in and the rising costs of urban development in mammoth population concentrations. An article which appeared in Tuesday’s ‘Australian’ stated:

Victorian Government ‘salesmen’ will approach 20,000 Melbourne industrialists individually in the next 4 or 5 years to persuade them to shift their plants to the country.

The prime target will be firms that employ up to about 50 people and are engaged in textiles, light engineering, footwear and other manufacturing.

The first to get a call will be those whose buildings are in the path of freeways . . .

I think this is a very constructive approach to a major problem in our society. In this vast country there is a concentration of population in comparatively few centres. Our cities are becoming so big and so clogged up by the problems of transport and the provision of services, such as water supply, power reticulation and sewerage, that in the process of attempting to cope with those problems they are getting right away from attending to the quality of life, the betterment of the environment and so on. We are paying big money, directly and indirectly, to overcome the problems which huge concentrations of population have inherent in them.

I believe that it is better to look at policies such as this one which has been enunciated by the Victorian Government, namely, to have towns and cities set up in areas in which it will be cheaper to provide facilities for both industry and living and which will provide a better setting in which people may live. In fact, in the present very strong state of the national economy, the implementation of such a policy may lead to a betterment of the individual’s position generally. After all, why are we here? Are we not here to lead a life happily and healthily? At the moment we are concentrating people in cities in an unhealthy and costly way when we should be giving greater consideration to decentralisation in a practical way both for reasons of economics and in the interests of human wellbeing and betterment.

Senator Wright:

– Does the Victorian Government propose not to go on with its underground metropolitan railway project?

Senator LAUCKE:

– I have no knowledge of whether the Victorian Government proposes to give up any of its city improvement projects. I am just pointing out that, instead of concentrating population in cities, we ought to give consideration to decentralisation in a practical way which would be of benefit generally. 1 have pleasure in supporting the Budget.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– I join with my colleagues in congratulating the honourable senators who have made their maiden speeches during this Budget debate. I am sure that all my colleagues will agree that this chamber will be enhanced by the participation of the new senators in future debates. I take this opportunity to thank the South Australian Branch of the Australian Labor Party for giving me the honour of leading the Labor Senate team in that State at the 1970 Senate elections. I thank the hundreds of supporters who distributed election literature prior to polling day and assisted in the distribution of how-to-vote cards at the polling booths. Without the willing assistance of such dedicated people it would be extremely difficult for any one of us to be elected to this Parliament. I thank the electors of South Australia for the support which enabled the Australian Labor Party to provide 3 of the 5 senators required to represent that State, namely, Senator Don Cameron, Senator Geoff McLaren and myself. I take the opportunity to congratulate Senator Sir Magnus Cormack on being elected to the very high office of President of the Senate and also to congratulate Senator Prowse on his election as Chairman of committees.

Senator Byrne:

– South Australians seem to be taking over. There is one in the chair, another has just resumed his seat and yet another is speaking now.

Senator DRURY:

– The South Australian people always appreciate good South Australians. We have a Labor Government in South Australia at the present time.

Senator Gair:

– That is the abortion government, is it not?

Senator DRURY:

– No, not entirely. The abortion legislation was introduced by a Liberal Attorney-General and was supported by people on both sides of the Parliament.

Senator Poke:

– It was a free vote.

Senator DRURY:

– It was a free vote. In the Labor Party we have a free vote on social issues. But many members on both sides of the Parliament voted against the abortion legislation. Never at any time have I supported any abortion legislation.

Much has been said from both sides of the Senate regarding this Budget. Government senators have claimed that it is a deflationary Budget. But, if one analyses it carefully, one comes to the conclusion that it is an inflationary Budget. A number of new imposts have been made. They will bear down hardest on the lower income earners, as indirect taxes inevitably do. Petrol, stamp, telephone, cigarette, medical prescription and radio and television licence costs are basic costs for any family. Not many families will be able to count on avoiding paying at least another $1 a week in meeting these new charges.

The doubling of the income tax surcharge will not affect the lower wage earners to any great extent, although it will have some effect on them. It will have more effect on those in the higher income brackets. But the savings for the lower income earners will be far below the extra amounts they will be required to pay to cover the extra charges that have been imposed by this Budget. There is no financial security for the low income earners. Their inability to weather even temporary financial setbacks can be understood when it is realised that even if all is going well more than four-fifths of their income is absorbed in the cost of food and other basic necessities of life. Hardship arises when there is any threat to their financial security through a reduction of income. There must be a reduction of income when indirect taxation is applied to any wage earner. When some unusual demand is made on the family income there are no reserves to cover it because the family has not been able to put away any money for such demands or, as it is commonly known, for a. rainy day.

I believe that one of the biggest single factors contributing to the hardship of the lower income earners today is illness. The increase imposed in this Budget in the charge for prescriptions will have a further effect on the low income earners. It will not affect me, or many thousands of people like me, in that at the present time I pay 10c for a prescription because I am a registered member of a friendly society and was registered before 1964. I think that was the year when the prescription charge of 50c was imposed. Because I am a registered member of a friendly society, my payment for an ordinary prescription is only 10c.

I dare say that friendly societies will increase the payment but I doubt whether it will reach $1 per prescription which the low income earner will have to pay for his prescription. The further charges in this Budget must affect the low income earner to a greater degree than before thereby Causing increased hardship and allowing the low income earner no margin to meet contingencies that may arise during his lifetime. It is pleasing to see that the surcharge on income tax will not apply to those pensioners who receive the age allowance rebate. This is one part of the Budget for which we can be thankful.

I must give credit to the Government for its consistency and its inconsistency. I draw the attention of the Senate to page 16 of the document entitled ‘Budget Speech 1971-72’. It states:

In the present context the object of any tax increase is to moderate development of demand and that can be done either by taxes on incomes or by taxes on spending - that is, taxes levied on commodities. The latter form of taxation has the drawback that it adds to prices. Taxes on incomes are more likely to be free from this consequence although it is sometimes argued that company tax increases eventually find their way into prices. On balance, the Government has decided to seek the major part of the additional revenue it needs in 1971-72 from taxes on certain company income and on personal incomes and the lesser part from increases in customs and excise duties on petroleum products and tobacco products.

Analysing this statement carefully we can see that the Government has not taken into consideration the fact that the imposts will flow back into the cost of commodities. It is hard to accept that the Government could be so naive as to believe that the imposts that I have mentioned will not be added to the cost structure, thus having a big impact on the future prices of commodities and causing a further spiral in the inflationary trend. I feel that the Government should have consulted the Australian housewife before formulating its Budget. After all, with her experience of making the pay packet ‘go round’, the housewife has become a supereconomist without a university degree. I feel that a statement such as the one that I have quoted can come only from a government which, if I may use the term, is punch drunk. It is waiting only for the knockout blow which will be not long in coming.

These charges will affect primary industry also. Members of the Government have claimed that very little criticism of the Budget has been expressed. I wish to quote one critic of the Budget. He has criticised the Government severely. I ask Country Party senators to take note of what he has had to say. I quote from a Press release issued by the Australian Dried Fruits Association and is dated 18th August of this year. The release is headed: ‘A further nail in the coffin of primary industries’. The release states:

This was how Mr F. H. Gill, Chairman, The Australian Dried Fruits Association, described the new Federal Budget.

Speaking in Melbourne today, Mr Gill said that by increasing petrol, postage and telephone charges the Government had added to the already inflationary cost spiral.

These additional charges will be passed on to the public by manufacturing and service industries’, said Mr Gill, ‘and will certainly lead to demands by Trade Unions for further wage increases’.

Again we see an example of the type of criticism that is levelled against trade unions. But people forget that the ordinary trade unionist must continually apply to Arbitration Commission for an increase in wages, which have been pegged since 1954. The only access that he has to any increase is to go to the arbitration courts. But merchants and commercial houses can increase prices without reference to arbitration whatsoever. The Press release states that Mr Gill continued:

Primary industries cannot absorb such additional costs and a further reduction in returns to growers seems inevitable*.

Only 2 things can give long-term assistance to primary inrustries’, continued Mr Gill. These are increased export prices and reduced operating costs. The Government obviously has no control over the former and has now shown that it has little inclination to assist with the latter’.

Mr Gill then criticised the Government for continuing the excise on wine. I will mention this subject a little later in my speech.

I turn now to the social service payments aspect of this Budget. A single pensioner will receive an additional $1.25 per week. Married pensioner couples will receive $2 per week, that is, $1 each per week. This increase will be dissipated largely by the imposts made in this Budget because, as I said previously and as others have said also, these costs inevitably will increase the cost of living. So, the Government gives to pensioners with one hand and with the other hand takes away from them what it has given.

I bring to the attention of the Government one aspect of social services on which I believe some relief should have been given in the Budget. Priority assistance should be given to it as soon as possible. I speak of the pensioner whose wife is not eligible for a pension because of age, and who is not eligible also for a wife’s allowance. It is true that an increase of $1 per week was granted in the Budget to those who are eligible for the wife’s allowance under certain circumstances. Let me outline those circumstances. The wife of a person who is in receipt of an invalid pension receives, under the present Budget, $8 per week as a wife’s allowance. The wife of an age pensioner who is totally and permanently incapacitated, or who has one child, receives $8 per week as a wife’s allowance.

Adding together the pension received by the husband and the allowance received by the wife we see that such a couple receives a little in excess of $25 per week. How on earth can that married couple be expected to live on that amount? It is difficult enough for a married pensioner couple to live on the full pension without the amount that they receive being reduced. Is not the situation doubly worse when the wife of a pensioner is not of pensionable age? She may be in her middle 50s or late 50s and has no earthly chance of obtaining employment. That couple must live on one pension of $17.25 per week. I think that it is time that the Government had a look at this category of pensioner to determine whether something can be done for these people.

I turn now to the case of the wife who is eligible for a wife’s allowance. The only reason a wife receives such an allowance is because her husband is incapacitated, is an invalid or they have one child- If that wife goes out to work, she is debarred immediately from receiving the wife’s allowance. The amount of her earnings up to a certain level then is credited to the couple as income and it can affect the rate of pension that the husband receives. To expect 2 people to live on $25 per week is bad enough, but 2 people should never be asked to live on $17.25 per week. We are supposed to be an affluent society with high standards of living, yet pensioners are asked to live on that amount of income. I have been asked to relieve drivers working for the Meals on Wheels scheme. To see the plight of some of the people receiving the meals almost makes one’s heart bleed. One feels in one’s heart and mind that these people are only ekeing out a meagre existence and in many cases are simply waiting to die. One of the great tragedies of life is to grow old, and for old people there is a great deal of loneliness. We find when delivering meals for the Meals on Wheels scheme that old people will wait at their gates and talk to us on the way into the house, while we are in the house and all the way back to the car. They are talking all the time because they are lonely. I repeat that one of the saddest parts of life for old people is loneliness.

I wish now to deal with child endowment. On 25th August I asked a question of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood), who represents the Minister for Social Services in this chamber. Although the Attorney-General assured me in his answer that I would receive a fuller reply in due course, I have not yet done so. I would like to have the information today, or at least before the Social Services Bill comes into the Senate. I will read from Hansard of 25th August the report of the question I asked and the answer I received. I asked:

Is it a fact that families of 4 or more children are penalised by a reduction in child endowment payment when the eldest child becomes eligible for student endowment? Is it also true that in a family of 8 children endowment is reduced from $57 a week to $46 a week when the eldest child becomes eligible for the $1.25 a week student allowance, thereby losing $65 a’ year endowment? If this is true, was the reduction taken into consideration when the student endowment scheme was brought in and is this another instance where the Government gives the family an increase with one hand and takes more away with the other?

Senator Greenwood replied:

I am unable to verify, particularly as I only represent the Minister for Social Services -

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy President - the figures and the calculations which the honourable senator has used as the basis of his question. All I can say is that in the presentation of the Budget last week significant advances were made, consistent with the economy’s capacity to bear them, in social service pensions and in endowment paid for the second child. In the circumstances, I shall refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister and ensure that he receives a reply in due course.

When I asked the question I had full knowledge of the fact that child endowment had been increased in the Budget. However, I was seeking to find out whether large families were being penalised when the eldest child became eligible for student endowment. The people who raised this matter with me were sincere. They produced documents and payment cards to show that their child endowment had been reduced from $57 to $46 a week because the eldest child at 16 years of age had become eligible for student endowment, which is paid every 3 months instead of every month as is the case with child endowment. They had to wait until August this year to get part of the payment. After a lapse of 3 months they would receive full payment for the student child at the rate of $1.25 a week. I would like the Minister to let me have the appropriate figures and advise whether the basis of my question is correct. If it is correct, I feel that the Government should quickly ensure that the people affected have restored to them their entitlement to child endowment.

I said earlier that I would refer to the wine industry. Senator Laucke, who represents South Australia, certainly spoke fully on the wine industry this afternoon. I believe he has clearly shown the Government the adverse effects of the 50c a gallon excise on wine and the results for South Australia. I wish to quote a letter which was written to the editor of the Adelaide ‘News’ and appeared in that newspaper on 30th August last. It states:

Sir. - As a winegrower I am deeply perturbed, along with many staunch Liberal members, at the Federal Government’s aparthy to the wine grape industry.

The Official figures for the past quarter show a 2.4 million gallon decrease in sales. Coupled with the three years previous average growth of 2.5 million gallons, this shows an anticipated loss of 4.9 million gallons - a wholly proven fact attributed to the vicious wine tax applied in the 1970-71 Budget.

As 25 per cent of all brandy sold in Australia is imported, the Treasurer could have raised the extra’ money by imposing a tax on imported brandy as the primary producer has to pay unrealistic prices by way of tariff protection in everything he buys, to assure the city dwellers a reasonable standard of living in a tariff protected society.

The growers are not asking for a hand-out like other industries. We are only asking for a square deal to let us stand on our own feet, without being a burden to the taxpayer.

The growers received an average price of $62 per ton excise at 50c per gallon nets the Government $75, which being on excise has to be paid before it leaves the winery, not when it is sold. The time has arrived when the man on the land has to decide that any Government at all, is better what we have now.

The letter was signed. As Senator Laucke has stressed, the excise has very adversely affected the wine grape industry. When honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have asked questions on this subject they have been told that the Government is watching the situation very closely, but according to the letter I have quoted wine sales decreased in the last quarter by over 2 million gallons. Surely that is too big a drop to be ignored and the Government has every incentive to determine whether the excise can be removed. If it were removed wine sales would be increased and the wine grape growers in South Australia would be assisted.

Senator Marriott:

– Why are the tobacco companies investing money in the industry if it is in such a bad way?

Senator DRURY:

– Although I do not know, whether this is so, I think this might have been done as a taxation dodge. I am not familiar with the economics of these things, but this seems to be part of a trend that is occurring today. Not only do these people move into primary production but they are also moving into other industries. I do not know why they do this, but they must expect to make money from it. Possibly the only way in which they will ever make money from a takeover of the kind I have mentioned is by creating a monopoly, at which time they will be able to charge whatever they like for their product. So far the Government has done nothing about these takeovers.

Senator McLaren:

– The same thing is happening in the poultry industry.

Senator DRURY:

– As the honourable senator has said, this has been happening in the poultry industry. I recall asking in this place whether the percentage of water in frozen chickens was exceeding the limit laid down as a permissible water content and I was told that the Government had made investigations but did not know of any case in which producers of frozen chickens were putting more water into the chickens than was permissible. But not very long afterwards legislation was introduced - I cannot recall whether in all States or whether in the Federal sphere only - to reduce and control the amount of water permitted in frozen poultry.

Senator Georges:

– Now they put the offal in instead.

Senator DRURY:

– That is right. I feel that this is not a good Budget. It has been criticised already. I feel that the further imposts that it makes on the ordinary wage earner and the pensioner will have very serious effects on them. Yesterday in this place I asked a question about arteriosclerosis, but I feel that the Minister for

Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) might have misunderstood what I said. My question referred to the number of people going to Germany for oxygen therapy treatment for arteriosclerosis. I pointed out that about 170 people had gone to Germany for treatment, at great expense to themselves, and that after treament they had returned to Australia and had been able to lead normal lives. I feel that the Minister misunderstood me - he could quite easily have done so - because he said that he thought I had mentioned that these people had been cured.

When I or Senator Cavanagh have spoken on this matter in this place we have not at any time claimed that these people had been cured. We have always stated that people who had undergone this treatment would need a booster treatment about once every 2 or 3 years, but that the reason for our anxiety in getting the Government interested in Dr Moeller’s treatment was that we wanted to save people requiring treatment the enormous expense of going back to Germany every 2 or 3 years. I mentioned this yesterday and I know it to be a fact that many people have mortgaged their homes and borrowed money to enable them to go to Germany for treatment. If it is necessary for them to have further treatment, as surely will be the case in 2 or 3 years time, they will not be able to raise money and will be back where they started from. Each and every one of these people had been told by his doctor that there was no possible chance of further treatment for him in Australia, other than by amputation. Yet these people have gone to Germany, had the oxygen therapy treatment, come back to Australia and have been able to lead normal lives.

I first raised this matter in 1964. An officer of the Department of Health visited Dr Moeller’s clinic in Germany, but I feel that he did not spend enough time at the clinic to get a true picture of the treatment. He reported adversely to the Department and nothing more was done about it. I suggest that if the Government were to talk to some of these people or send Commonwealth medical officers in each of the States to talk to these people or examine the files relating to their condition before going to Germany and on their return there would be a change of heart- Perhaps something could be done to bring Dr Moeller to Australia to demonstrate his treatment. I reiterate that this is not a cure, but if we could save these people from having their limbs amputated it is something that we should all aim for. Considering the matter purely from a mercenary point of view, this would save the Government many thousands of dollars in disability pensions and would allow these people to live normal lives, which is an impossibility for them once their limbs have been amputated. I ask the Government to give further consideration to this matter because amputation has a psychological effect on people and has other harmful effects on their general state of health.

I am not a medical man by any stretch of the imagination; I am relying merely on what I have seen and heard. People who have actually been to Germany for treatment have visited my home to inform me of the results of the treatment. In each case the person has been more than satisfied as a result of spending the amount necessary to go to Germany for treatment. Some of the more fortunate ones who have assets have been back to Germany 2 or 3 times. But all people who have been treated come back and are able to lead normal lives. Yet so many people who suffer disabilities in their arterial system have had limbs amputated. I suggest that it is time that the Government took more interest in this treatment and ascertained whether it could at least be demonstrated in Australia so that doctors here could decide, after seeing Dr Moeller’: method of treatment, whether it was worth adopting in Australia. If medical opinion is that the treatment is no good I would accept that opinion, but until such time as it has been tried in Australia we will continue to press for it to be demonstrated here in the hope that people will be able to have treatment in each State of the Commonwealth instead of having to go to Germany at an exorbitant cost and with much trouble and hardship in order to have treatment.

My colleague Senator Cavanagh yesterday mentioned education. In referring to this subject 1 remind the Senate of a question I asked yesterday in which I said that some independent schools in one State of the Commonwealth will have to close down at the end of this year. These are not isolated instances. This is happening in every State. I feel that something will have to be done about it because the closure of independent schools will impose a further burden on the State school system. Senator Cavanagh cited figures from the Minister of Education in South Australia, which showed that the education system had not been given enough money and revealed the sum that will be required to put into operation a system which will cope with the increase in the number attending school over the next 2 or 3 years. To bear this out I refer to an article which appeared in the South Australian ‘Teachers Journal” of 25th August 1971. It reads:

Commenting on the Commonwealth Budget last week, the Acting President Mr F. A. Woithe, said that the only new measure introduced for education was an increased taxation deduction which would only benefit those people who sent their children to wealthy private schools. No one who sends his children to State schools, or to Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran parochial schools, will benefit,* he said.

Mr Woithe said that people who sent their children to these schools had been unable to claim the previous maximum deduction of 300 dollars, let alone the new maximum of 400 dollars. “There is additional inequity in this form of assistance, in that the return increases according to your taxable income,’ he said.

Mr Woithe said that a survey conducted last year had shown that every Federal cabinet minister with school age children sent them to wealthy private schools.

I could read further but I think that is sufficient to demonstrate the poor state of the education system in Australia today. I feel that the Government should have a firm look at the situation to see whether it is possible to introduce some measure of assistance to the States for education or to put into operation the report of the Commission that was set up by the Government itself to inquire into the needs of nongovernment schools. If the Government can save the non-government schools from closing down by doing this I feel that it would be doing a service to the community by not imposing as great a strain on the State education system as would be imposed if these schools had to close down.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– After being 18 years in the Senate I do not think one would choose Thursday afternoon in the third week of the session to speak on the Budget. There is not a lot of togetherness at this time of the afternoon. We do not have the added temptation of the microphone which lets us believe that we have a vast, widely spread audience hanging on to every word, but I do know that our words are seeping “through into some rooms in this building and that rapt attention is being paid to them. I want to begin by emphasising that I speak holding the status in which I have addressed the Senate for over 184 years. So any comments that I make are those of the author - myself. They are my beliefs and my opinions.

Having heard the calm and reasoned speech of Senator Drury, even I would not wish to be provocative this afternoon. All I can say about his speech is that I hope that the departments to which he referred will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest what he said. If they find that there is reason to alter regulations or attitudes, let them do it for a fair deal for the people. I believe that one of the reasons, if not the only real reason, why we prepare our speeches and are upstanding here is because we know that the speeches are read by officers of the Public Service who decide whether any action will be taken and, if action is to be taken, what action can be taken on any worthwhile suggestions that might flow from the members of the Parliament. During the course of this debate and during the course of debates on matters discussed prior to the Budget we have had the privilege of hearing maiden speeches. The Senate has been enriched by the new men and new lady who have joined us as a result of the last elections. This is of benefit to all of us because the higher the quality of the debates in the Senate the better it is for us all. It is also of benefit to the public because it is imperative that as this Senate really develops itself and becomes something of note in the parliamentary life of this country the calibre and ability of its senators should be maintained and, if possible, increased.

I say this to remind us that on 30th June last we lost some record breakers from this Senate - some men and women whose names will live forever in the annals of the parliamentary history of this nation. Sometimes we are so easily led to welcome the new and forget to pay tribute to those who have played their part in an outstanding manner. I know it is dangerous to mention names because one might omit someone who is worthy of mention. I hope I will not. I refer, first of all, to our former President, Senator Sir Alister McMullin, and the 2 lady senators, Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin and Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood, both of whom broke records in many ways during their membership of this Parliament. I mention also Senator Bull, Senator Toohey and Senator Kennelly - a name well known throughout every nook and cranny of political life in Australia. What a remarkable man Senator Kennelly has been. He was a dour fighter but a man who loved life and loved parliamentary life and who, in my opinion, adorned it. I mention also Senator Hendrickson, big Senator Malcolm Scott, my very close friend Senator George Branson, Senator Dittmer, Senator Toohey and Senator Ridley. All of these people played their part. I pay tribute to them at the same time as I welcome the new senators who have joined us. In particular I welcome my Tasmanian colleague, the Independent senator, Senator Townley. Having been secretary to his father perhaps led me on the paths of righteousness into the Senate.

I shall conclude my reference to individuals by following the example of others and saying very sincerely how pleased I am that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is our new President. He will carry on in a fitting manner the work of a man who adorned the position of President for a record period. I welcome Senator Prowse also. The Country Party always seems to be able to provide us with amiable and capable men to fill the position of Chairman of Committees, and it has done it again.

I now turn to the Budget. This is the fiscal policy of the Government around which this debate sometimes winds. First of all, I refer to defence. I do so only briefly so that it is in the record because all honourable senators know that after weighing the situation and all its responsibilities this Government has increased the amount of money to be spent on defence by $117m. It is noteworthy, though - no complaint will come from either side of the chamber - that it appears that at long last servicemen will be better paid for their services as professionals in our defence forces. Of this extra $117m allocated for defence, some $66m will go in extra pay and allowances to our servicemen. I will not go into details on defence but I wish to express my real sorrow that we in this Parliament - in both Houses - cannot have more togetherness with respect to our approach to the 2 great fundamental areas of defence and foreign relations.

I will not be provocative; I hope I will be fair. But I say from my heart that I have a fear that a tragedy, a collision, more deaths, more wounded, a crashed aircraft, a delayed defence order brings joy to some people who are opposed to the politics of this Government, when in reality for the good of this country and for the people who serve in our defence forces they should share with us the sincere regret that something has happened that has harmed a person, equipment, the stature, the morale or any other aspect of the defence forces of this country. I believe that we should seek to attain greater nationalism and that more effort should be put into achieving a united front. Some of the criticism levelled against the Government has been fair but a lot of it has been destructive. This destructive criticism has been relayed to North Vietnam and other countries and has lifted the morale of those who are our enemies. I believe that we as members of Parliament have a responsibility not to do anything to lower the morale of and destroy the heart and soul of our defence forces.

That leads me on to Australia’s foreign affairs policy. Foreign affairs and defence are matters which are interrelated. I am sorry that the expression ‘foreign affairs’ is used to describe our international relations. I think that the word ‘foreign’ is as bad as the word ‘alien’. The use of the word foreign’ in relation to external affairs or the affairs of other countries is rather harsh. I suppose it is used because we are following the pattern in older countries. The fact of the matter is we do have statutory provision for a joint committee of all parties in both Houses of the Parliament on foreign affairs but that since about 1956 the main body of opposition in this Parliament - in other words, the alternative government - has decided on and off for reasons of its own that it has made public and some of which are perhaps understandable that it will not serve on this committee. In other words, we have in this national sphere of great importance a completely divided Parliament on this subject because an important sector of the Parliament has said that it will not have anything: to do with discussing this subject or with trying to formulate policy on it. I believe that they are 2 of the faults handicapping our country at this particular time. I would point out that those are my views and my views only.

I wish to refer to another aspect of criticism which gets a lot of publicity. Anybody in Australia who wants to hit the headlines today or be interviewed on television has only to mention in a critical vein the Pine Gap or North West Cape establishments or the possibility of the establishment of an Omega station in Australia. I believe that we should be very happy about and pleased and comforted by the fact that there have been erected and are in operation in this land of ours certain fundamental, modern, wondrous electronic equipment that could be of fantastic importance to us if and when an international war in which we were embroiled’ again broke out. I want to say that I donot go along with the criticism that if war broke out and we had a nuclear power station, an Omega station or Pine Gap we would immediately become the target of nuclear weapons. First of all, I do not believe that there will be a nuclear war, but I do believe that we should be prepared for one. A nuclear war would be more likely to occur if we were not prepared for it. But I want to point cut that if there were a nuclear war and we were involved in it, the presence of the Pine Gap or North West Cape establishments, an Omega station or a nuclear power station would not make us the target of nuclear weapons any more than would Sydney, Newcastle, Whyalla and all the other places of industrial richness and wealth in this country.

We would not be bombed in order to stop any defence works connected with our allies, the Americans. We would be bombed and attacked because an aggressor wanted to take us over. An aggressor could not help itself in the taking over of us by closing down the Pine Gap establishment or obliterating an Omega station, but it could take us over if the hearts and minds of the people were crushed as a result of the dropping of atomic bombs over Sydney, “Brisbane, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne. They would be the targets. I Relieve it is being disloyal to this country to declaim the actions of this Government and the offerings of our allies in respect to these defence works. I believe that they are part and parcel of our defence requirement.

I turn now to another subject which is of vital importance to Australia, particularly to we people in the Senate, which is a States’ House. This item comes second in the items referred to by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget Speech. I refer to the Commonwealth-States financial arrangements. The Treasurer said that he believes - any of us who has read the newspapers and who knows the Premiers will agree that it is a factual statement - that Commonwealth-State relations have improved in recent times. They have improved not only because there has been better communication between the Commonwealth and the States in recent times but also because there has been a handing over - a returning, if you like - of millions of dollars more of the taxpayers’ money to the States for their expenditure. The Treasurer estimated that the States will receive S3, 280m this financial year, which represents an increase of S437m or 15 per cent on the comparable figure for last year. The amount the States will receive from the central purse has made them happy. We in this chamber, being the representatives of the States in this Parliament, must take some pleasure in this increase.

It is good to know that the Commonwealth has given special consideration to the position of the local government authorities. The financing of local government is a problem that I believe the Commonwealth Parliament will have to tackle by way of a parliamentary committee. I do not think that governments can themselves tackle this sort of question. I think it has to be tackled by a formal committee comprised of either parliamentarians or experts from outside of the Parliament. Some action has to be initiated in the Commonwealth sphere to put local government finances on a better basis. Local government really affects the lives, conditions and facilities of every mortal in Australia, but there are not many fund raising avenues available to it. We bring out migrants and we encourage trade and industry, but we forget that the facilities for these migrants and industries have to be provided by local government. I know that my colleague, the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), did a great job in getting the Commonwealth really interested in the tourist industry and in enticing more Australians to travel and more people to come to Australia as tourists, but tourism is not a great source of revenue to local government. If Australia is to develop its tourist resources properly a lot of money will have to be spent by local government on our beach and seaside resorts, picnic areas, river locations and the other things that come within its care. The State governments say that this matter does not come within their province. I believe that we will have to look at how to finance local government so that it can provide the facilities that tourists and the people of Australia require.

I move on to the subject of social welfare, which is the third item in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer. It is probably the most talked about item. Legislation will be introduced to put into effect the Government’s proposals. I believe that in its approach to age, invalid, widows and Service pensions child endowment, payments to those who are institutionalised, repatriation and the other aspects of social welfare in general the Government is working to a satisfactory plan. It is not by any means an over generous one.

I repeat my view so that it is again in the record: Before people cry out for the abolition of the means test they must make sure that legislative action is taken to provide adequate finance to help clear out the pockets of poverty that exist, and will always exist. There always will be pockets of people in areas throughout Australia who will be in need of help and sustenance from the Commonwealth. However much we pay them and however much is available to them through the normal channels, these pockets of poverty will crop up. We have to ensure, if it is humanly possible that these people, particularly the children, are helped, nurtured and guided. They live only one life on this earth and it is up to us in this rich country to do all we can to see that their lives are made livable and happy. We will not have the money for this under our present financial setup if we ease the means test or abolish it and make every person eligible for social service benefits. There is a problem even in easing the means test, and I am all in favour of doing that gradually. It should be eased. But the great financial problem facing the Commonwealth in this regard - there has been criticism of this aspect in the Budget - is the cut off time for fringe benefits.

There were discussions and arguments about the budget last year and it was freely acknowledged by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber that the value of the fringe benefits offered under our social services programme averaged $5 per week per pensioner. That is a terrific cost over and above the payment of pensions. If we extended all the fringe benefits as we eased the means test, and everybody was getting the fringe benefits, we could not possibly provide the necessary finance.

Senator Georges:

– Why not?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Because there would not be enough money to go around, if the honourable senator stopped to think about it. I will not get into an argument with Senator Georges. He tried to ask me a question yesterday but was not allowed to, and he is out of order now. The honourable senator should read Hansard tomorrow, think about what I have said and then come back next week and give me the reply.

I want to refer to 2 other items in this Budget. They are important. The first matter is education. We as a nation are not backward. Each year the Commonwealth greatly increases the money it provides for education. Recently I visited a new university, one being constructed gradually but which is in occupation. It has a wonderful campus with wonderful buildings. Many millions of dollars provided by the Australian taxpayers are being spent there. But I found that these new buildings were defaced by the painting of slogans and insults. One wonders whether this is the result of education or whether it reflects a lack of ability to understand and take in education on the part of those for whom we are providing. Many of the students receive practically all their education as a result of Commonwealth scholarships provided by the taxpayers. It makes me wonder how long we can go on listening to people crying out for the Government to spend more money on this and that, toincrease salaries to the academic staff and to continue to provide sabbatical leave - the 6 months leave they get every now and again. The facilities for these people are: costly to the taxpayer. I would much rather see primary schools, high schools, and other schools developed and improved before there is an addition to such luxury and extravagance.

I turn finally, so far as the Budget is. concerned, to the question of external aid. From time to time there is, I think, unfounded criticism of Australia’s efforts, in this regard, but this year we are increasing the amount of our external aid by $9m. Somebody will work out that this is. a certain percentage of our gross national product and that some other country does, a little better. My reply usually to that statement is that you can do practically anything you like with figures. Before people criticise what we give away they should remember that responsibility, like charity, begins at home. While we have poverty and while we have under-fed and poorly housed people let us think what we can do for them before continually criticising - and not always doing it sincerely - our efforts in respect to overseas aid.

I emphasise this point so that I am not misunderstood and misreported. I am not critical of one penny that we spend on external aid. Just as a wealthy family should help its relatives, friends or even strangers who are not so well off, so should an opulent country help provide money and goods to other countries. But this help must not be out of balance with the responsibility we have to our own people.

The Senate will know that for 18 months, ending on 6th May this year, I was privileged to be Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. The Committee brought down its report on 6th May. I have every proof - 1 am proud of this - that this report has received international acclaim. It has been keenly sought and widely read by people in many disciplines and professions in Australia. It is pleasing to me and to every member of the Committee - there were 8 senators on the Committee - that, from time to time, people in professions and in government, State and Commonwealth, make certain suggestions about what should be done in regard to medicine and drugs, lt is amazing how often what is now being said and published fits in completely with our report. This pleases us. It shows that we made an impact on the people. It indicates, so far as we can judge, that perhaps we reported well.

Firstly, but not most importantly, we said that as a basis statistics must be kept in Australia. We found that hardly anybody knew anything factual about the type, number and variety of people afflicted by dependency on any of the drugs. To start with, we must have proper figures so that we can assess the true position and the magnitude of the problem. Hopefully, as the years roll on and as the numbers decrease, we can judge whether we are progressing and whether our policies are working. A lot of publicity has been given in the news media to the problem of dependency and the harm done by analgesics. To put certain things on the Hansard record I propose to read from the Committee’s recommendations. We said:

Bromureides should only be available on medical prescription.

In other words they should not be purchased from pharmacies without a prescription. Talking of the safety of these tablets we recommended:

Wrapping. It should be compulsory for barbiturate, bromureide and minor analgesic -

Those are the tablets which one can buy from the pharmacy or the milk bar - tablets to be individually wrapped.

That is recommended as a possible saving of instant action in attempted or successful suicides. It is reasoned that if one has to take 10 or 20 tablets to cause one’s death, one can take a handful, swallow them and death will come. But if one has to open a bottle and unwrap 10 or 25 tablets before one can take them it is possible that sanity will return or a friend will come and life will be saved. I believe that this is a serious matter. This is a sensible suggestion and, what is more, it was inserted in the recommendations because of the evidence of the medical profession. It was not our idea. It came from the evidence which was produced to us. Questions have been asked

18M7/71- 5- 126)

in the Senate this week regarding the labelling of medicines. Our recommendation reads:

Labelling. All drug containers should carry factual and adequate information of recommended dosage, the effects of over dose, warnings of harmful side effects and of the dangers of use in conjunction with other drugs such as alcohol.

The sooner that recommendation is put into action the better off many people in Australia will be- An amount of medicine is taken harmfully and unknowingly because of lack of labelling and lack of caution. Because people have taken tablets which have been prescribed and which they have not been warned not to take after drinking alcohol, the harm done and the accidents caused is quite alarming. The sooner that recommendation is taken account of the better. Now I shall refer to advertising. Questions are being asked and insinuations are being made regarding television advertising of cigarettes. The Committee made this recommendation:

  1. The granting of tax concessions for all drug advertising should be discontinued.

That brief sentence gives an idea which is workable. It would pay the Government to adopt that suggestion and it would cut down the amount of advertising taking place on television, radio and in the news media. There is no doubt that if that recommendation were to be put into force it would have 2 effects: It would cut down the over-advertising and the pressure advertising to a great extent. Adopting that suggestion would be more effective than cutting out advertising in one area. It would also increase the revenue of this Government which, in turn, would give it more money - according to other recommendations we make - to provide adequate treatment centres in Australia which do not exist at the present time. Since we made the recommendation that the granting of tax concessions for all drug advertising should be discontinued, from the comments that I have read and from all the questions that I have been asked by the various news media I have not seen a reference to nor have I been asked one question about this recommendation. Honourable senators might ask why the Government has not acted on the recommendation. I have thought about the matter and, without making inquiries, my reply is that as the report of the Committee was not brought down until 6th May it would not have been processed by the Department - I say this very sincerely - in time for the Commonwealth Treasury or the Treasurer to consider the matter for inclusion in the Budget. But I emphasise this matter during the Budget session this year. The recommendation is in our report and I believe that because it could be so effective it is being silenced outside this Parliament. It is not being given any publicity or discussion. The second recommendation we made regarding advertising was:

  1. Drag advertising directed to the medical profession should be required to include complete, balanced and accurate technical assessments, advice of unfavourable side effects and details of potential for abuse.

In relation to television we said:

  1. The Commonwealth Department of Health should impose greater restriction on the content of TV and radio drug advertising. If existing legislation is inadequate for this purpose it should be amended. 1 express a personal view because I believe it is my duty to do so. We made these recommendations as a Committee. In relation to this section a reservation was expressed by Senator Georges. He can refer to that himself. The other recommendations 1 have read were unanimous. Our recommendations were based on our interpretation of the evidence.I am concerned about the cry that we should abolish any type of advertising by making it illegal in one medium. Let us consider television. At the moment; it is the in thing to say. ‘Abolish or make illegal the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco on television.’
Senator Georges:

– Of course I did not say that.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– No. But it is the in thing to say that outside this place. Other countries have done that. My reading on the subject is that . it has not been successful. The money has flowed into other media such as the glossy magazines. As one who for the past3½ months has given away cigarettes and tobacco-

Senator Georges:

– Have you?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Yes, for 3½ months. I think it was the result of being Chairman of the Committee. As one who knows what it is to give away cigarettes and as one who watches television I believe we would be hypocrites if we stopped the advertising of cigarettes but allowed ‘Four Corners’, ‘Monday Conference’, people on beaches, on picnics, in plays and in musicals to smoke. It would be hypocrisy. I would be prepared to think that I would support the banning of such advertising if we were to ban the use of tobacco in front of any television camera. That would be impossible. It is absurd to say that more teenagers are smoking cigarettes today because of television. In Australia television is not very old. Let us be honest. At that age we all try smoking. Some of us tried and did not like it. I was one who tried smoking at 16 and I did not give it up until I was 58 but there was no television in my time. I believe it is hypocritical to say that we can cut down the smoking of cigarettes by prohibiting advertising on one medium. It is my view that if we are to start making it illegal to advertise a type of goods or services on television we will gradually reach the situation where there will be no freedom.

Senator Georges:

– Certain drugs are not advertised. It is illegal to advertise them.

Senator MARRIOTT:

-I am no wowser but if the honourable senator is going to prohibit the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco he would be hypocritical and insincere. I believe that if we are thinking of the good of the people we should not continue to permit the other most dangerous drug in use in Australia today- alcohol - to be advertised. I put those thoughts as one who has spent 18 months on the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. I enjoyed every moment of that service. I believe that the report of that Committee is worthwhile and that notice should be taken of it. I have had letters, from the 2 Ministers concerned - the Minister for Customs and Excise and the Minister for Health - stating that the Committee’s report has been received and is being considered fully. I am given to understand that some move is likely in relation to it.

I shall deal now with committees of the Senate. In my view we still have to give thought to this subject. I can claim some experience in this sphere: I think I am the only senator who has conducted 2 public inquiries at the same time. I have worked out that our duties in the Senate and on the current committees are such that no back bench senator can be on less than 2 standing committees and/ or select committees, plus twice a year on one Estimates committee or in some instances two, plus one or two domestic committees of the Senate plus Party committees. The 2 major Parties have a number of policy committees. I suppose that most of us, because we are in public life, are committed to community projects and committees in our home towns. From experience 1 have calculated that from now on senators will be. employed in the Senate for at least 20 to 24 weeks a year. A senator who commits himself to one or more of the major Senate committees will be interstate or in Canberra for another 20 weeks a year. That makes 40 or 44 weeks a year for which we will be away from our home towns. In addition there are some weeks in which because of holidays mid-week we would not be called away to Parliament or to committee meetings. In a nutshell, if we are not careful and if we fully work all the. committees to which we are committed - senators do their best to attend all meetings of committees - most senators will be absent from their home States for 44 to 48 weeks a year. This will present 2 problems. They will be mainly political Party problems. I believe that senators will have to have no other occupation or responsibility - no earning capacity outside Parliament.

Senator Georges:

– That is a good thing.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I am in that position, but I have never thought that it is right. A good sprinkling of such members is good. I do not think it should be mandatory that a senator should not be employed in any money making concern. We do not want senators who have their noses to the grindstone of business. We want senators who will be able to participate in the functions of the Senate. We do not want all senators to be like myself - a senator only. The Party organisations will have problems. How will they be able to contact us? They say that it is important, that we attend our Party functions and branch meetings and so keep the Party going and keep the Party growing. AH Parties need to grow. We are gradually working ourselves into the situation in which we will be professional .politicians only and in which the Party organisation will not see us unless we attend on Christmas Day.

If we continue with these committees, if we do our work zealously and if Parliament continues to sit a little longer than it has in previous years, the physical work load of this continuous work will be more than we can cope with. This will give rise to the need for staff for members of Parliament. All the older senators have been on committees. They know that senators are occupied not only in the hours spent in hearing evidence but that many hours are spent late at night, in aircraft or. wherever they are, reading the submissions of evidence that will be heard during the week. Committee work prevents senators from preparing their work for the Senate or for the electorate.

I have given this matter a lot of thought. Senators are responsible for their own programming. If all the committees were set up and if all the items to be referred were referred to the committees, there would be reached a stage of overemployment of senators in committees of the Senate. This may mean that we would have to decide to make the committee work that of the Senate only. We may have to withdraw from the joint committees. We may have to let the other place have its committees and we have our committees. I am chairman of a joint committee. It is very hard to hold meetings of that committee. Houses do not sit on the same day. Members of the other place have their commitments. The busier we gel the harder joint committees will find it to exist. 1 leave with senators those thoughts on committees. I believe they are worthwhile. I believe they need examination. We have only ourselves to blame if we overwork ourselves or if we give ourselves responsibilities which we will noi be able to fulfil.

I will not spend any time on the amendment to the Budget. I oppose the amendment. I hope the Budget will be successful. I believe it was well timed and well constructed and that it will be able to take the ups and downs of the economic and social life of Australia in the 12 months that it is meant to cover.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
South Australia

– I congratulate the new senators who have made their maiden speeches. As do my other parliamentary colleagues, I believe that they will prove to be an asset to this chamber. I mention particularly Senators McAuIiffe, Primmer and Gietzelt. I support the amendment moved by Senator Murphy, which seeks to add to the motion the following words: but the Senate condemns the Budget because -

  1. it breaks the Prime Minister’s pledge to Parliament on taking office to bring into effect for 1971-72 a’ fundamental review of social services and of methods of adjusting them,
  2. it contains no proposals to balance the finances and functions of the Commonwealth, the States and local government and
  3. it produces no programme for high national objectives of social welfare, economic strength and national security.’

The proposed expenditure on social welfare in the Budget is. $2,095m, which is $268m more than was provided last year. I believe that this sum will be completely inadequate. The average weekly earnings, according to the last quarterly figures, are $89 a week. Honourable senators opposite have tried to defend the Government by quoting figures to show that the pension rate is increasing in line with other Government expenditure. I have an analysis of figures which compares the proposed pension rate with the rate applying when this Government came into office in 1949. It is shown clearly that the percentages which all rates of social service payments represent of average weekly earnings have decreased during the period since 1949. In that year the single age pensioner rate represented 24 per cent of average weekly earnings. Today, including the increase granted in the Budget, the single age pensioner rate represents only 18.7 per cent of average weekly earnings - a reduction of nearly 6 per cent since 1949. Surely the Government does not regard that as an achievement. If anything, pension rates as percentages of average weekly earnings should be increasing if we are to eradicate these areas of poverty.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) promised that he would pay special attention to these areas of poverty. I think he referred to them as pockets of poverty. Looking through the Budget, and particularly the provisions for social welfare payments, it is obvious that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has completely ignored the pockets of poverty. I refer firstly to an area of poverty which no doubt has been neglected and will continue to be neglected until there is a change of government. I received a letter from an aged couple who live 14 miles from the General Post Office in Adelaide and who have been denied a pension for more than 12 months. The husband is 69 years of age and his wife is 74 years of age. The husband terminated his employment in a government department when he was 65 years of age. They have not yet been granted a pension by this Government.

Shortly I will give the Senate the reason why their application has been refused, in the hope that the Department of Social Services will eradicate this anomaly that exists in our social services system. I have no doubt that this is not the only aged couple in this predicament. There are probably many others, particularly with the crisis in the rural industries, wilh no income coming from properties and with the Government placing false valuations on properties. The couple to whom I refer applied for a pension in February 1970. Their application was rejected on the ground, as it was claimed by the Department, that the house in which they were living and the small useless property adjoining it were valued at $46,000. That is a fictitious figure which cannot be supported by anybody - not even the land agents who have been trying to sell the property and have not been successful. Although I have taken this matter up with the Department, it still claims that this useless property is worth $46,000.

Senator Byrne:

– What valuation does the Department go on?

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

-It goes on the Taxation Office’s valuation. .This property is only 14 miles from the General Post Office in Adelaide. There is an ordinary house on the property and 40 acres of land. The land is useless because, through the mismanagement of this Government, there is not one rural industry that is viable. The only one that was showing some signs of viability was the wine making industry, and it now seems that the Government will do its very best to destroy that along with the wool, wheat, dairy, pear and other industries.

Senator Webster:

– Surely you do not really mean that no primary industry is viable today.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– The pleas of Government senators for the pear industry in Victoria, their support for the Government giving S3m to assist that industry and the other assistance measures that we have been asked to support indicate to me that there are not many rural industries in Australia that we can regard as viable.

These people, on account of their age, would have no hope at all of working the property so that it would have some economic value. Even if they did have some hope of doing that, it would be useless because of the recent water restrictions that have been imposed in this area. Restrictions have been imposed on the sub-artesian water supplies in order to maintain the few market gardeners who are already in that industry. All the properties have a quota. This property has a quota of, I think, 3 million gallons of water a year, which is not enough to enable it to be worked economically as a market garden. There is no other available rural industry. It would be of no use to try to run sheep. It would be useless to try to grow wheat because these people have no quota. There is practically nothing on which they can rely for an income. They are now desperate.

The husband came into my office with his wife and put his complaint to me. While he was there he showed me his book for the only bank account he possesses. The amount in his account is being reduced considerably week after week. He has no hope whatsoever of obtaining employment or any social service benefits. He cannot receive unemployment relief on account of his age. The Government maintains that this property is worth $46,000. The agents who have been trying to sell it say that it is worth only $34,000. It may not even be worth that. It has been advertised for auction on 3 occasions through the local Press, a country newspaper known as the ‘Cronicle’ and the Advertiser’.

Senator Byrne:

– Is this the place where he lives?

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– Yes.

Senator Byrne:

– Is not that permissible, whatever its value is, if it is his residence?

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– Not when there is land attached to it, I understand. This provision applies when the area of land attached to the house exceeds a certain limit. I do not know whether there is anything definite on this. I could not obtain from the Department any information on how much property or land a person has to have before he is precluded from receiving social service benefits.

Many houses in the city of Adelaide would be worth far more than $46,000. Land values are much higher in other cities, such as Sydney and Melbourne, than in Adelaide. This is why I say that there is an anomaly. If this man were living in a house valued at $80,000 he could receive an age pension. No matter how high the valuation of a person’s house is, it cannot debar him from receiving an age pension provided he has no other assets or income. This man has no income except the interest on the $1,300 that he had in the bank the last time I spoke to him. I think that amount would be a lot less by now. So everything has been done to try to assist this man and his wife. I even took this man to the Director-General of Social Services who agreed with me that the case was genuine. But he said: ‘There is nothing that I can do because the property is valued at $46,000 by the Taxation Office and this means that it is above the allowable amount at which a person is entitled to receive a pension.’

I hope that the Government does refer this matter to the Department of Social Services because no doubt exists that there must be many other similar cases in Australia of aged people who were able to make some sort of living on small properties. They may have been growing vegetables, fruit, following dairying pursuits or running a few sheep. At one time, a person could make a reasonable living out of 100 sheep or 150 sheep. Today, if one tried to do that, one would find that that number of sheep would put one into debt. This couple, and other couples who must be in a similar position, cannot receive any economic value from their properties. The worst part of their predicament is that they cannot even sell them. I believe that this couple would be prepared to refund any social service payments that they were granted after they had disposed of their property. But they should not be expected to do that. This case should be looked into. The situation should be remedied. No doubt a number of other people are in the same position.

Another aspect of the Budget is child endowment. The proposed increase of 50c a week will provide some relief for families with more than 2 children but 1 believe that an anomaly that does exist in the Social Services Act, and which has been referred to today by Senator Drury, has been exposed. He asked a question in the Senate the other day to which he has not received an answer. I believe that he is quite correct when he says that the amount of child endowment received by a family with more than 2 children decreases when the eldest of those children reaches the age of 16 years.

In Australia, 1,750,000 families receive child endowment payments. Of those families, 12,700 have more than 6 children. The anomaly which exists is that the child endowment payments received by a family with more than 2 children are reduced when the eldest child attains 16 years of age.

Senator Byrne:

– How does that come about?

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– I will endeavour to explain. The proposed increase of 50c in child endowment for the third and subsequent children, I believe, creates a worse anomaly as far as the income received from child endowment by a family with more than 2 children is concerned. With the proposed increase of 50c, the first born child in a family will attract a payment of 50c a week, the second child will be paid $1 a week and the third child will now receive $2 a week in child endowment. That is a total of $3.50 a week which is paid until the first child reaches 16 years of age.

When the first child attains 16 years of age the parents of those 3 children are in this situation: The first child does not receive 50c a week but is paid $1.50 a week as a student’s allowance if he continues bis education at school. The third child in the family becomes the second child for child endowment purposes. The payment in respect of that child is reduced from $2 a week to $1 a week. The second child becomes the first child for child endowment purposes and the payment in respect of that child is reduced from $1 a week to 50c a week. So, that family with only 3 children loses a total of $1 a week.

I refer now to a case in South Australia. The parents of a family of 13 children wrote to me and drew this matter to my attention. They had written already to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and received a reply to the effect that there was nothing he could do about it or intended to do about it. The more children in a family, the greater the anomaly. If the Government decided that child endowment payments should continue until the child reached the age of 21, not a great deal more expenditure would be involved. As I mentioned earlier, only 12,700 families in Australia have 6 or more children. If child endowment payments were to continue after a child reached 16 years of age, and that child did not receive the student’s allowance, the cost to the Government would not be very much especially when we recognise that an amount of $2,950m has been allocated for social welfare purposes. An increase of. 50c in the child endowment payable to each child after the first 2 children would not cost the Government a substantial amount of additional funds.

Three of the children in this family of 13 of which I have spoken are students receiving the student’s allowance of $1.50 a week. This means that the total loss to this family when the eldest child for child endowment purposes reaches 16 years of age is $8.25 a week because that child loses his child endowment entitlement and receives a student’s allowance. Special attention should be given to the needs of larger families. There are not a great number of them, and sometimes the parents have had no desire to have large families. 1 believe that the parents of most of the large families in Australia are in the lower income bracket. Surely these people could be given continuing assistance while they try to educate their children and to provide for them the same opportunities as other children are entitled to. I hope that the Government and the Minister for Social Services will pay some attention to this matter and remedy the anomaly that no doubt exists. It is one that is placing great hardship on the parents of larger families.

In the Budget we find a contrast between what the Government provides to wealthy parents who can afford to send their children to private schools, and to other parents. Prior to this Budget, parents were allowed for each dependent child an education deduction of $300 a year. This Budget proposes to increase that amount to §400 a year. The only children of whom ( am aware who attend private schools and in respect of whom fees ranging between S300 and $400 a year are paid, are the children of wealthy paren’s. I wish to read to the Senate what the Minister for Educa- tion in South Australia had to say when referring to the Commonwealth Budget increase in the taxation allowance for education. He stated:

The Commonwealth Budget recently provided that the amount of tax deduction claimable for the education expenses of each dependent child would rise from $300 a year to $400.

The following table sets out the tax reduction (on new tax rates) obtainable if the full S400 is claimed for one child for taxable incomes ranging from $2,000 to $20,000 a year.

With the concurrence of honourable senators J incorporate in Hansard a table set out in the Press statement.

The Press statement continues:

The increase in the deduction from $300 to $400 provides therefore a maximum additional reduction in tax ranging from $20.50 at an income of $2,000 to $70 at an income of $20,000 or more.

A close examination of the implications of these figures reveals that the assistance offered by the Commonwealth’s education concessions in taxation is little short of scandalous.

Only the wealthiest- independent schools charge fees of $400 a year or more. Only parents of high average income can meet them in the first place.

If those on lower incomes spend less than $400 the tax- rebate is proportionately reduced. For example, if a man earning a taxable income of $3,000 per annum pays $100 per child per annum on education, the tax rebate is $23 as against a possible maximum of $280 for ‘ a taxpayer who could afford to spend $400.

Moreover, if parents at lower income levels do make a sacrificial effort to meet high fees, they do not receive the same tax benefit (compare $82 with $280 rebate, on the same $400).

If the average taxable income of parents at a high fee school is $10,000 the effect of the increase in the allowable education deduction is an increase in rebate of $53. This means that such a school could raise fees by $53 per annum without any extra cost to parents.

The effect is that high fee schools can readily increase their fees without discommoding high income parents. This consequence is strengthened by rising salary levels. Thus the higher the average income of parents, the greater the ability of the school to raise its fees in order to meet rising costs.

Apparently this is the kernel of the Commonwealth Government’s approach to education. No extra help is given to the poorer independent schools whose parents have difficulty in coping with any extra fees and where fees are below the previous limit of $300 (and in many cases below $100 or even $50). No help is given to the State schools which cater for the vast majority of Australia’s children, and where parents could not claim expenses above $50 in the vast majority of cases. This is how the Commonwealth Government orients its Budget towards the claims of children.

This is a policy of deliberate discrimination directed solely at perpetuating a system in which the best education standards remain the prerogative of the wealthy few.

I wish to refer to another aspect of the Budget which has been avoided by most honourable senators opposite who have spoken in this debate. I refer to the wool subsidy, or what I believe are called wool deficiency payments. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) stated in his Budget Speech:

The Government has decided that producers of wool should be given additional’ assistance this year, and will introduce a one-year scheme of deficiency payments in respect of the 1971-72 wool clip. Deficiency payments will be a percentage of market realisations, calculated from time to time so as to ensure that, on average, growers receive for shorn wool - other than specified inferior types accounting for about 10 per cent of shorn wool - a return corresponding to a price for the whole clip of 36 cents a pound greasy. Under this method individual growers will retain an incentive to obtain the best possible price for their wool. The necessary legislation will be introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry as soon as practicable.

The present crisis in the wool industry is the responsibility of the. Government. Before it came into office in 1949 wool prices were rising, under a Labor Government, at such a rate that they reached an all time record Australian average of 122c per lb.

Senator Webster:

– Could you tell us how you did it?

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– I could, but I have only 5 minutes left for my speech and it would take longer than that. 1 would rather spend the time telling Senator Webster about how the Government has destroyed the wool industry. While prices were increasing at an amazing rate at the wool sales, the Opposition tried desperately to get wool growers to accept a wool stabilisation scheme. The Government would not have a bar of it and neither would the wool growers. The result was that the buyers of our wool turned elsewhere. It must not be forgotten that we export 95 per cent of our wool clip and consume domestically only 5 per cent. It is not easy to dispose of 95 per cent of a wool clip totalling almost 2,000 million lb annually. When buyers saw the prices reaching exorbitant levels in 1950-51, as 1 have said, the obvious thing for them to do was to look for an alternative. A similar thing happens when a housewife finds that some vegetables are too dear. She will look for a substitute. In exactly the same way the wool buyers looked for a substitute, and found a very effective one.

If the Government does not do something about the wool industry before very long, the industry will be facing extinction. I have some very reliable figures prepared by a professor at the University of Sydney. They relate to the production of synthetics and are included in an article written by the professor. He wrote that world wide synthetic fibre production capacity rose from 6,318 million lb a year in 1967 to 11,308 million lb in 1969. Compared with natural wools, with world production at a static 3,400 million lb a year, this must cause an inevitable fall in natural wool prices. The professor points out that the replacement of agricultural raw materials by synthetics and substitutes is no new phenomenon. Over the past 100 years 16 such substances have been replaced or are being replaced, always by a cheaper product. World non-cellulosic synthetic fibre production is now nearly 4 times that of natural wool. To grow 1 lb of clean wool annually requires on an average several times the capital investment to manufacture 1 lb annually of clean synthetic fibre.

The professor refers in his article to the fact that the capital outlaid in the wool industry amounts to nearly $9,000m taking into account land, investments, machinery, and so on. He estimates that for every $10 outlaid on a rural property the return is 1 lb of wool. In the synthetics field every $1 outlaid returns 1 lb of synthetic fibre. It is therefore clear why importers of our wool have looked for a substitute. However, I believe that a recovery can be effected for the industry.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

General Business Taking Precedence of Government Business After 8 p.m.

page 630

DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 1 180), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– This is the adjourned debate on a Bill for an Act to abolish capital punishment under the laws of the Commonwealth. There are 2 substantive clauses in the Bill which state:

  1. A person shall not be liable to the punishment of death for any offence.
  2. Where by any Act, Regulation, Ordinance or other law it is provided that a person shall be liable to punishment of death, the reference to punishment of death shall be read, construed and applied as if the penalty of imprisonment for life were substituted therefor.

The position, as we continue the debate on this measure, is that in 3 States of Australia - New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania - the death penalty has been abolished. The penalty remains in the Australian Capital Territory, in Western Australia, in Victoria and South Australia. I understand that in South Australia earlier this year a Bill to abolish the death penalty passed the lower House but was rejected in the upper House and that the Bill has now lapsed.

As a further background to this measure I think we should refer, as has been done, to the debate in the General Assembly of the United Nations in November 1968 on capital punishment and a particular resolution which set out certain aspects and certain intentions and sought certain information which subsequently was responded to by this Government. I refer to resolution No. 2393 of 26th November 1968, which is a resolution which, in paraphrase, draws the attention of members nations to the conditions growing throughout the world towards the rejection of capital punishment. It then asks of member nations that they should look to their own domestic scene as to their own conduct in the handling of persons on trial for capital offences, of indigent people, the question of delays and the question of costs. Then it asks whether the member nations would respond by stating the up to date position in their country. I should add that in the General Assembly the resolution was carried by 94 votes to nil with 3 member nations abstaining, Australia being among the 94. Because it may be of interest to the Senate, with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate resolution 2393 in Hansard. 2393 (xx1i1). Capital punishment

The General Assembly,

Recalling that article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,

Recalling further that article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Having considered the report entitled ‘Capital Punishment’ in the light of the comments thereon of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee of Experts on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, and the report entitled ‘Capital Punishment - Developments fi 961 to 1965’,

Taking note of the conclusion drawn by the Advisory Committee from the report entitled Capital Punishment’ that, if one looked at the whole problem of capital punishment in a historical perspective, it became clear that there was a world-wide tendency towards a considerable reduction in the number and categories of offences for which capital punishment might be imposed,

Taking note also of the view expressed in the report entitled ‘Capital Punishment - Developments 1961 to 1965’ that there is an over-all tendency in the world towards fewer executions,

Taking note of the report of the meeting of the Consultative Group on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in August 1968, in so far as it relates to the question of capital punishment, and of the view of the Group that there is a strong trend in most countries towards the abolition of capital punishment or at least towards fewer executions,

Desiring to promote further the dignity of man and thus to contribute to the International Year for Human Rights,

  1. Invites Governments of Member States:

    1. To ensure the most careful legal procedures and the greatest possible safeguards for the accused in capital cases in countries where the death penalty obtains, inter alia, by providing that:
    1. A person condemned to death shall not be deprived of the right to appeal to a higher judicial authority, or, as the case may be, to petition for pardon or reprieve;
    2. A death sentence shall not be carried out until the procedures of appeal or, as the case may be, of petition for pardon or reprieve have been terminated;

    3. Special attention be given in the case of indigent persons by the provisions of adequate legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings;

    4. To consider whether the careful legal procedures and safeguards referred to in sub-paragraph (a) above may not be further strengthened by the fixing of a time-limit or time-limits before the expiry of Which no death sentence shall be carried out, as has already been recognized in certain international conventions dealing with specific situations;
    5. To inform the Secretary-General not later than 10 December 1970 of actions which may have been taken in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above and of the results to which their consideration in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) above may have led;
  2. Requests the Secretary-General to invite Governments of Member States to inform him of their present attitude to possible further restriction of the use of the death penalty or to its total abolition, and to state whether they are contemplating restriction or abolition and also to indicate whether changes in this respect have taken place since 1965;
  3. Further requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the matter dealt with in paragraphs 1 (c) and 2 above to the Economic and Social Council at one of its sessions to be held in 1971.

The Australian Government considered this resolution and has replied in public document of 12th January 1971, answering in the first place those parts that related to our general attitude towards the handling of persons awaiting trial and indigent people. The final paragraph would be of interest to the Senate. It states:

As regards the Secretary-General’s inquiry concerning the present attitude to and possible further restriction of the use of the death penalty, the Australian authorities advise that in December 1968 the State of Tasmania abolished capital punishment for murder, and in March of the same year the Federal Government abolished capital punishment for all offences except murder and treason in the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, the Australian Antarctic Territories, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos-Keeling Islands. The position in the other States of the Commonwealth is unchanged.

I should add that the position as I understand it, subject to the opinion of the lawyers, is that with regard to the Territories the crime of murder is still subject to capital punishment.

There are 2 other Acts which relate to this matter and to the Commonwealth. The Senate will be aware of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, as amended, which provides for a capital penalty with regard to treason. For those who have not refreshed their minds as to the nature of treason, it is instructive to read the nature of that crime as set out in that Act. There is a second Commonwealth Act which is pertinent to this debate. That Act is the Commonwealth Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 which in essence relates to serious offences committed in aircraft. That Act still provides for capital punishment for such offences. There is of course, throughout the world, as the resolution of the United Nations correctly said, a growing rejection of capital punishment. This has been so in the Scandinavian countries for many years and it is increasingly so in the United States. There is a tendency in countries such as Great Britain not to resort to it. There has been experimentation in Great Britain, first in a general armistice on the matter, and then in relation to capital punishment only for offences for particular murders - of police and, I think, gaol custodians and people of that nature. But there is in fact a shrinking of that usage. 1 should, at the start, remind the Senate that the 2 main Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the United Nations Charter on which the resolution rested primarily were Article 3 and Article 5. Article 3 reads:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Article 5 reads:

No-one shall be subjected to torture .or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

As I see it, the debate raises a single question: Can there be a legal right to take life? I repeat that: Can there be a legal right in any circumstances to take life?

The test of that question can be made on a number of bases. It can be made in a legal sense and in a philosophical sense, and it can be made, as is often done, as a test of conscience. It can be made in a test of pragmatism, in other words, the practical consequences of such a measure.

This is, as I understand it, an open debate. I should say to you, Mr Deputy President, that I personally hold the strong view, and have held it throughout my lifetime, that capital punishment should never have found any position at all in British law, that it is indeed antipathetic to the whole spirit and conscience of what we call the ‘British system of justice’. I do not see this as something that is new. I see this as having been written into British law wrongly in the past for, I think, reasons that were thought to be justified, but which were wrong in principle. Without using a broad spectrum paint brush, it seems to me that both morally and ethically capital punishment commits and perpetrates the very crime which it seeks to punish and deter. In other words, I have never believed that legal murder could be a civilised form of punishment for illegal murder.

I rest my belief in the broad sense that in a free society, if society is to be truly free - by that I mean the kind of society that has grown up throughout 10 centuries of British tradition, in the creation of the parliamentary system, in the creation of the rule of law, the independent judiciary and equality before the law - there must remain one principle and that is the upholding of the sanctity of life. I believe this imperatively. I believe that unless we take as a basic principle the inviolability of human life - the right of the individual citizen to live - the free society does not exist. If one applies the test in any other way at all one opens the door and corrupts the principle of this. Equally 1 see no place in a free society, no place in a system of British law, for violence whether it is legal violence or illegal violence.

It seems to me that my view on the inviolability of life does not merely cover the question of capital punishment. This principle and this test move across the whole broad band of the spectrum of human life - indeed, from foetal life to natural death. I would see beyond any doubt that this principle would reject voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. I would see a dilemma in the foetal situation but one that I think requires, and can have, a resolution in principle. I recognise the foetus in utero as a viable human, and 1 believe the law does. I understand that it is possible to will property to foetal life. I believe that the only way that this community can look at life is to recognise all forms of human life as inviolate.

Senator Murphy:

– Would you go so far as to reject the killing of a person in self defence?

Senator CARRICK:

– No, I would not. May I just finish on this point about foetal life and then come to that point? I am grateful for Senator Murphy’s interjection. I think it a valuable one. There is a conflict in relation to foetal life because there is conflict on occasion, first of all between the risk to the life of the pregnant woman and the damage to the life of the foetus. As such, medical society has an enormous philosophical challenge. Of course, it must make survival the basis of a medical decision and, in my view, it should rest on the survival of the mother. I do not believe in any permissive interference on the foetal level. I believe that if there is a risk to the life of the woman or the serious health of the woman or to the foetal life then, of course, some termination is justifiable. I say that not by way of broadening my argument but to say that we are dealing with a clear principle.

I have always worried about the question of how to reconcile the sanctity of life with killing in self defence and in war. I take no great pride in the fact that in the latter capacity I have in fact been forced to kill. I hope that we will all move towards a society in which war will be outlawed. I believe that there must be the right of man to take all those measures that are necessary - but only those that are necessary - to protect himself. Indeed, I believe that is the test before the law. As a non-lawyer or a bush lawyer may I say that I think the test would be manslaughter if a person had by negligence done more than was necessary, but it would be justifiable homicide if only necessary force was used. I do not pose in any way as an absolute pacifist. On the contrary, the role I see is one that I think emanates from the law and the body of law which we have inherited and of which we should be immensely proud.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How would Vietnam fit into your principles?

Senator CARRICK:

– I have my views but I wish not to debate them in full at this stage. I accept the honourable senator’s invitation to do so on another occasion. I take the view that in this primitive state of mankind when wars and brushfire wars still exist nations have the right to make a decision when defensive actions are necessary. If they make the decision that that is a defensive action then it is justified. The debate on Vietnam rests on the principle: Is it defensive or not? Lest you should think I am hedging, I believe fervently that what we have done in Vietnam has been right and justified. I detest war. If I may, I apply a simple test.. I invite this Senate and the people of Australia to look at South East Asia - its instability, the gross threats to its security in 1963, 1964 and 1965- and then look at the infinitely greater stability today, the infinitely greater freedom of the people and the self-determination of the people.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Of course, our action was contrary to international opinion.

Senator CARRICK:

– I would be very happy to debate the question of Vietnam at any time. As I said before, the test really is: Is there any legal right to take life? The test is: How would you justify this? Vengeance must never under any circumstance, either conscious or subconscious, be part of a legislative frame of mind in framing an action. Without appearing too biblical truly, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord.’ Vengeance is not for the Parliaments or the people of this world. I reject vengeance even though when we see a brutal crime it is natural for us to have that kind of reaction. I do not think that revulsion, which is a very real public reaction to a crime, is any justification for capital punishment. When we look at something that is horrible we all do a social ostrich act; we tend, because of the very horror of it and because of a sense of outrage to us and to the community, to put our heads in the sand and feel that if we could only rid ourselves of it by capital punishment it will disappear, like the old lady looking at the hippopotamus. Mr Deputy President, it does not go away, because what we see we carry on our consciences, in our hearts and on our minds for our lives.

It is not good enough to use any kind of emotional argument to justify punishment. We tend to do so because the mass media - indeed, the very law courts, and I say this in no critical sense - tend to produce a melodrama which takes the public along with it. An argument has been put forward that we ought to rid ourselves of violence and horrible criminals by terminal methods because they are a perpetual danger to our custodians. Nobody sympathises more than I with the members of the police force and the gaol custodians of this community because most of them do a first class job. I can sympathise thoroughly in the natural reaction that we should do something to protect them. But I do not believe that the fact that someone may be violent or may be a threat should be a test of our right to take that person’s life. If that is so, perhaps you will accompany me, Mr Deputy President, on a visit to various institutions, particularly mental institutions, and we will look at those who are violent and psychotic and maybe we will also say. They are a threat to the custodians; let us give them the coup de grace’. The principle must hold with violent people - psychotic or non-psychotic - because that knife edge is, I think, too hard for the spirit of the law to judge.

There are, of course, some people who take a pretty practical kind of view of capital punishment and say: ‘Why should we as taxpayers be forced to keep these people in gaol for 20 or 30 years? They are parasites on the community.’ I reject that as an argument for taking human life. It may be an argument for breaking down some of the artificially created barriers in our penal system which at present prevent those in penal servitude from working in gainful employment and thereby reducing or even eliminating the cost of our penal system. But that is another story altogether. There are those who argue that the condemned person should have the right to decide whether he wishes to face an interminable period inside a gaol or die. I do not hold with this view; I reject it completely. I believe that that is a judgment for suicide. It is not a judgment for the individual and the individual himself should not have the right to a form of suicide by duress or euthanasia by duress. In any case, it offends greatly the principle which I have referred to, that is, the sanctity of life.

The general base of support for capital punishment is that it is a deterrent. An enormous amount of information has been gathered from around the world on this question. I believe that the only conclusive proof that it is a deterrent is that beyond doubt it deters the person who is executed. There is absolutely no proof that capital punishment deters anybody else. Indeed, the opinion is now moving in the other direction. But if the deterrent is the thing then life in prison is in itself a pretty real deterrent. But I am bound to say that anybody who has taken an interest, as indeed 1 have over many years, in the delinquent and in the creation in this community of a colony of people living temporarily or semi-permanently in penal servitude would realise that it is no simple problem and that, indeed, the attitudes of mind at the time of committing an offence are seldom subject to any thought of deterrent. It is not to be thought that in these matters there is some rational conscience sitting on the shoulders of the established criminal saying: ‘Look here, old boy, if you do this you will be in gaol for life’.

The main crime of which we are talking in terms of capital punishment is, of course, murder. At the risk of being misunderstood, I want to say that murder is, inside the penal system, regarded as quite separate and quite unique from other crimes. Perhaps honourable senators would think me quaint if I were to say that most gaol governors would say that murderers are a different type of person; but I have heard it said many times - this is not to commend them - that they are a superior kind of person. By that I mean, without any attempt at whimsy, that murder mostly is a family matter or a domestic matter, as Senator Murphy has, I think, brought out. I have on many occasions spent time in gaols talking to such people and reading their files and I have found that usually they are people who have done one great and terrible crime in their lives and who would be unlikely to commit any other crime in the criminal code. As I have said, murder is mostly a family matter. It is mostly unpremeditated. It is partly - and this is for the psychiatrists, who, as with the lawyers, are paid on either side of the case, to decide - committed during either temporary insanity or diminished responsibility. Even when murder was premeditated I would reject, on the ground of principle, the right to take a life.

In murder the recidivist is very rare indeed. There are, of course, today many people who have served their sentences and who, by remissions or by parole, are out in the community, yet recidivism in murder is still very rare. I would be quite unfair to the Senate if I were to say that there is no recidivism in murder. I myself know, and know well, two such cases. Both of the persons concerned are now back in gaol after having committed a second murder. I have talked with them and read their files. Both were beyond doubt clinically quite inadequate to meet the challenge of living in an ordinary community. They murdered because they thought that they were inadequate and were failing their families. In both cases they sought to take their own lives. Oddly enough the only security they, have found, as is true of so many criminals, has been inside the gaol. One of the tragedies of our community is that so many go back to gaol because they are not equipped to live outside. They do not go back because they want to commit crime but because that is the way it is. If indeed there is recidivism it is, I think, rare. In some cases there has been proven error by the parole board of misjudgement in a task that must be an enormously difficult one. I do not envy parole boards their task. However, I do not think that the fact that there is some recidivism in murder is any justification for capital punishment.

What should be the object of punishment in a free society? I have said that it must not be vengence, that it must not be revulsion and that it must not be emotionalism. It must not be any of those things. It must not be because we fear a threat to the custodians or because we do not want the expense of upkeep. What is the reason for inflicting punishment? The penologists say that there are 2 reasons, namely, to deter and to rehabilitate. One thing is certain, capital punishment fails totally in the second objective. It is somewhat impossible in this temporal world of ours to rehabilitate the executed person. Therefore it fails to discharge half the role. I have examined whether it deters. I have talked over a lifetime to a great many penologists, a great many people who have been governors and comptrollers of prisons and to clinical psychiatrists and to others. They take a very broad view. Almost all of them take the view of total opposition to capital punishment. But they go further; they look to the penal system as a whole and say that no matter how we try, no matter how we go about providing more modern prisons and more effective methods of rehabilitation, our penal system as it exists today neither in fact deters nor rehabilitates. Indeed, it is an enormous challenge to the community to find what we should do.

I also reject the idea of capital punishment in the ordinary sense that it is brutal and violent. It is of no use looking for euphemisms and of turning our heads away and saying that we can do this rather nicely in some kind of gas chamber, or some kind of electric chair, or that tranquillisers and sedatives today are such effective things. 1 find that this is a completely revolting concept in a so-called civilised society and reject it. I believe that it is contrary to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

No-one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatmentor punishment.

I cannot believe that in the weeks, and even months, prior to execution the criminal captive does not suffer all those things. If I can remember my Oscar Wilde he said:

For he who lives more lives than one

More deaths than one must die.

He should have known.

Senator Murphy:

– Is that out of the Ballad of Reading Gaol?

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes. You may remember the quite stirring lines which, not with, a sense of melodrama, I think are worth quoting. He said:

I know not whether Laws be right,

Or whether Laws be wrong;

All that we know who lie in gaol

Is that the wall is strong;

And that each day is like a year,

A year whose days are long.

I do not say that in melodrama; I say that as being, in my view, the ordinary reaction of the person incarcerated. It is not said in sympathy with the person who has committed a crime. Such persons, in fact, deserve punishment.

I have said that over the years I have visited, as a matter of considerable interest, perhaps all the prisons in my own State and some in others and some overseas. I have seen the very best - the Emu Plains prison, the Berrima prison and so on. I have seen some pretty bad ones also. I say without sense of propaganda that the present Minister of Justice in New South Wales, Mr Maddison, is doing a very enlightened job in the whole sphere of penology. This is a most difficult problem. I think we must all realise that neither parliaments nor taxpayers are willing to help very much with this problem and, therefore, the problem of rehabilitation is very difficult indeed. It is not simple to resolve this matter. There is no simple cause of crime and, therefore, no simple way of finding punishment. You will find that capital crime depends on the degree of intelligence, the defects of personality, the emotional instability and, in most cases, a tremendous inadequacy on the part of the person concerned to cope.

I believe that this raises not a question of method of punishment; it raises the great question of the challenge to this society of ours in the 1970s of how we shall deal with delinquency and how we shall deal with crime, be it capital or otherwise. I believe that deterrents are relatively ineffective although I would not alter the principle at this moment of a life sentence for capital crime. We should look to prevention and not to palliation. We should look through our education system, even from the pre-school stage, for the means of producing the voluntarily self-disciplined citizen because so many of the inmates of the gaols are created by us and our society. Indeed, it is our crime.

I finish where I started. I ask: Is the test of this Bill that there can be a legal right to take life? I answer for myself: No, because I believe that capital punishment commits the crime it seeks to punish. I think the challenge to us all is to reduce violence. The simple fact is that this Parliament, the parliaments of the past, and mankind throughout history have been so pre-occupied with living with the material environment that they have not studied living with themselves. As I said previously, the start to the solution to this problem is to try to understand the ground rules under which man can live with man in freedom and with the right to be different.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– There could not be a question of deeper import brought before any parliament than that now before us relating to the Death Penalty Abolition Bill 1970 introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). When the honourable senator moved for the second reading of this Bill on 29th April he said:

The purpose of this Bill is to’ abolish the death penalty under the laws of the Commonwealth. The Bill seeks to remove the death penalty, entirely and without qualification, from all Commonwealth Acts, regulations, ordinances and other laws. It is a simple measure which, in effect, substitutes the penalty of life imprisonment for the punishment of death wherever death is the existing penalty for a crime. At present the only domestic crime in Federal Territories for which the death penalty is retained is murder, although on a Commonwealth basis treason is still punishable by death, as are certain crimes committed on aircraft. If this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, the Commonwealth will no longer be capable under the criminal code of committing official homicide.

There we have very clearly and succinctly set out the purposes of this Bill. As I said when I rose, no question of deeper import to human beings than this could be presented.

Inherent in all human beings is the desire to retain life. This is basic to our nature. We must consider the fact that the person injured to the point of death is deprived of all that he or she may have hoped to achieve within the setting of our Christian beliefs and expectations. This is of greater moment than any other possible interest in human life. The question then arises: What do we do via legislation to protect life? Within the framework of law there has to be embodied and enshrined a protection of the human being’s greatest asset. I have read widely in relation to this matter. I have sought to determine what is in the best interests of human beings in our society in a situation when life is taken. I feel that we have to retain within the framework of the law a deterrent against those who would cold bloodedly take the life of others. In my opinion premeditated murder is something which should call down upon the perpetrator the loss of that which is, in the thinking of the perpetrator the most important aspect of his being - his own existence.

Nobody would take pleasure in human indignity or suffering but the ghoulish. Noone likes to see human life destroyed. In a Christian community the means of grace to attain to eternal life is something of absolute paramount importance. As I see the situation, there should remain on the statute books a deterrent against murder which has been proven beyond every shade of doubt to have been committed by a given person after the circumstances which surround it have been taken into account. There should be in the background legislative provision which will, in the minds of those who look lightly on human life, be a deterrent against inflicting great harm and hurt on individuals. There are degrees in the taking of life. There is the situation in which, in a moment of great stress and heat, things can be done and be regretted in the next moment. There is the situation in which people could go out armed for the purpose of killing for personal gain and there is the situation in which innocent people - children or women - could be subjected to harm and death in a way which I feel has to be met with a rather harsh and strong penalty.

I have listened with deep attention to Senator Carrick’s speech. I believe within my own self that provided every possible shade of doubt is removed as to guilt where there has been an anti-society action by a person, in the background on the statute books there should be a provision to do these things which, in the minds of those who premeditate and carry out murder, would be a deterrent from their horrible intent. For these reasons I am opposed to this Bill.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– As has been said by other honourable senators this Bill to abolish capital punishment in Territories under the control of the Commonwealth is an important measure which is introduced at the insistence of Senator Murphy. I indicate that this does not appear to be basically a moral question. I think it would be a common moral acceptance that human life may be taken morally defensively in 3 circumstances. The first would be in the case of justifiable and adequate self-defence; the second, in the case of a just war: and the third, in the case of a crime for which a person has been legally and properly condemned by the tribunals to which he . has been subjected. As I have said this does not necessarily emerge in most cases as a moral question. It may emerge as a question of social philosophy or of personal solicitude but I do not think that it is a moral question in any sense.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Provided one accepts that moral proposition.

Senator BYRNE:

– Exactly - provided one accepts that. I suggest to Senator Wheeldon that these are moral propositions which might find fairly universal acceptance. It is against that background that I project my own proposition. I regard this matter as being one of social philosophy and one which does not particularly impinge upon the moral situation. In my concept, this matter goes to the question of the philosophy of punishment. Of course that is an extraordinarily important social question because the preservation of law and order, the preservation of the rights of people, the insistence on the responsibility and the observance of the rights of others are things - and those alone - which make the conduct of a community possible. After all, where crime intervenes there is a disturbance to the social order. Where there is a disturbance in the most violent way by the destruction of human life then there is a tremendous trauma and a tremendous violation of public order and of individual and community rights. Therefore - the question of what action should be taken in the event of the greatest trauma of all which is the destruction of the life of another with its social consequences and by what methods this should be prevented appears to me to be the fulcrum of the whole matter. In any case, it seems to me that punishment for any offence might have 3 characteristics. It can have the characteristic of a deterrent; of an attempt to retrieve the situation and the life of the perpetrator; or the characteristic of correction - that is to bring a person to realise the seriousness of the offence.

Senator Poyser:

– ls there not a fourth characteristic of revenge?

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 am speaking of punishment duly inflicted according to the courts within a properly organised community. In that situation we take it that revenge is not one of the components which would activate public authorities in inflicting punishment. If we had to discuss that matter we would be discussing a society whose base was itself morally unjustifiable and indefensible. That is not the society which we are discussing in the Australian context. Let us look at the 3 aspects of punishment in the brief manner in which I have outlined them. Deterrent is always a matter of speculation among those who have had the practice of the criminal law, who have been connected with penology or who have tried to retrieve those who have been involved in crime. It has always been . a matter of speculation as to what effect actual advertence to the consequences of the offence have on. the perpetrator in the course of perpetration of the offence. I think it is generally accepted that usually it has no effect at all. In a crime in which the mind is suffused by passion, by drugs or by alcohol - if those were not to an extent to provide a proper defence in law - or is suffused by some other motive, usually the mind does not advert to the legal consequences of the action which is to be undertaken or is undertaken either by deliberation or with spontaneity. For some strange reason it may be that the mind does not advert, or having adverted, it seems possible that those consequences will not attach either because the perpetrator will not be discovered or, in some strange way, the punishment ultimately will not be inflicted or will be avoided. Therefore I think punishment as a deterrent to a particular person possibly does not have a very great effect.

I can remember only one case in my home State in which it was suggested that perhaps the consequences may have had an effect at least on the place of the perpetration of the crime. There was a case in Queensland in which it was suggested that people had come over the border from New South Wales into Queensland and may well have decided to perpetrate the crime of murder in Queensland, where there was no capital punishment, as against in New South Wales where there was in order to avoid the direct consequence if they should be discovered, as they wereThat is the only case of which I am aware in which the actual consequences may have been not only within the consciousness of the’ perpetrator of the crime but also affected the subsequent course of action. Therefore I wonder whether a person, in a crime of capital deliberation, has in mind at any time what may be the consequences if the act is continued and perpetrated to its conclusion. I strongly doubt whether that does enter his mind at all.

Recovery of the prisoner is another matter. The modern concepts of penology lean towards trying to retrieve the character and personality of those who are and who have been involved in crime. That is an extraordinarily humane approach, and it is the proper approach. The Scriptures say: Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool’. Let nobody think that any other person is completely beyond the possibility of reparation or of retrieval. There may be by, if nothing else, miracles of grace an opportunity for people to find themselves, to discover their true personalities, to become aware of the nature of the crimes they have committed and to completely change their individuality and personality. That has happened. It can always happen. Perhaps with the application of modern methods of psychological, psychiatric and social approaches to these people it possibly will happen in increasing numbers.

It is only in recent times that the world has really become conscious of the aids which are necessary and which may be made available to recover those who have been involved in crime. It is only now that the techniques and the practices of medicine, particularly psychiatric and social medicine, are being applied in these areas. lt is only now that new environments are being provided and that new methods of teaching and retrieving are being discovered and applied. Now would seem to be the time when we should give this scientific approach the opportunity of displaying itself to the full so that even in those cases where one’s personal disposition might be to truncate a life for a life truncated one. might not be disposed to support the death penalty. Surely this is not the time’ to move in an area of hopelesness of

Death Penalty recovery. We should look to the new horizons of opportunity. Science has offered us possibilities that were not there before. Surely this is the time to grasp with both hands these opportunities as they are presented and to try to preserve those lives which otherwise would be severed but which, in the light of this new learning and this new knowledge, may be recovered and made useful and so retrieved. Therefore I think it would be unfortunate if a Bill of this character, which may open those horizons to us and which may open those opportunities to so many, should be resisted. 1 deal now with the punitive content in the imposition of criminal punishments, whether by way of the death penalty or by way of ordinary punishments. We do not know the real purpose behind punishment. A punishment that is inflicted heavily upon the perpetrator of an offence may well act as a deterrent to others, but if my first proposition is correct - that is, that the perpetrator does not advert to either the possibility of punishment or to the possibility that he may be detected - the punishment whether inflicted on him or on others so that it will be a red signal held out to others could have no effect at all. I think that is an unfortunate conclusion that we must draw from the experiences of penologists and those involved in the punishment and the retrieving of those who are punished in criminal institutions - that people are not deterred by the punishments inflicted On others.

Senator Greenwood:

– You used the word ‘penologists’. Do you not think that, by definition, a penologist must be against capital punishment, otherwise he would destroy any opportunity he had in an interesting field?

Senator BYRNE:

– It is a question of which comes first - the horse or the cart. A person who becomes a nuclear physicist does so because of an early attachment to general principles. Then he becomes dedicated in that field. He possibly does not become a nuclear physicist because of his intense study initially in that rarefied field pf mathematics-physics. Therefore a person becomes a penologist because he has a certain disposition. He fortifies his knowledge and that disposition by further studies and by personal involvement.

Abolition Bill 639

Senator Greenwood:

– By definition, he must be against capital punishment.

Senator BYRNE:

– By definition, he would be against capital punishment. By disposition, by practice and by experience he would, otherwise he would destroy the subject which he wishes to retrieve.

We are revolted by the occurrence of some crimes. There is one crime to which I would refer in this context. That is the crime of the commercial peddling of drugs. This is possibly the most horrifying of all crimes. Sometimes I think it is more revolting that the crime of deliberate murder. The destruction of the life of a body is tragic and one of the worst things that can happen, but to corrupt the mind, heart and soul, particularly of the young, is a totally unforgivable crime. If there were any crime in my concept that called for the extreme penalty, it would be that one. To peddle drugs for gain is worse still. It is incomprehensible that any human being could find himself in such a position that he would profit from the corruption of the very life of the person to whom he sells drugs. Therefore if I had a disposition to exact the most severe penalty, I might exact it in that field rather than in other fields. Sometimes it is a matter of philosophic speculation whether a life that is to be lived out in the corruption, in the terrors and in the horrors of drug addiction is not a greater deprivation to the person concerned than the life that is lost by means of a phony. Life in any form is most precious. But that is a matter for philosophic speculation. I merely express my own horror at the perpetration of this crime against individuals, against the community and particularly against the young.

I was in London a few weeks ago. In Piccadilly Circus 1 saw a young boy of about 14 years who obviously was in the process of drug recovery. It is a sight I shall never forget, it was so horrifying. My thoughts went to those who were responsible for the addiction which obviously had gripped that young man. I thought: What should a community do to a person of such a character? If we allowed emotions to crowd our minds on this, unfortunately we would find ourselves in the position in which we would exact the most severe penalties and consider them to be justified. But so many other factors have to be 9 September 1971 taken into account that we must put aside our reactions in horror. We must put aside our emotive reactions. We must look at this from the point of view of the individual, the possibility of his recovery and the welfare of society, quite apart from the dread question of the moral entitlement of one to take the life of another. In my concept, a moral question does not arise here. 1 make one small final point. If the punishment is to fit the crime and if the punishment is to be an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, I do not think that, except in rare cases, capital crimes - the taking of the life of another - can in any sense be nearly as horrifying as the taking of the life of the person who was killed. In whatever circumstances the original life was taken, and they may be bad, there is possibly nothing more horrifying than the long delay of the trial and the appeals and the reflection of the accused prior to his execution. That must add a psychological horror of the worst kind. It must add a new horror to the sheer one of the deprivation of life at the execution of the person involved. Therefore perhaps in no real sense can the punishment fit the crime. Perhaps the punishment must always be greater than the crime in a capital offence. That again is a matter of philosophic speculation.

I do not speak on behalf of my Party in relation to this matter. The members pf the Democratic Labor Party have their own dispositions on this matter, and I am not aware of how they propose to vote. I have some idea, but I am not aware of that because the decision on a question such as this obviously is one which must attract the personal judgment and personal conscience of the individual concerned. But I think this Bill could well attract, in that individual, private and separate judgment, the support of honourable senators. As I have said, it poses a challenge to those who see an opportunity in the new science, the new world and the new life for the retrieving of those people who have been involved even in capital crimes - an opportunity that did not exist before. Should we at this stage deny them that opportunity? We would not do so if the same position arose, say, in relation to one of the dread diseases such as leukaemia. Even those who believe in euthanasia would not say that it was an appropriate time to pursue that policy if science was opening up vistas of recovery and the retrieving of the man who is mortally ill. I do not believe that we should be in a position other than that. For those reasons, speaking briefly, I support the Bill and commend its principles to honourable senators.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The speeches we have heard from Senator Carrick and Senator Byrne have been interesting in that both of them indicated that there were circumstances in which the ultimate penalty should be exacted from a person.

Senator Byrne:

– I did not say that; but go on.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is what the honourable senator indicated.

Senator Byrne:

– No, I did not. The mind moved towards that. I did not agree with that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Well, I believe that Senator Carrick in his speech - perhaps he could indicate whether I am correct - found grounds on which perhaps a life could be taken.

Senator Carrick:

– Not by way of punishment.

Senator WEBSTER:

– 1 read into the 2 speeches - perhaps I was encouraged to do so by the flow of questions and answers - that there were reservations in the minds of both honourable senators to the effect that in some instances there was in fact a basis for the extreme penalty being exacted.

Senator Byrne:

– No. I said that I did not know of any case, but perhaps there could be one. It was hypothetical.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Read Hansard tomorrow.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I believe that when we read in Hansard tomorrow what Senator Byrne said it will verify the point I have made. We are dealing with a Bill to abolish capital punishment under the laws of the Commonwealth. I agree with previous speakers who have said that this is not a moral issue; it is a case of discussing whether this form of punishment should be abolished in the Australian Capital Territory. I take some exception to the Bill. I am not sure whether Senator Murphy discussed this point in his second reading speech. Clause 2 of this Bill, which some honourable senators propose to support, says:

This Act applies throughout the whole of the Commonwealth and the Territories and also applies beyond the Commonwealth and the Territories.

Senator Murphy:

– There may be crimes on ships, or something of that nature.

Senator Wheeldon:

– It is a technical expression.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is a technical expression. I think it is a provision by which an attempt might be made to go beyond the powers of the Commonwealth.

Senator Murphy:

– Oh!

Senator WEBSTER:

– I know that what you suggest is that it relates to areas beyond the 12-mile limit or up in the air.

Senator Murphy:

– The Acts Interpretation Act would cover that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I know that what you-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Poke) - Order! I ask the honourable senator to address his remarks to the Chair and not to the Opposition.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Thank you, Sir. As I have said, I believe that this is not a moral issue. A great many of the most vociferous cries for the abolition of capital punishment emanate from those areas of our society which have been insulated against horrors which man can and does perpetrate against his fellow human beings. There are exceptions to that; but throughout life 1 have heard the cry for abolition coming from areas in which the horrors that man can perpetrate against man have not been experienced.

Senator Wheeldon:

– People who were not so anxious for revenge.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, do you mind if I answer members of the Opposition? What was “the interjection?

Senator Wheeldon:

– My interjection was: What you are saying is that those people are not so vengeful as other people.

Senator WEBSTER:

– No, I do not think that is correct. I think the point is made. Whilst I wish that no man should die as a result of any penalty imposed under any law, it is my view that capital punishment should be retained within the law of any State or the Commonwealth. Capital punishment is a controversial issue on which good people are very divided, with both sides having high motives in adopting their respective positions. Those favouring capital punishment are not to be stigmatised as heartless, vengeful and lacking in mercy, but are to be respected as advocating that which is for the best for society as a whols as they see it. All of us must stand for the common good. We must, of necessity, be strongly opposed to behaviour that is contrary to the common good in our society.

From time immemorial the conviction of good society has been that life is sacred and that he who violates the sacredness of life through murder must pay the supreme penalty. I am advised that the movement for the abolition of capital punishment was commenced by Sir Samuel Romilly who passed away in 1818. I believe that he may fairly be regarded as the founder of the English movement for the abolition of the death penalty. His arguments rested on 2 main propositions: Firstly, that the chief deterrent to crime rests not in barbarous punishments but in the certainty of detection and conviction, and that harsh punishments tend to diminish the likelihood of convictions. I believe that that is a very important point. The second point that ho made was that brutal punishments accustom the populace to brutality and in themselves tend to create an attitude likely to result in crimes of violence, for violence does breed violence and brutal punishments have an infallible tendency to produce cruelty in the people.

The other main basis upon which 1 believe most people speak against capital punishment is religious grounds. There are, within our society, many people who hold the view that capital punishment should be abolished and refer to biblical quotations to indicate how sacred life is. In more recent times the correctional systems stress reform and the discoveries of the behavioural sciences are being utilised so that the penal institutions will tend to turn out better men than they receive. I do not know whether that situation prevails in Australia at the present time. I suggest this as a point for contemplation by those who would see that, instead of carrying out capital punishment in the case of a heinous crime, the offender should be incarcerated for the term of his natural life. On the points made as to the reasons for opposing capital punishment, I remind the Senate that the existence of capital punishment is an anachronistic retention of the concept of punishment which has been replaced by the concept of reform.

The arguments for the death penalty, I believe, have some considerable weight and value in our community. Those who would argue for the retention of the death penalty see death, in the instance of punishment mainly for murder in our society, as being unique in its deterrent effect. If I may take that point, I think that we all probably have noted in our readings of the daily Press within the last few weeks the reactions that have occurred in Britain recently following the abolition of capital punishment in that country. I noted that an article in one of the Sydney afternoon newspapers was headed: ‘MPs want hanging restored’. I think the relevant article was published this week. The article states-

Senator Poyser:

– How many of them wanted it restored?

Senator WEBSTER:

– -Well, I do not think it is a majority.

Senator Poyser:

– It might be 2 only, and you are putting this up as a case for restoring it in England?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am stating that, in England, there are many British MPs who are claiming that they want hanging restored.

Senator Poyser:

– How many? Does the article tell us that?

Senator WEBSTER:

– It does not state a number but it does state that one is a woman who was in our Parliament at this time last year.

Senator Davidson:

– Mrs Jill Knight.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Yes.

Senator Poyser:

– It might be one-third.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not think that the number matters. I have said that this is a subject on which one can hold a variety of views. I have said also that I think it depends a great deal on what our experiences have been in our upbringing in relation to crimes of violence. That does not apply to all of us. The position in Britain is this: Hanging and capital punishment were abolished, I believe, for a period of 5 years. Some comment was made, a couple of years after the vote had been taken and capital punishment had been abolished, on the situation that had developed. Certain facts were put forward. 1 refer to an article provided to me by the Parliamentary Library. According to the London ‘Times’ of 23rd October 1967, in support of a petition which was being circulated then for the restoration of capital punishment, Mr Duncan Sandys, MP, speaking at a Conservative Party conference added 2 new arguments for the restoration of capital punishment for the offence of murder. Firstly, he stated that Home Office figures showed that in the 2 years since capital punishment was suspended in the United Kingdom 67 capital murders had been committed. Those were murders which, before the suspension of capital punishment, would have been punishable by death. This compared with a total of 35 such murders in the previous 2 years. Secondly, Mr Sandys said that the number of offences in which firearms were used, any of which might have resulted in murder, had risen from 731 in 1964 to 1,511 in 1966.

Before I was interrupted earlier, 1 was about to make the point that currently the Press is carrying comment and indeed some background reading on why these members of the British Parliament are disturbed. Petitions are being presented. I believe that in one instance a petition contained 25,000 signatures. Reports were published of women demanding that the death penalty be reintroduced because of the rapid increase in vicious crimes in their areas. These activities culminated in reports from London on Tuesday of this week, I think, that a campaign to restore hanging, abolished in 1965, is gathering force in Britain. The campaign has been sparked off by the recent upsurge in violent crimes, climaxed by the fatal shooting last month of a senior police officer during the robbery of a Blackpool jewellery store.

The Conservative MP, Mrs Jill Knight, announced that she would ask the House of Commons to review the need for capital punishment when it sits again on 18th October. Mr Duncan Sandys, a former

Conservative Cabinet Minister and soninlaw of the late Sir Winston Churchill, stated that abolition of hanging was a mistake. The report stated that the latest campaign was launched after the disclosure that 11 unarmed policemen had been murdered on duty in Britain since hanging was abolished. Both police and Press have said that the present upsurge in crime could make British streets as dangerous in 5 years as those of New York and Washington at present.

I turn to the argument that death by capital punishment is unique in its deterrent effect. I believe that the situation exists in which neither side can say whether it is a deterrent. Indeed, capital punishment would act as a most positive deterrent to certain crimes in the community. There must be crimes committed in the community on the spur of the moment which would lead to murder and undoubtedly there would be no consideration of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. So, I believe that the argument that death by capital punishment is a deterrent is not something on which we can pronounce a judgment.

It is interesting to note that we see developing in our Australian society something which perhaps we abhor. It is the materialism of society, perhaps the Americanised type of society. We seem to accept as natural that violence and murder should be offered to human beings so regularly. I noted in a recent Press report that every 9 minutes in the United States of America a murder is committed. I do not know whether this is a situation which we wish to see develop in Australia. But I hold firmly the view, whilst not arguing that the death penalty should be invoked in every instance of a crime, that a death penalty provision should exist within the laws of our country so that it perhaps may act in some minor way as a deterrent or as a means of ridding the country of some person who is unable to live within our society according to its rules.

On the matter of deterrents, it is said that corporal punishment is no deterrent. Indeed, those people whom I mentioned previously whose families have not come in touch with crimes of violence certainly are against corporal punishment. They speak of offering violence for violence as being absolutely beyond the thought of a well organised society. Perhaps I have not the connection with this matter that Senator Carrick has had but 1 shall refer to my own connections. When I was a lad my dear father was a member of what was the original Indeterminate Sentences Board in Victoria. He later became a member of the Parole Board there. He served for many years on those 2 bodies. During that time, he was involved basically with young criminals. Decisions were taken by these bodies as to lads who were gaoled at the Governor’s pleasure. He worked with Mr Justice Barry. Indeed, Mr Justice Nimmo with whom I spoke this morning was another who served on that Board. Senator Gair met Mr Justice Nimmo this morning. During my early years I grew up with a great number of young criminals because my father thought it was wise that lads without a proper family background should be assisted. The breaking up of families is one of the main reasons for lads getting into trouble. My father would have 3 or 4 of these young fellows working on our property. Over many years I grew up with them and learned to enjoy their company. Some of them were restored to good citizenship. Some of them left our property and went on to commit murder.

I remember an instance of the effects of corporal punishment told by Mr Justice Barry. A lad, who had previously committed a crime of violence, was being interviewed about a subsequent crime for which he was then serving a prison sentence. During the interview one of the officers indicated that the lad had been thrashed - a term we do not like to use - for the crime he had previously committed. The lad was asked about the punishment he had received and I recall well my father saying that the lad had stated that he would never offer violence again after the corporal punishment he had received. I think it was firmly entrenched in the minds of some people who had had direct contact with young criminals that there may be more effective deterrents to crime than a gaol sentence.

I think some of the comments made by Senator Carrick should be reiterated and warrant urgent discussion in this Parliament and State parliaments. I have in mind particularly penal reform. Money is being spent at the wrong end of the scale.

Young criminals get a start when they are born to drunkard parents or into families that are broken up and the children are left destitute. We as a Christian society adopt a critical attitude towards unmarried mothers in the community. When a child is brought up under great mental strain with no knowledge of the background of his parentage, due in part to the attitude that we in our Christian society adopt, the basis of descent into crime is established. I suggest that a great portion of our financial resources needs to be spent in that area to assist young people who are disadvantaged in the community because of the circumstances I have outlined.

The second proposition is that the abolition of the death penalty for murder would result in an increase in the number of murders and attacks on police officers. That can be divided into 2 parts. The suggestion that the number of murders would be increased can be argued from both sides. A good argument for the retention of the death penalty on the statute book would be that it could be the only penalty to act as. protection for prison and police officers. It is interesting to note that 111 people have been hanged in Australia since the turn of the century, 21 of whom were hanged in Victoria and 23 in New South Wales. The most recent hanging was of Ronald Joseph Ryan in Victoria in February 1967. So some years have passed since the death penalty was last imposed. If my memory serves me correctly, the basic reason given for the hanging of Ronald Ryan was that he murdered a police officer in attempting to escape,

I support the belief that where no death penalty exists hardened criminals are encouraged to attempt to escape. We have read recently of escape attempts in overseas gaols where violence has been offered to the prison officials. Where no death penalty exists there is no further deterrent to the murder of prison officials by criminals undergoing life imprisonment. Perhaps I should remind honourable senators while we are discussing the abolition of capital punishment in the Australian Capital Territory that no-one has ever been executed in this Territory. A number of murderers in the Australian Capital Territory have had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment.

Senator Milliner:

– Does that not give you a lead from an advanced community?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The point I made was that a plea for mercy by a jury probably could be accepted in nearly every instance.

Senator Poyser:

– It is not the jury which exercises mercy; it is the Executive.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Mercy is not suggested by the Executive. Mercy is advocated by a jury.

Senator Poyser:

– It is not the jury that has the say. It is the Executive that makes the final decision.

Senator WEBSTER:

– In actual fact an eventual penalty should be retained on the statute book for a prisoner who otherwise may feel that nothing further is to be lost by an attack upon the officials we employ to look after individuals who are incarcerated.

Senator Milliner:

– What is the incidence of that?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Recently we have read of the Soledad Brothers who were involved in an incident of that nature. In their attempt to break out - I think from Alcatraz - they murdered several prison officials. Individuals such as that who are in prison for murder are encouraged to murder prison officials by the knowledge that the only punishment left for them on the statute book is to return them to gaol. I think there must be a further deterrent so that such people will know that they are risking their lives if they murder again.

Senator Milliner:

– How many prison officials have been murdered in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not know. I suppose there would be a record of it somewhere. I have informed the Senate that the last hanging took place in Victoria. I believe it was for the murder of a prison warder at Pentridge Gaol.

Senator Davidson:

– How long ago?

Senator WEBSTER:

– It was in 1967. I have dealt with the third point. Perhaps the comments I have made relate also to the fourth point which is put forward as an argument for the retention of the death penalty; that is that there is no satisfactory penalty for murder other than the death penalty. It is suggested that it is kinder to murderers to execute them than to incarcerate them for life, with consequential psychological and physical deterioration.

Senator Primmer:

– A mercy killing?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not put it in those terms, but I think that the honourable senator would agree with me that, given an opportunity, there would be those who, if given a choice whether they would spend the next 40 years of their life at hard labour in gaol or be executed, would probably wish the death penalty to be carried out. I see no particular wisdom in placing somebody in gaol for the next 40 years of his life, with no remissions and no possibility of his being released. Already we have seen longer terms of imprisonment than that. I understand that recently in America someone was sentenced to 100 years imprisonment for the killing of Sharon Tate. It is necessary to compensate the community for the type of murder that is carried out - in that instance, the slaying of 6 people.

Senator Davidson:

– Does the death penalty bring that compensation?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I believe quite genuinely that society would be better without the type of person who commits a certain type of crime. I do not know how people can argue that the prisoner should be saved in every instance, especially when we consider the crimes that have taken place. I remind honourable senators of the one recently in Queensland where girls aged 3 years and 5 years were murdered in the way that they were. In my own State of Victoria 2 lads,, merely for the thrill of it, took a girl out into the forest and killed her. The reasons they gave for doing so was to see the manner in which she died. I think in discussing this type of subject one can be carried away with emotion and say that there is no suitable punishment under the law other than to rid society of these people.

Senator Davidson:

– What about the murder of the 10 people in South Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:

– 1 feel, that we cannot deal with that situation, but if one were permitted to have one’s say in that matter one could not imagine other than a demented mind at the outset.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Poke) - Order! I ask the honourable senator to refrain from discussing that case.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The other proposition is that put forward by the Church. It is one that has been quoted by some honourable senators. I suggest that Thou shalt not kill’ is a commandment to which the community should adhere. This raises some doubts as to whether we, as a Christian society, holding the Bible in a special light, should take oat from it those lines which do not suit our purpose. If we take the Bible as a whole and look at the propositions contained in it we must hold a somewhat different view, or at least it could be argued that there should be a different view. I do not wish to be one who quotes the Bible or suggests that this is what the highest law says, but if we look at Genesis, the first book of the Bible, we find in chapters 4 to 6 an indication that life is sacred and that he who violates the law must pay the supreme penalty because life itself is sacred. It states:

Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed for god made man in his own image.

When we come to the sixth Commandment we find that it has its genesis in Exodus XX at the 13th verse.

Senator Primmer:

– The honourable senator is a student of the Bible.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have no doubt that the honourable senator, like myself, studied the good book. Those who quote the verse to which I have referred conveniently fail to note the commentary on that Commandment. In Exodus XXI, in verse 1 2 and 14 we find:

Whosoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.

One could undoubtedly argue, as some do, that we are dealing with the Old Testament or the New Testament, as the case may be. It has been suggested to me in discussion that if we have as a task the compilation of a volume of law such as we have in the Commonwealth we do not deal with parts of legislation which have been put to one side or which might have been amended. Perhaps it is the sixth commandment to which wc should listen. But those particular commands to which we ali love to adhere, that is, love one’s enemies, turn the other cheek and go the second mile - all those things which perhaps our society should stand by - were not just propaganda put on as an attempt to change the jurisprudence but were meant to establish a new type of society. The purpose of these words was not to create law abiding citizens but a love of life higher than the law. One can contemplate deeply in a consideration of that type of thing.

I believe that no-one can deny that the execution of a murder is a horrible thing, but we should not forget that murder itself is horrible. I suggest that the supreme penalty should be imposed only after the guilt has been established beyond all shadow of doubt and only for wanton, unlawful premeditated murder. I believe that the law of capital punishment should stand, no matter how often a jury may recommend mercy.

Senator Milliner:

– Would the honourable senator like to be the judge to condemn a man?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I can assure the honourable senator that, being a man who comes from the land, in some instances of crime that I have known I certainly would have no hesitation in being the man who pulled the trapdoor away from under an individual.

Senator Milliner:

– They could not get someone in Victoria but had to import him from South Australia. The honourable senator should have applied for the job.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I suggest to the honourable senator that crimes of which one has become aware over a period of years and to which one could refer show that our society does not benefit by the type of penal system which we are bringing about.

The last point that I would list in relation to the retention of the death penalty is one which certainly is not acceptable to many individuals. I refer to the suggestion that it is particularly expensive to support murders for a long period in institutions. I noted an English comment the other day in relation to the Kray brothers that the court case for those individuals cost more than $250,000 and that the cost of maintaining them in gaol for the term of their sentences will be an additional $250,000 Because of the demands that may be placed on our society, I find it hard to satisfy myself that the abolition of the death penalty in any particular State or in any particular country has resulted in a reduction in the number of capital crimes. I find it hard to believe that in the allocation of our resources in society, once it has been proved beyond doubt that an individual has committed a crime - proved beyond doubt in every instance, looking for the greatest degree of mercy-

Senator Cavanagh:

– There have been cases in which innocent men have been hanged. How can one be sure?

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is a consideration to be weighed. Every day innocent men are being adjudged guilty, but 1 do not know that the honourable senator is on his feet every day to plead their cause. Every day in our courts in this country innocent men are being charged and are drawing penalties for some crime which they have not committed.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But a man cannot get a reprieve if he is dead, can he?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Again that is one of the arguments that is put forward, but if in actual fact it is a case of the allocation of resources in the community I think there are sound grounds for us to say in relation to the person who is unable to live in our society, who offers violence to another person, who in actual fact does not hold life sacred, that there is reason for retaining on the books capital punishment so that he may be dealt with in an appropriate manner if it is so adjudged. I by no means say that I know what the situation is or should be. I do know that a number of our States have abolished capital punishment. I do know that in my own State of Victoria capital punishment is retained, and I hope that it will be retained. I believe that in its wisdom the Government in power will retain it. I suggest that we would be wise to vote as a Senate that capital punishment be retained under the laws of the Commonwealth.

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia

– Tonight we have had a most interesting debate on a varying number of thoughts put forward by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. I think it is perhaps unfortunate that in a debate of this type we try to give specific instances to justify a very broad principle, namely the abolition or retention of the death penalty. There are arguments for and against the death penalty. However, I wish to take a slightly different point of view to that which has been taken by most of the speakers this evening. I would oppose the Bill in its present form, not because I am necessarily opposed to the abolition of the death penalty in many instances but I do not think that at any stage we have had a thorough look’ at the total question of punishment. We tend to think that the only sort of punishment we should worry about is that inflicted by capital punishment But punishment ranges over an enormous number of crimes or misdemeanours - from the very petty offence to the most serious offence in the total calendar, which is most likely treason and which is basically a more serious offence even than wilful murder. At no time have we attempted to sit down and rationalise our attitude as to how a person should be punished, if in reality we believe that a person who commits an offence against the law should be punished.

I think the first thing we should decide is whether we believe in reality that if a person commits an offence or is convicted of an offence against the law he should be punished. We have to decide: Should a person be punished for offending against the laws of society. It is not sufficient just to say that he has offended against the laws of the Parliament, because I think that is too narrow a construction. After all, Parliament legislates for the protection of society. Therefore when a person commits an offence he is in effect offending against society. Perhaps this attitude that you offend only against the laws of Parliament is more prevalent in our community because most criminal matters are expressed as the Queen against X, which indicates that the Queen is the prosecutor. Perhaps the Americans express it better. In America it is the State against X or in some of the American States it is expressed as the people against X. In fact, that is what we are doing. Because we are in a monarchal system we use the expression ‘The Queen against X’, but the crime is committed against the people, not just against the theoretical Queen’s peace. Therefore we should look at the question of whether a person should be punished if he offends against the laws of the community. If one then moves to the situation where one agrees that a person should be punished, what form should the punishment take?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Punishment is not the question; hanging is the question.

Senator WITHERS:

– No. Senator Cavanagh is taking too narrow a view. I think this is where we should try to lift the debate into a debate on what should be done to a person who offends against the laws and rules of society, whether it be in the petty sphere or a greater sphere. Then we come to the question of punishment. If one says that a person should be punished, what punishment should he receive? Punishments range from a decision not to record a conviction - I suppose this would be the least of all punishments - to the ultimate punishment of taking the offender’s life. But on what rational basis do we decide what sort of punishment should be imposed for the commission of an offence. I do not think anybody has ever attempted to sort out what should be the range of punishments across this area. It is not sufficient merely to get emotional over the sanctity of life - whether or not capital punishment in itself is a sufficient deterrent. One must look at the total question. I believe that there are still some offences against society for which the ultimate punishment should be imposed. I think treason is one.

Senator Georges:

– Oh!

Senator WITHERS:

– I know that this may offend some people opposite but treason or sedition is still one of the great crimes against one’s fellow countrymen. After all, it is far worse than just killing a fellow human being to destroy one’s own nation; to destroy what has been the total creation of a period of history. I still think acts of treason merit the death penalty. I agree with many of the speakers this evening that to look at this aspect of murder merely as a murder is wrong. There are many cases of murders being committed for which the death penalty is not war- ranted. In crimes of passion, in crimes where people are psychologically disturbed, there is not much point in hanging the offending person because he really does not know what he is doing. I am not altogether convinced that capital punishment is necessarily a deterrent, nor am I convinced that it is not a deterrent. There are certain persons in the community who are entitled to protection. Until I am convinced - convinced beyond reasonable doubt - that capital punishment is not a deterrent, I believe that 2 classes of persons, namely police officers and prison officers, are entited to the benefit of. the doubt that capital punishment may be a deterrent, because I think that those 2 of all groups in the community are entitled to that protection.

If we can devise some penal system whereby I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that prison officers will not be subjected to murder, I would be prepared to abolish the death penalty. But I cannot see the situation arising at the moment - I am open to correction - where we can say that police officers should not be given this protection. I know it is a sort of common cult amongst a lot of the community today to downgrade the. police force - the mug copper syndrome. Police officers have a very difficult task to perform in the community, which people tend to forget. They perhaps perform some of the most difficult and dirty jobs in the community. Police officers have to be involved in some of the most heart rending jobs in the community, such as informing a woman that her husband has been killed in a motor vehicle accident. Because of the nature of their work and particularly its dangers I believe that they are entitled to the protection of the community. It should be remembered that the laws have been framed to protect the community and not to protect the offender.

I believe that we tend to get oversentimental about a person who commits a crime and to forget society or the person against whom the crime has been committed, lt always sickens me somewhat that the moment the death penalty is imposed upon a person who has committed a crime we have people drawing up petitions and “ raising money for an appeal by the criminal, but making no attempt to raise money to help the family of the victim. It is argued that it should be the responsibility of the state to compensate the family of a victim of a crime. I just wish that these persons who get so upset about the possible fate of a murderer would show the same amount of compassion for the real victims of the crime, namely, the dependants of the person murdered. This is always completely overlooked by the dogooders.

I believe that we must, give a great deal of serious thought to the total question involved. I have held the personal view for a long time that perhaps our present system proceeds on the wrong basis. I have never believed that the role of the courts should be other than to establish guilt or innocence. That is the proper role of the courts. However, 1 have always felt that the imposition of a punishment should be placed in more expert hands than the judiciary. I do not believe that lawyers, by their training or anything else, are, once they become judges, necessarily more competent to impose a punishment than many other groups in the community.

Senator Byrne:

– Like the Senate?

Senator WITHERS:

– Quite right. I think a lawyer’s training, is to present his case and the true role of the courts to determine the facts.

Senator Durack:

– Whom does the honourable senator think ought to administer the punishment?

Senator WITHERS:

– I am coming to that. The true role of the courts should be to determine guilt or innocence. Ability to determine the punishment to be inflicted requires more than just a few years practice in some jurisdiction or other. I know that the judicial system is moving more and more into consideration of presentence reports from medical practitioners, psychiatrists, social workers and the like, but 1 do not believe that it has gone far enough. I believe that, instead of merely presenting a written report to a judicial authority, these people should determine what the punishment will be. Perhaps their deliberations could be presided over by a judge. That might involve transferring authority for the imposition of a penalty- to a committee or group but I think it would in the long run be far better if this system were adopted.

One cannot blame the judiciary too much because parliaments throughout the ages have felt that the only possible punishment short of death is incarceration. I do not believe that incarceration is necessarily the correct punishment for some offenders in our modern society. Some persons of wealth would be far harder hit by a really penal fine. I am talking of fines of $20,000, $50,000 or may be $100,000. A person who is convicted of manslaughter in the use of a motor vehicle and is sentenced to imprisonment for 2 to 3 years often finds himself on probation in 6 months. That person would suffer very little. However, if we were to fine him, say, one half of his assets, which could range up to $100,000, it would be a real punishment. In many instances mere incarceration is not a sufficient punishment. Some work has been done on this subject in England. From my reading of the situation, it appears that the imposition of monetary penalty has been a more effective method of punishing offenders than short term sentences.

I realise, Mr Deputy President, that I have strayed somewhat from the terms of the Bill under consideration but I come back to them now. 1 repeat that I do not believe that the Senate should consider this Bill as an isolated Bill. I think it is too early to do so. I rely on what the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) said in the Senate recently, namely, that it is his ambition and hope that before the autumn session finishes next year he will have before this chamber a criminal code for the Australian Capital Territory. When that time comes the Senate should be in a position to range over the whole area of penalties for crime.

One of the real problems is how much is one justified in taking a life? I have never quite understood - Senator Carrick referred to this matter earlier this evening - how those people who are so keen on the abolition of capital punishment tend in the main to be in favour of abortion on demand. It has often struck me as being a peculiar exercise in logic to say that it is improper to take the life of an adult human being but it is quite proper to take the life of a human embryo.

Senator Georges:

– The honourable senator is mixing his terms.

Senator WITHERS:

– I do not think 1 am. When one is talking about moral attitudes to the taking of life I think one is entitled to expect some consistency in argument. You cannot have, on the one hand, abolition of capital punishment and, on the other, abortion. Either you have abortion and capital punishment or you have no abortion and no capital punishment.

Senator Georges:

– How about extending it to contraceptives as well and then stopping when you become ridiculous?

Senator WITHERS:

– If I wished to become like you I would sound like you. That is an indication of the sort of situation that we get into in these’ debates. There tends to be far more emotion than reason generated. I feel sorry for the members of the Opposition because they are committed by their Party, to a particular line of thinking in relation to this matter. 1 suppose that is fair enough if they wish to suffer the disciplines imposed on them in this context. But honourable senators on this side of the chamber are entitled to exercise their own judgment.

I wonder with how much sincerity honourable members opposite really support the legislation that has been presented by Senator Murphy. Do they support this legislation out of a deep conscientious belief as I quite readily admit Senator Carrick and some of my other colleagues on this side of the chamber do, or do they support it merely because of Party discipline? One would have thought that if it had. such a deep conscientious belief about this matter there would have been at least 20 Opposition senators in their places tonight fighting for the right to put forward their views. But I think that for the last lj hours, more or less, it has been honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber who have carried the debate.

I oppose the Bill on 2 basic grounds. Firstly, I do not think- the Opposition is really, dinkum about it. It is a long time since this Bill was presented in this chamber. There have been a great number of Thursday nights when it could have come forward under General Business.

There has been an enormous display of interest in it tonight! At the moment there are about 3 Opposition senators present who are so keenly interested in this Bill that they want a vote taken on it tonight. Secondly, 1 do not believe in dealing with these matters piecemeal. If we are to look into the abolition of the death penalty or capital punishment, let us look at the totality of punishment. Let us look not only at capital punishment but also corporal punishment, the punishment of incarceration and the punishment of monetary fines, as well as the methods of rehabilitation by means of the probation or parole system. Let us do a thorough, exhaustive and wide-ranging piece of work. If we attempt to solve the problems of society by trotting up pieces of legislation which are window dressing, put forward often as not for a mean political advantage, then we will do nothing to solve the real problems of crimes against society. For those reasons I oppose this Bill.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I, like Senator Withers, am somewhat surprised to find so little interest taken in a matter of such importance and gravity by those who apparently put forward this Bill for the abolition of capital punishment under the laws of the Commonwealth. I recognise that this Bill deals with a subject about which one would not expect people to take Party attitudes. I would have expected people to reach their own conclusion after deep thought and firm personal conviction. I find it extraordinary that not a soul from the Opposition side of the chamber has felt such firm conviction as to give honourable senators on this side of the chamber the benefit of some arguments to support the case in which they apparently believe. I mention this, following upon what Senator Withers said, because to my mind it is more than surprising. That is where Senator Withers and I part so far as the debate is concerned.

Senator Poyser:

– We are endeavouring to get a vote on this Bill, not talk it out. We have debated it before and have carried the principle once before.

Senator RAE:

– Lengthy debates already have taken place throughout the world on this subject and I would hope that every honourable senator would have a firm, fixed and reasoned attitude to it. I do not accept what Senator Poyser has said as being sufficient reason for not putting on the record at least some of the reasons for the Opposition’s belief. That is why I am speaking tonight. I do not know that I can add anything fresh on the subject. I do not know that anything really new can be said about it. The subject has been argued for hundreds of years. It has been argued from a moral point of view, from a legalistic point of view and from the point of view of the organisation of society; it has been argued from every point of view imaginable.

The point I want to make is this: The result of all the argument in those countries of the world which can be regarded as advanced countries has been a decision in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. That decision has been taken after lengthy consideration and debate and a gradually growing abhorrence on the part of the people of those communities to the idea that anything worth while to society is achieved from deliberately and cold bloodedly in the name of society taking the life of a fellow human being and a fellow member of that society.

I accept, as did Senator Carrick, that there can be exceptions to this. I do not wish to become involved in a lengthy explanation. I simply wish to mention selfdefence, where immediate need and immediate action is involved. There is also the larger form of self-defence to which Senator Byrne referred when he talked about a just war. I do not want to divert this debate onto the question of war; I simply mention it in passing because I think we must draw a differentiation between that matter and the mere organisation of internal society. I would not approve the adoption of the attitude that because someone may accept that in special circumstances of immediate need it could be regarded as justifiable to take a life, it should necessarily follow that in the organisation of society we can take a life in cold blood.

To those who support the retention of capital punishment I pose one question. I ask them to consider whether they are prepared to carry out the execution. I know that that question is raised often in a debate on this subject but I wish to raise it again tonight. I think it is a basic and fundamental question to anybody who has to make a decision in relation to this subject. It is one thing to be a member of a group acting in self-defence, and an entirely different thing to be a member of a society and to have a cold blooded execution carried out in your name. I think that is part of the approach we have to adopt in order to reach a decision on this matter. I ask: Do you think that that may tend to brutalise you? Do you think that that may tend to make you adopt attitudes which are not to the ultimate benefit of society? If those in favour of capital punishment are not prepared to acknowledge that by their support they must reach that situation, then I do not see how they can say that society is entitled to have someone - the hangman - carry out the execution for them. That is just a consideration but it Ls one which weighs heavily with me.

There has been some discussion tonight about other aspects of punishment. This also has been discussed throughout the years at very considerable length. There are many theories about punishment but perhaps the accepted one is that there are 3 aspects - retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. As far as capital punishment is concerned, there is no aspect of rehabilitation. We go then to justification which must be either retribution or deterrent. I challenge anyone who is a supporter of capital punishment to produce anything which really substantiates the deterrent aspect of capital punishment. Tonight I listened to Senator Webster with considerable interest. He spoke about the English situation but he failed to compare the rise in crime rates in the United Kingdom during the period to which he related his comments with the rise in crime rates in other countries with a similar type of social and economic development and which have retained capital punishment. I think he would find that the world wide trend is comparable whether or not there is capital punishment. Certainly there is no evidence to substantiate the suggestion that the existence of capital punishment prevents the crime rate from rising even in respect of major offences, let alone any effect which it is supposed to have flowing down to lesser crimes for which capital punishment would not be applicable.

Senator Webster:

– The Premier of Victoria when speaking of the ‘ hanging of Ronald Ryan in Parliament said that it was surprising that the rate of crime had subsided considerably in the first year after that incident.

Senator RAE:

– I would thank Senator Webster not to stir me on the subject of the hanging Premier of Victoria.

Senator Wright:

– I do not think that is a proper expression.

Senator RAE:

– Perhaps I should say ‘the Premier of Victoria who supports the retention of capita] punishment in such circumstances’. I pass on to other aspects of the subject. I suggest that as a society which has reached the stage of development which we have reached, unless we can satisfy ourselves beyond any reasonable doubt that the deterrent aspect justifies capital punishment then there is no justification for it unless it is mere retribution. Although emotionally many of us can think of the sort of example to which Senator Webster refers, where it would be normal and natural for a person to feel a desire for retribution and where I can feel sympathy for anybody who reaches the stage of being overwhelmed by the desire for retribution, standing back as one responsible for the passing of legislation I do not think we can become involved in that sort of emotional reaction to what happened in a particular circumstance. It is rather a matter of looking at whether there is any justification based upon the deterrent aspect.

In discussing this matter, Senator Laucke said that where the matter is proven beyond any shade of doubt he believed there was justification. Knowing Senator Laucke as I do, 1 completely accept the sincerity of every remark . which he made. But the point I make to him is that I do . not have the same confidence which he has in the legal system as we know it to be able to reach a decision that a matter is proven beyond any shade of doubt - even beyond reasonable doubt. When one bears in mind the existence of the jury system, of newspapers and the various things which can influence people who are brought in from their ordinary jobs and put on a jury in unfamiliar circumstances - people who have probably read of the crime with which the person is charged and who have been emotionally stirred by their abhorrence of the situation - I find some difficulty in being able to accept that they could ever judge whether a matter was proven beyond any shade of doubt. That is not their charge as jurors and it is taking an impossible test which is unknown to our law. This is a matter of personal decision. My personal decision is one which I have followed and believed in for a very long time. I shall support the vote at any time for (he abolition of capital punishment in Australia or in any other place where I have any opportunity to play a part in the decision.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– It is interesting to note that the number of honourable senators opposite in the chamber trebled during the course of Senator Rae’s speech. Perhaps that was due to the fact that they, found someone with whom they agreed on this Bill whereas when Senator Withers was speaking several honourable senators opposite left the chamber and their number was reduced to 2. I have been most interested in the exercise which has taken place in this chamber this evening. We have been debating a most serious subject for 2£ hours. It was introduced into the chamber by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and presented as a very formidable and strong case by him. But when we come to debate the subject no support has been given by honourable senators opposite to their leader. There has been some indication concerning this from, I think, Senator Poyser. When the absence of any argument in favour of the Bill from honourable senators opposite was raised earlier in the debate we were told, that they were not interested in debating - they were interested in getting a vote. To me that seems to be an utterly extraordinary attitude. More than that, it seems to be a somewhat fearful attitude. In the extraordinary event of honourable senators opposite ever being in government when they come into this chamber are they going to be interested only in obtaining a vote? Are they not going to support with argument the legislation which their Party proposes for this country? Are they going to sit behind a leader who introduces a Bill and says: ‘We have brought this Bill in. We want a vote. We do not want a debate on this subject’. I believe that is a fearful and dangerous precedent which is being set by the Opposition in relation to behaviour which they may undertake if they ever become a government.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator is afraid of a vote.

Senator DURACK:

– I am not afraid of a vote.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why do you not let us take a vote?

Senator DURACK:

– Honourable senators opposite are afraid of debating. I suspect, as Senator Withers said, that they are afraid because there is a division of opinion. They are afraid that there are some among them who, if they were free to speak tonight, might oppose the Bill as, indeed, some honourable senators on this side of the House are supporting it. As I have said the Bill is of very grave concern to the whole community, but particularly grave for any of us with the responsibility of making a decision on its terms.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Did your Whip’s note say: ‘Talk for 10 minutes’?

Senator DURACK:

– I am capable of talking for any period for which I want to talk. I do not need instructions from Senator Cavanagh or anybody else on this subject. I believe I have said something of considerable importance tonight as to the attitude which the honourable senator and his colleagues have adopted to this debate and the consequences which could flow to Australia from this attitude.

I believe it is important that those who bring forward a proposal for the abolition of the death penalty should be prepared to prove their case and to present arguments which will prove it. I have read with great interest Senator Murphy’s speech. It is just as well that this afternoon I took the precaution of reading his speech otherwise I would not have known the reasons why the Bill had been introduced, unless and until 1 heard the views of Senator Carrick. But he does not have the carriage of the Bill. I was most impressed with the arguments that he advanced. From time to time I have given very earnest thought to whether capital punishment should be abolished. In other places I have taken part in debates on the subject. For many years I have held the belief that as a punishment of last resort, for reasons which I propose to deal with in a moment, it should be retained. I do favour its retention, but I must admit that in the course of listening to Senator Carrick tonight the firmness of my resolution in favouring the retention of capital punishment did waver from time to time. Despite the force of the arguments which he advanced and despite the force of the arguments advanced by Senator Murphy in his second reading speech on the Bill, I still propose to adhere to the views which I have held for some years. Therefore I will oppose the Bill in the wide and general form which it takes.

Although I would be inclined to agree with what Senator Withers said about the punishment for treason, I concede that in the vast majority of cases capital punishment is too extreme, too dangerous and too inhumane a form of punishment even for premeditated murder. I believe that in many cases of premeditated murder a sentence of life imprisonment is too extreme and loo inhumane a punishment. Therefore I was particularly interested in the approach adopted by Senator Withers to this problem. He tried to put the debate on a high and rational level. He tried to introduce into it a realm which would be well beyond the range of most members of the Opposition. He spoke of the problems relating to punishment generally. I certainly agree that the time has come when this Parliament and, I hope, other parliaments should give growing attention to all aspects of punishment. 1 deal now with 2 points which have been raised because I think they go to the nub of the arguments in favour of the abolition or the retention of capital punishment. I believe in its retention as a last resort for a reason that was dealt with at some length by Senator Murphy. In my view, he very correctly recognised the fact that some murderers are a real and continuing danger to society. Their incarceration may not prove to be a complete protection for society against them because they have a propensity to escape. It has been said that capital punishment should be retained for the protection of police and prison warders. I think that is a very powerful argument. I think the matter goes a lot further. I believe that in some cases the prisoner may escape and may repeat the crime. So long as life remains in those people society is always subject to the danger of that repetition. This is no fanciful proposition. Such cases have been known to occur. There was a case in England in the early 1950s. I think the man’s name was Stratham. It was a well known case. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) will remember it. It was particularly relevant to the question of admissibility of evidence of similar facts. This man had a propensity to murder little girls aged about 3 or 4. He was repeatedly tried, convicted and imprisoned. Every time he escaped arid every time he committed another murder of a similar character. Ultimately he was hanged.

In Western Australia there was a recent case, not quite of the same character but one on which 1 am sure Western Australian senators opposite would support me if they were allowed to speak on the subject. The circumstances of the’ case and the nature of the criminal - namely, one Eric Cooke - are different. Cooke was convicted of murder and was hanged in Western Australia in about 1965, I think. He was a multiple murderer and previously had been committing murders over a period of years. He engaged in a wild orgy of murder in the early mouths of 1963, I think. He was not detected or arrested. He committed a further murder later that year and was arrested, convicted and “ anged His criminal record, starting with cat burglary and so on over many years and ultimately ending with murder, was such that no person living in Western Australia would have had any confidence that he could have been kept incarcerated for the rest of his life. As everybody knows, life imprisonment is not for the term of a person’s natural life; it is probably only for a term of 9 or 10 years in actual fact. Nobody in Western Australia would have tolerated for one minute the thought that this man should have been at large. I am sure that nobody who knew the facts of this man’s crimes would have been prepared to accept that he could . be allowed to be at large again or would have accepted that the community was safe as long as he remained alive.

Debate interrupted.

page 654

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - 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.

Th Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Prowse)

Ayes . . . . . . 25

Noes .. , . ..21

Majority . . .. 4

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.36 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 September 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710909_senate_27_s49/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant