Senate
7 December 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2397

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I think it appropriate and proper thatI draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of Senator Magnolia Antonino, a senator of the Senate of our neighbouring nation the Republic of the Philippines, and extend to her a cordial welcome.

Honourable senators - Hear, hear!

page 2397

PETITIONS

Communications Tower on Black Mountain, Australian Capital Territory

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Post Office proposes to construct a 640-foot high solid concretetower, housingradiotelephonytelevision transmission facilities, on Black Mountain in Canberra.

That in the opinion of many responsible citizens such a tower would seriously impair the beauty of this city and is likely to lessen the value of the Black Mountain Flora and FaunaReserve.

That requests from residents of Canberra, and their parliamentary representative, for information on the technical considerations supposedly favouring a solid tower have been refused by the Australian Post Office.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should, through its standing committee on the social environment, examine whether construction of a tower of this nature on Black Mountain is in the public interest, having particular regard to the need to preserve the beauty and environmental quality of the national capital.

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

Petition received and read.

Duffy’s Forest Airport

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President of the Senate and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of supporters of the Committee to stop Duffy’s Forest airport respectfully showeth that:

There is a public controversy over the decision to establish an airport at Duffy’s Forest, situated in the metropolitan area of Sydney.

There is a strong case for the lease of 99 acres of Crown land presently being offered by the State Government of New South Wales to the Commonwealth Government for an airport site to be revoked, and that part of the Crown land which contains the Wianamatta shale cap to be preserved for all time for the people of Australia bybeing included in the boundaries of the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. If the airport is established there will be extensive damage to the ecology of natural bushland over a widespread area.

Noise pollution will have a detrimental effect over a widespread area of the suburbs surrounding the Chase.

We believe that it is essential to protect the recreational nature and peace of Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park both now and forthe future.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will at once, in the public interest, take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government revokes the lease of the Crown Land belonging to the State of New South Wales and ceases all negotiations for purchase of 37 acres of land privately owned which comprise the 136 acres necessary for the airport site and abandon the proposal to establish an airport at Duffy’s Forest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, willever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 2397

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I give notice that on the tenth sitting day after today I shall move:

That the Milk Authority Ordinance No. 23 of 1971, made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-70, be disallowed.

I ask leave to make a short statement concerning the notice whichI have given.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DEVITT:

– The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is concerned with certain aspects of this ordinance. As this is the last day for giving the notice of motion I have put the motion on the notice paper to allow the Committee more time to pursue its inquiries.

page 2397

QUESTION

THE ECONOMY

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In directing a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I refer to the statement made on televisionlast night by the Prime Minister that the state of the economy would not be an issue in the next Federal election. I ask: Does the Government really believe that the people of Australia are not concerned at increasing prices, record interest rates, the rural crisis, increasing unemployment and increasing takeovers by foreign companies of our land, our resources and our industries? 1 further ask: How can the Government hope to run away from these issues?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I did not have the advantage of seeing the television interview of the Prime Minister last night. 1 have been assured by all people who observed it that it was a magnificent performance. I do not need to embellish that statement. In fact, I believe that the message that the Prime Minister had for the people of Australia is one which they all appreciate and understand. When it is time for the next general election, the result will be an overwhelming victory for the Government.

page 2398

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry agree with the estimate made by the Prime Minister on Australian Broadcasting Commission television last night that between 11,000 and 14,000 Australian wool growers should be withdrawn from the industry? Does he also agree with the Prime Minister’s announcement that the Government has decided that it will not extend its present wool subsidy scheme or give the Australian Wool Commission unlimited authority to support the wool market? In view of the Minister’s previous answers to me does it not seem that the Prime Minister’s latest announcements are contrary to what the Minister has been saying?

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

– It is well recognised that the wool industry has many problems before it. The Government, as well as wool growers, recognise those problems. The Government has made every effort to assist the growers overcome these problems, firstly, by setting up the Australian Wool Commission with its reserve price scheme; and secondly, by the introduction for one year only of a deficiency payments scheme.

Senator Poyser:

– What about the 14,000 growers?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– There are other matters of policy which Senator Poke and other honourable senators must look at, namely, the reconstruction and rehabilitation schemes. Obviously if a reconstruction scheme is to be carried out properly, there may be some people who will leave the industry - some because they have been in it for a long time and would like to leave it with some equity, and others because they cannot make a go of the present proposition. At this stage, I do not know - no-one knows - how many people will have to leave the industry. Only recently T was asked whether I had any figures on this matter. [ indicated then that even the State governments which are conducting the reconstruction scheme have not at this stage any detailed figures that can give us an indication of how many primary producers will have to leave the land. This adds nothing contrary to what I have already said.

Senator Poyser:

– What about what the Prime Minister said?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– In due course we will see these figures, but at this stage T cannot give an indication.

page 2398

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator CARRICK:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. What were the final figures for total sales of wheat, both domestic and” export, for the year ended November 1971? What were the carry-over stocks at that date?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Recently, in reply to a question asked by the honourable senator I said that 1 thought there would be a record sale of grain this year. This has been so and, as has been announced by the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, at the end of the wheat season we had a carry-over of 126 million bushels. Altogether, we have sold 331 million bushels which is greater than the sales during the previous record year, 1966-67, of 313 million bushels. To this sale must be added the amount of wheat that we have used on the domestic market - just over 60 million bushels. The indications for the coming season are that the crop will be about 300 million bushels, of which 290 million bushels is estimated as being delivered to the Australian Wheat Board.

page 2399

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services whether the Government is aware that Australia spends only about 5½ per cent of the gross national product on social services whereas some European Economic Community countries spend about twice that percentage and Canada spends just less than twice that percentage? In view of this and the fact that it would not be inflationary, will the Government give an immediate increase of $2 a week to all pensioners?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I will convey to the Minister for Social Services the honourable senator’s last request for him to consider and to make such representations about it as he feels appropriate. However, I point out, having regard to the preamble to the honourable senator’s question, that whatever be the percentage of Australia’s gross national product which is expended on social services it is well recognised, even by those who have made studies of the Australian system and who would like to see changes in it, that Australia stands ahead of the world in having reduced the incidence of real poverty. That is one of the achievements which this Government set itself many years ago and which it has realised. It does raise other questions as to maintaining continually a level which is reasonable for people in receipt of social service benefits. Notwithstanding those problems with which the Government deals as they arise, the policy of providing assistance for those in greatest need has wrought changes in the Australian scene which, I believe, are the envy of other countries.

page 2399

QUESTION

SHARE TRADING

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister repre senting the Minister for National Development aware that Nickelfields of Australia NL is one of the latest to be added to a long list of bankrupt mining companies and that large numbers of small investors, particularly in Queensland, have lost many thousands of dollars? Will the Minister take appropriate steps to have the affairs of the company investigated immediately by the Senate Select Committe on Securities and Exchange? Will he also undertake to have called before the Committee to give evidence the former Chairman of Nickelfields, ex-Senator M. S. Scott, and a foundation director, Senator I. A. C. Wood?

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

– All I know about this matter is what I read in the newspaper, I think on Saturday. All I can do in the circumstances is to direct the question of the honourable senator to the Minister who is responsible.

page 2399

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator POYSER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. Is it a fact that ex-servicemen employed as Commonwealth public servants who have served in Vietnam arc not entitled to Commonwealth Public Service repatriation sick leave when absent from work due to injuries received while on service? If so, will the Minister bring this matter before Cabinet with a view to amending the appropriate legislation and/ or regulations to give these ex-servicemen rights equal to those enjoyed by exservicemen who served in previous wars?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I shall not bring the matter before Cabinet but I shall certainly direct the honourable senator’s query to the Minister for Repatriation and if he has any comment to make I shall provide it for the honourable senator.

page 2399

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who represents the Prime Minister in this chamber, aware that many citizens and key personnel of the wool industry have left western Queensland over the past few years to seek employment elsewhere because of the prolonged drought in that area? Is the Minister also aware that many of these people have left homes which they are unable to sell and would return to them if given employment? Will the Minister ensure that when eligibility for the special federal assistance to shire councils for unemployment grants is assessed the special circumstances of western Queensland shires will be fully considered?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIn his statement on relief of nonmetropolitan unemployment made on 2nd December, the Prime Minister indicated that he had written to the premiers proposing a scheme of grants to the States for employment-creating industries in affected non-metropolitan areas. The details of the scheme are to be determined in consultations with the States.I have no doubt that the Queensland Government is well aware of the employment situation within the various areas of the State and will be making its assessment of the situation in terms of the request of the Prime Minister. These matters will be the subject of consultations. I understand that arrangements have been made for the consultations to be held at a very early date.

page 2400

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AIR FARES

Semator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In spite of the growing intensity of competition between various airlines, including Qantas Airways Ltd, can we be assured in the face of such a fare war that airlines operating within or outside Australia will not be allowed to abdicate from plane maintenance schedules and safety codes? Will the Minister also confer with the Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities to discourage the minority of travel agents who act as touts for some charter flight operators who have had overseas a bad record of skimpy charter flight maintenance service?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The answer to both questions is yes, most certainly.

page 2400

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry recall that the Department of Trade and Industry in 1966 published a document entitled ‘Directory of Overseas Investment in Australian Manufacturing Industry’? Will he give consideration to an early revision and publication of a similar document updated to the current year?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I can remember seeing the publication to which the honourable senator referred. As he mentioned, it is now 5 years out of dale. Therefore his suggestion thatI convey his thought to the Minister for Trade and Industry is a good one. I shall send it to the Minister.

page 2400

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, or the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, relates to the Australian manufactured project N24 aircraft, the tests of which have been successful and which is to be demonstrated in Canberra tomorrow. In view of the urgent need to stimulate the Australian aircraft industry will the Minister promote this aircraft to the. Services and other Commonwealth departments which are likely to be ordering aircraft in the near future, with a view to ensuring production of this aircraft? Is the Minister able to advise whether any Commonwealth department has recently placed orders for the aircraft?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONAnswering the question as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and as the former Minister for Supply - during my time as Minister for Supply the project N concept came into some reality - I can say that the Service departments have been made very much aware of the project. The Minister for Air may wish to give a supplementary answer to the question. The system in relation to defence requirement is that there has to be a stated requirement, from the various Services. That would come through the Service portfolios to the Minister for Defence and subsequently to the Government. The projection of project N to the Services for their requirement was being done before I left the portfolio of Supply.I presume that it is continuing to be done. In certain conditions and with certain variations there could be a commercial use for the project N aircraft. I understand that this also is being developed and projected. That is all the information thatI can give as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. If the Minister for Air wishes to supplement my answer I should think that by your leave, Mr President, he would be at liberty so to do.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I support what the Minister representing the Minister for Defence has said. The Services have been made very much aware of this project. At present a defence committee, on which the Department of Defence, the Department of Supply, the Department of the Army and the Depart- ment of Air are represented is studying the project in depth and the requirements that the Service might have.

page 2401

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question. Are Australia and Pakistan still members of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation? Has the Minister seen statements by the Pakistan Government that India is the aggressor in the current conflict? Does the Government share this view? If so, will to meet its obligations under SEATO in the event of a request to do by Pakistan?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– All honourable senators would have seen the statement made by each of the conflicting parties as to charges of aggression. I remind the Senate that when Australia entered into the South East Asia Treaty Organisation agreement the then Minister for External Affairs. Mr Casey - who is now Lord Casey - on 27th October 1954 specifically stated:

I have in mind particularly the question of whether under the treaty Australia might be committed to talcing armed action in the event of a dispute between India and Pakistan. I wish to state categorically that the Australian Government would never regard itself as being committed, contractually or morally, to military action against any other member of the Commonwealth. I wish to add only that I know of no sug gestion that the SEATO Council should be convened to consider this matter. I think that the statement I have quoted puts our position beyond any possibility of doubt.

page 2401

QUESTION

RELATIONS BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND CHINA

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to statements which have been made by 2 of Australia’s delegates to the United Nations. The first was a statement by Senator O’Byrne that he has held discussions with representatives of Communist China on future relations between Australia and Communist China, and the other was a statement by Senator Turnbull that he has arranged with representatives of Communist China for a tour by parliamentarians to be held in the near future. There was the further statement by

Senator Turnbull that he understands that it is quite possible that the Australian Government will contribute to the expenses of members concerned - in spite of the state of the economy. In view of the possibility of misconception arising front their being members of the Australian delegation, 1 ask whether either of these gentlemen was negotiating on behalf of the Australian Government.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Certainly neither Senator O’Byrne nor Senator Turnbull had any authority to make any arrangement on behalf of the Australian Government in the field referred to.

page 2401

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND AIR SERVICES

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Will the Minister for

Civil Aviation investigate the Queensland coastal air service by the major airlines? The present timetable, whilst excellent for travel between Brisbane and north. Queensland ports and vice versa, severely limits travel between the Rockhampton-Mackay area and the Townsville-Cairns area. Will the Minister see whether any improvement can be made for travellers between these intermediate ports?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I shall take the honourable senator’s suggestion and consider it. The problem very often is compounded by the load factor involved and the number of passengers to be carried. All thatI can do at the moment is to have the matter checked thoroughly for the honourable senator.

page 2401

QUESTION

DEATH DUTIES

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. As it is obvious thatI shall not receive time this session to bring forward my motion to abolish death taxes, I consider it necessary to expose portion of the evidence held by me, namely, that Canada has passed legislation -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is the question? This is question time. The honourable senator has not been given leave to make a statement.

Senator NEGUS:

– I am trying to lead up to the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator must ask his question.

Senator NEGUS:

– I ask ‘ the Minister representing the Treasurer: In view of the fact - I do not know whether I may continue to put it this way-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator will resume his seat while he considers the way in which he wants to frame his question.

page 2402

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Did the report of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs recommend that insurance fund branches should be rationalised on the basis of one branch to each 50,000 subscribers? Is it a fact that only about 1 branch in 6 in Australia meets this requirement and, indeed, that 4 branches out of 5 bear a ratio to subscribers of less than half the level recommended by the report of the Senate Committee? Does the Government propose to act on this important cost saving proposal of the Senate Committee? If so, when? If not, why not?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIn response to that question I would say only that the report of the Committee is currently being examined and evaluated. I would not want to make a statement in relation to the report until I have the facts before me, because if I were to do so I would be acting prematurely.

page 2402

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. I ask whether the Minister has noted the reported results of an independent survey conducted at the University of Sydney in which it was reported that most Arts graduates do not take the course for a career? Has he noted also that 41 per cent of the people concerned had received no advice on the selection of subjects and 43 per cent of those who had received advice had regarded it as of no help? Because of the public funds involved and the importance of Australia’s education programme at the tertiary level, will the Minister make inquiries as to the effectiveness of advisory services regarding careers and will he obtain information on Arts courses at Australian universities with a view to assisting with the channelling of student ability into successful vocations? -

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have seen reference to the statement. I have seen also the cogent commentaries given by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Sydney. I think that it is a subject on which I should give the Minister an opportunity to make a considered statement. But, in the interim, I would hope that few would treat a statement of that sort other than with great scepticism. 1 believe that the study of the arts has a very wide and fundamental importance for our general student population.

page 2402

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Senator DEVITT:

– I ask the Minister for Health: Is it not a true summation of the situation to say of the national health scheme in its present form that its provisions are now so detailed, complex and imprecise as to be almost incomprehensible to the Government, the Opposition, the medical profession and the long suffering Australian public? What assurances, if any, can the Minister provide to the Parliament either that the present scheme will be made workable or that it will be scrapped and a new scheme which is both comprehensible and acceptable to the community at large will be provided in its place?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe honourable senator uses some very colourful language which I rather feel has in it the colouring of the political views to which he subscribes. The fact of the matter is that the scheme is detailed-

Senator Poyser:

– He would not do that. He would not bring politics into the Senate.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONLook, you would talk under water. I have been asked a very important question and I want to give an important answer. It is true that the scheme is detailed. It is true that it has many sides to it. But it is a scheme which is acceptable to the community at large. It is a scheme which provides insurance in respect of many aspects which have never before been included in a health proposition. That is not to say that, progressively, as the scheme develops, there will not be a reduction of detail and a shortening of procedures. But I do not subscribe, and the Government goes not subscribe, to the extravagant language posed by the honourable senator in his question about the scheme. Tt is a good scheme and it is acceptable to the Australian people.

page 2403

QUESTION

GENERAL PRACTITIONERS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– What reply can the Minister for Health give to the strong criticism in the official journal of the General Practitioners Society of his indifference to the problems of general practitioners? Did the article state that the Minister seemed to have neither the background nor the inclination to understand the views of professional men. that he had no time for the opinions of general practitioners and was unconcerned about the quality of general practitioners’ services to the public? Does the Minister agree with the President of the Society in his comment that general practitioners are frustrated and angry about the present health scheme?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

This question waa posed last week and I gave a reply last week. Indeed, i had expressed my views in the previous week on the subject of general practitioners, lt i$ (rue that an article on this subject Appears in a Sydney paper this morning. That paper must have picked up the Story thai had appeared a week before in another newspaper. Last week I gave what I thought was a very full answer to a question on this subject and 1 do nol propose to add to it now. When people come to me they put their points of view. If it happens that they do not receive the response they desire it is not

J Bally very nice behaviour to go away and blackguard the people to whom they have pui their points of view.

page 2403

QUESTION

MARIHUANA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 5 ask the Minister for Health: ls it a fact that people who have marihuana in their possession are in breach of the law? Has the Minister seen a newspaper report alleging that a member of the Australian Labor Party who is in another place held a :pot’ smoking party in his home? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a reported statement indicating that some members of the ALP advocate the legalising of ‘pot’ smoking.’ ls the Minister table to say whether the use of this so-called soft drug would lead to experimentation with more dangerous narcotics?

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order. There should not be introduced into a question asked in this House an allegation, inference or suggestion that a member of the other House has committed an offence against the law.

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot uphold the point of order. Nearly every question asked in this chamber contains allegations of a political nature. The very first question asked this afternoon by (ho Leader of the Opposition related in that way to the Prime Minister.

Senator Murphy:

– My point of order is not based on the political nature of the question, lt is based on the suggestion that a member of the other House has committed an offence against the law. That is the gravamen of the objection to the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– J will allow the question. The Leader of the Government in the Senate can answer it in terms thai will satisfy the decorum of the Senate.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– - Mr President, you have put a responsibility on me because I read the story in a journal and proceeded to have the subject processed. I have obtained a considered reply, lt is a little lengthy, but perhaps the first paragraph would ease the situation for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– lt was supposed to be a question without notice.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Speaking about questions without notice, every honourable senator who asks me a question reads it. In those circumstances it seems to me that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is not a senator here who docs not read his questions without notice.

Senator Murphy:

– That is nol so.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

It is nol true of the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Make a ministerial statement.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI will be happy to make a ministerial statement on the subject and 1 am sure that Senator Douglas McClelland will be one of those who will give mc leave to do so. I will make a ministerial statement on the matter later.

page 2404

QUESTION

ESTATE DUTY

Senator NEGUS:

- Mr President, I have rephrased my question.

The President:

– I hope that it conforms with the Standing Orders.

Senator NEGUS:

– Does the Minister representing the Treasurer know that Canada has passed legislation to abolish federal estate taxes and gift duties as from 1st January 1972? Will the Minister endeavour to have similar legislation passed in Australia at an early date?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is no.

page 2404

QUESTION

SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise recognise that textbooks for school children are an integral but expensive part of our education requirements? ls the Minister aware that on many school textbooks an import duty of 57.5 per cent is levied? On what grounds does the Government justify the imposition of duty on books used in our State or private education systems?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I direct the honourable senator’s attention to the fact that on Thursday last in the other place a similar question was asked and the Minister for Csutoms and Excise gave a detailed reply. I will not read it now. The substance of the reply is that there is a great variation in textbooks and exercise books. Many now have a joint character. I will get for the honourable senator a detailed reply at a later stage.

page 2404

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the Minister inform the Parliament why more than 1,000 Australian troops will be still stationed in Vietnam by Christmas 1971 although the Government earlier stated that, except for a handful of advisers, all Australian troops engaged in the Vietnam war would be returned to Australia before Christmas 1971?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Defence.

page 2404

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator MULVIHILL:

– 1 direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. By way of preface I point out that although the question has immigration overtones I was advised to direct it to the Leader of the Government. I ask: What influence docs the Australian Government wield in regard to the industrial relations on ships operated by the British Phosphate Commissioners? Is there any way in which we can dispense with the use of ships that operate under the Liberian Mag, which are not renowned for their high maritime industrial standards?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator prefaced his question by saying that it had been suggested to him that he should direct his question to me. I draw the inference that it is felt than an answer should be supplied by the Prime Minister’s Department. For that reason, I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Prime Minister.

page 2404

QUESTION

INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science able to say when the Government is likely to make a statement concerning the establishment of an institute of marine science at Townsville?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science expects to be able to make a statement this week on matters of education, including the matter referred to by the honourable senator.

page 2404

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator POKE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: How much notice is the Government taking of the repeated pleas from important sections of the community about the urgent need to stimulate the economy? Will the Government urgently consider the plan put forward yesterday by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia for reduced interest rates, removal of the 2i per cent personal income tax levy and reintroduction of the taxation allowance for investment in plant and machinery? Will the Government take notice of the comments by the new President of ACMA, Mr Nichols, and act to take the brakes off the economy and start the long process of restoring confidence and halting unemployment?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The Government has an obligation and a responsibility to evaluate and examine, in the light of advice available to it from other sources, the submissions put to it by any responsible group on the matter of the economy, lt would be quite wrong to suggest that the points of view put forward by a creditable body are not examined. I can assure the honourable senator that they are examined. A group of professors last week put forward certain views as to what should be done about the economy. The views of that group would be examined along with those of any other creditable body.

page 2405

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator CARRICK:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, relates to the system of referring patients from local general practitioners to medical specialists. I ask: Is it not a fact that the local general practitioner is the sole person wholly in possession of the total medical history of the patient and of the patient’s family? Is it not therefore imperative to the future health and correct medical treatment of the patient that referrals be made to specialists by general practitioners so that ail relevant case history data is brought to the attention of such specialists in order that the patient is viewed and treated as a whole person and not as some impersonalised gall bladder or sinusitis?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Yes it is true - I think ail of us would recognise this - that the family doctor, the general practitioner, usually is in possession of case histories which contain basic information concerning the medical condition of his patients. This is part of the normal procedure of general practice and of the family doctor. When a patient is referred by a general practitioner to a medical specialist, the present procedure, which has proved to be soundly based is for this to be done with the background history held by the general practitioner in mind. This adverts to a question I was asked earlier today by, I think, Senator Primmer. On 2 occasions in the last 2 weeks in reply to questions asked by honourable senators, I have made it abundantly clear categorically and without reservation that as far as I am concerned, as the Commonwealth Minister for Health, the general practiioner is the keystone of our system of medical care. I do not qualify that statement at all.

It may be useful if I reiterate that the system of referrals to specialists, as it relates to the payment of medical benefit specialist rates, is directly based on long established practices developed by the profession itself over many generations. I should add that the details of the medical benefit referral system are directly based on recommendations - and I particularly want to mention the group of people who made the recommendations for this referral system - by a .special working party which included senior representatives of the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of Surgeons, the Royal Australian College of Physicians, the Australian Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.

Senator Mulvihill:

– No patients were included.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

That is not a very relevant question.

Senator Georges:

– Yes, it is. The patients pay for the cost of the referral.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Georges is away again, Mr President. Will you stop him?

The PRESIDENT:

– I am getting tired of this point about relevancy.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe point I am making is that the general practitioners were included in this committee which was set up to develop the referral system. As I said last week, the referral system is the basis of the protection afforded for the general practitioner.

If it were not for that system there could be a bypassing of the general practitioner anda direct approach to the specialist system, and that would not accord with what is at present contained in the National Health Act.

page 2406

QUESTION

SUICIDE

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Health: In view of the large increase in the rate of suicide in Australia over the last few years, particularly amongst the 15-year to 24-year age group, will the Minister say whether any research, sponsored by the Commonwealth, into this problem is being carried out?If not, willhe attempt to institute some such research?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I would need to get more particular details from my Department. Certain areas and categories would be receiving some study. If I interpret the question fairly, I think Senator Townley is seeking detailed information on a much wider canvas. I will get the information and make it available to him at the earliest opportunity.

page 2406

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL BENEFIT FUNDS

Senator PRIMMER:

– I direct my question also to the Minister for Health. Did (the Nimmoreport recommend that open funds be obliged to limit their enrolment and collection activities to specified regions and that only one open fund be permitted to establish and maintain facilities in any one region? Does the Government support this recommendation which has profound implications in saving contributors’ money and for improving the efficiency of operation of the scheme? If so, what steps has it taken to implement this proposal and when will these steps become fully effective? If so, what steps has it taken to implement this proposal and when will these steps become fully effective? If the Government has rejected the proposition, what is the explanation?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI think that in response to a question by Senator Douglas McClelland last week I said that the Government had adopted certain aspects of the Nimmo report but had not adopted in entirety other aspects of it. That was a Government policy deci sion. It would be quite wrong to say that the Nimmo Report has been adopted in its entirety by the Government in its application of the scheme at the present time. In regard to the particular reference which the honourable senator made, that has not been adopted in its entirety. AfterI have reexamined the matter I shall be happy to give a considered reply to the question which has been posed about the extent of the application of the scheme. I shall give some background to the circumstances in which the Government policy has been made.

page 2406

QUESTION

SECURITY

Senator MULVIHILL:

– What would be the reaction of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a statement made by an honourable senator on television last night that he was concerned that there existed in the Department of Foreign Affairs a cell of people whom he defined as ‘liberals with a small I?’ Does the Minister regard this situation as a threat to our security?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I think it would be prudent of me to reserve comment until I sec the context in which the statement should be considered.

page 2406

QUESTION

REFUGEE AID

(Question No. 1536)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What proportion of the first $l.5m donated by the Australian Government for refugee air in India was expended on (a) freight and (b) other administration charges.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. and (b) All accounts have not yet been received In respect of the first $l.5m which the Commonwealth Government provided for emergency relief for refugees in India, but of the total of $1.24m which had been paid by 30 October 1971 freight accounted for $225,000, or 18.1. per cent, while other administration charges accounted for $7,200. or 0.58 per cent.

page 2406

QUESTION

SEAT BELTS: SALES TAX

(Question No. 1537)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Is sales tax payable on seat bells installed in motor vehicles: if so, will the Treasurer give favourable consideration to its abolition in view of the fact that in many States the wearing of seat belts is now compulsory.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

Seat belts designed for the protection of persons in motor vehicles are exempt from sales tax. The exemption is effective whether the seat belts are fitted by the vehicle manufacturer in the course of production of vehicles or are purchase separately by a vehicle owner for installation at a later stage.

page 2407

QUESTION

REFUGEE AID

(Question No. 1541)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Will the second grant of $1.5m, made available by the Australian Government for relief of refugees in India, be given by way of cash grant.
  2. How much of this sum is, in fact, an emergency grant and what proportion would normally have been available for refugee relief under existing international arrangements for under-developed countries.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

  1. Of the $1.5m in question some $250,000 will take the form of a cash grant. The honourable Senator is referred to the Ministerial Statement which the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs made on 5th October 1971 regarding East Pakistani Refugees (see pages 1863-1964 of Hansard for the House for the House of Representatives) for details as to the form in which the balance of this aid will be provided.
  2. AH of this aid is additional to that which would have been provided to India and Pakistan bad the emergency not arisen.It includes $985,000 worth of rice which will be debited against Australia’s commitment under the Food Aid Convention of the International Wheat Agreement, to provide 225,000 metric tons of wheat (or flour equivalent) costing roughly $12m as food aid to developing countries in 1971-72 and each of the 2 following years. Where circumstances make this appropriate, as in this case, rice may be substituted for wheat. Allocations under the Food Aid Convention are not fixed in advance and can, of course, be devoted to emergency relief for refugees or other national disasters, should the need arise. The remaining $515,000 (as well as the further increase of $2. 5m in such aid announced on 27th October) will be financed from a new appropriation additional to any emergency relief for developing countries which would normally have been made available tthis year.

page 2407

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT

(Question No. 1539)

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. How many returned servicemen from Vietnam applied for, and received, loans under the War Service Land Settlement Scheme.
  2. How many such applicants have, (a) been allocated the full amount of $6,000, (b) received a part loan, and (c) been refused a loan.
  3. What is the total amount loaned to servicemen who served in Vietnam.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

The honourable senator’s question is understood to relate to rural loans made available under the Defence (Re-establishment) Act to national servicemen. The answer to his question is as follows:

and (2) The number of applications for rural loans from discharged national servicemen who served in Vietnam is 328. Of these applications, 97 have either been withdrawn or have lapsed. Sixty applications did not meet the conditions laid down under the Act and hence have not been approved. A total of 104 applicants have received the full amount of $6,000 by way of loan. Eight applicants have received loans of less than $6,000. A further 12 applications have been approved for the full loan of $6,000 and the monies are in the course of being paid to the former national servicemen concerned. Forty-seven applications are currently under consideration.

$659,723.

The total number of applications from discharged national servicemen for rural loans under the Defence (Re-establishment) Act exceeds 650.

page 2407

QUESTION

BRITISH MIGRANTS: ASSISTED PASSAGES

(Question No. 1593)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Acting Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Does the Postmaster-General’s Department effectively co-operate with the Department of Immigration in the selection of British migrants who are eligible for assisted passages; if so, what is the explanation for allegations made by Mr Richard Stanley and reported in ‘The Herald’ of 30th September 1971.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

Where specific recruitment is involved, primarily professional classes, there is close co-operation between the Department of Immigration and the Postmaster-General’s Department and also the Public Service Board representative in London.

However, Mr Stanley when he wrote in February, 1970 to Australia House inquirying about migration procedures and employment prospects in the Post Office was concerned about work opportunities as a postman. He did indicate at the timehe had experience as a porter and driver also.

In these circumstancesthe Australian Post Office representative in London suggested that Mr Stanley might write direct to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in Melbourne and on 26th March. 1970 that Department in Melbourne informed him of the terms and conditions of employment for postal staff and indicated that these positions are filled on a day, to day basis by persons who make application in person to the Staffemployment Officer.’ It was suggested he contact the Staff Employment Officer on his arrival in Melbourne so that his suitability for employment could be determined.

Despite this the report in ‘The Herald’ referred to Mr Stanley’s claim (bat he and his family would never have left England if they had known their fate in Melbourne’.

Mr Stanley and his family arrived in Melbourne on 1st May, 1971 and the Postmaster-General’s Department has informed the Department of Immigration that they cannot locate any record of Mr Stanley, having called to apply for work in the Post Office. He registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service on 3rd May and was offered two positions, both of which he declined. Subsequently, on 24th May, he found employment with A.C.I., where he is still employed.

page 2408

QUESTION

WOOL

(Question No. 1604)

Senator POKE:

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

  1. Did the Director of the Finance and General Services Section of the Department of Primary Industry, Mr C. M. Beer, state that the Federal Government will be asked to provide several million dollars to ‘bail out’ the Australian Wool Commission in 1971?
  2. Has the Australian Wool Commission stockpiled 700.000 bales of wool worth more than $70m?
  3. Does the statement by Mr Beer support Sir Norman Giles who described the $30m subsidy to wool growers as a ‘social service hand-out at the expense of the taxpayers’?
  4. Can the Minister reconcile these statements with the reply he gave to a question on 3rd November 1971, wherein he stated that a sum of just over $20m had been actually paid to woolgrowers?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. No.

    1. The stocks of wool at present held by the Commission as announced by theActing Chairman of the Commission to the meeting of the Australian Wool Industry Conference on 25th November 1971 are 782,000 bales.
    2. No.
    3. The honourable senator’s question on 3rd November 1971 raised the matter of the emergency assistance grant to woolgrowers made in the financial year 1970-71, and the reply, given was directed to that matter. The 1970-71 emergency grant bad nothing to do with the Australian Wool Commission and hence no question of conflicting statements arises.

page 2408

QUESTION

MIGRANT EDUCATION

(Question No. 1664)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What agreement has the Department of Immigration withthe New South Wales Railways Department relating to the provision of facilities under the Adult Migrant Education Programme.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The Department of Immigration has no agreement with the New South Wales Railway Department relating to the provision of facilities under the Adult Migrant Education Programme.

However, 2 English classes for migrants were conducted at the Chullora railway workshops from February to September this year when both classes had to be closed because attendances had fallen well below the acceptable level.

These evening classes were arranged by the Adult Migrant Education Branch of the New South Wales Department of Education, which is responsible for arranging such classes under the 1951 Commonwealth-State Agreement on Adult Migrant Education.

page 2408

QUESTION

CENTURION TANKS

(Question No. 1692)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence upon notice:

Were Australian Centurion tanks transported from South Vietnam to Australia on the Japanese vessel ‘Harima Maru’? If so, why was a Japanese vessel used.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Australian Army’s Centurion tanks were returned from Vietnam on the Japanese vessel Harima Maru’. The ‘Harima Maru’, which has already been on charter to the Commonwealth Government for other purposes, and which is fitted with suitable heavy lift gear became available at the time required to move the tanks, and her charter was extended for this purpose. No other vessel with suitable lifting equipment was available at the time.

page 2409

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1713)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Are there other Chilean migrants at the Villawood Migrant Hostel, apart from those mentioned in Department of Immigration News Release 48/71, who are experiencing difficulties in obtaining employment due to non-recognition of their professional qualifications?
  2. Is the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications examining the position before it becomes more serious, having regard to the increasing numbers of migrants arriving in Australia from South America?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. From his reference to News Release 48/71 by the Minister for Immigration I assume that the honourable senator is referring to Mr Silva.Mendoza and his family.

I have to say at the outset that he was informed at the time of interview that he would need to undertake further study before his qualifications could be recognised in Australia. He was accepted for migration as a semi-skilled process worker and it was in fact as such that he has been employed in Australia.

There are no Chilean migrants at Villawood Migrant Hostel experiencing employment difficulties because of the non-recognition of their professional qualifications.

  1. Information about professional qualifications gained in South American countries from which migrants come to Australia is being collected by the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications in the same way as is being done in regard to qualifications obtained in other migrant source countries.

Professionally qualified migrants from South American countries may have their qualifications and employment prospects assessed in Australia before they leave their countries. Those who prefer not to make use of the service provided are fully counselled on the unlikelihood of their qualifications being recognised in Australia and the difficulties they will therefore encounter in securing employment satisfactory to them.

page 2409

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 27lh October 1971 Senator Georges asked me the following question:

I ask the Minister for Works a question. If. as he states, the rates for plant operators in Papua

New Guinea are so well known will he kindly give that information to the Senate as I asked in. my previous question? If he does not know the exact amount that is paid, will ‘he give some- idea of what percentage or proportion of the wagespaid to other employees is paid to indigenes?

The answer is as follows:

Local plant operators’ wage rates range from $13.80 a week to $23 a week and those for expatriate plant operators employed by the Department of Works from $60.10 to $76.20 a week. Actual wage rates are dependent on the type of machine and length of service. A family needs allowance is payable to a married local employee whose basic salary is less than the prescribed minimum pay applicable to the locality at which he is stationed. The allowance is paid on. a scale according to the size of the employee’s family and the costs of a regimen of minimum living needs. For example a local employee with a wife and two children stationed in Port Moresby is paid family needs allowance to raise his basic salary to $16.48 a week. Expatriate plant operators are paid an industry allowance of $4.50 a week, an attraction allowance of 95c a week and district allowance of $12.45 a week (married man) or $7.65 (single man). The wages and allowances paid to these operators are in accordance with the Commonwealth Public Service Board’s External Territories Determination.

page 2409

QUESTION

GRASS SEED

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 26th October 1971 Senator Webster asked me the following question:

My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and industry, ls the Minister aware of the growing concern among Australian producers of grass teed that importations of seed into Australia are creating a’ depressed market for local production? Is the Minister aware that grass seed is basically unrestricted in its volume of imports into Australia and that in general no duty applies to its Importation, the only restriction being that seed must’ receive a certification by officers of the Department of Primary Industry? Will the Minister investigate allegations of the dumping, of seed, particularly of perennial rye grass, from the 3 main exporters of seed to Australia, and will he’ assure Australian producers that the Government will not countenance them being harmed in this way?

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

Representations have recently been m:,de hy the local grass seed industry concerning the effect import competition is having on the industry. The representations are currently being processed in the normal manner. Imports of grass seeds, including rye grass seeds, into Australia in 1970- 71 totalled 5.2 million lb, and have declined in each year since 1967-68 when they W: 1 14.2 million lb. In 1970-71 imports of rye grass seeds, were 1.9 million lb having declined since I9A7-68 when they totalled 8.7 million lb. In 1968-69. 1969-70 and 1970-71 imports of rye grass seeds from New Zealand were 4.9, 3.6 and 1.8 million lb respectively.I understand however that the industry is not only concerned with actual imports but also at the prices at which imports are being offered. The Minister for Trade and Industry has been informed that local seed producers have requested the Department of Customs and Excise to consider anti-dumping action on imports of pasture seeds at dumped prices. These matters will be investigated by the Department of Customs and Excise. The Minister for Trade and Industry has asked his Department to keep him informed on the outcome of these investigations.

page 2410

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On l1th

November 1971 Senator Young asked me the following question:

I direct my question to the Minister represent ing the Postmaster-General, and I ask it following the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment in relation to telephone directories. Will the Minister request the PostmasterGeneral to incorporate all country telephone directories into one country directory for the convenience of both rural and city, people, at the same time as he puts into effect the recommendations of the Standing Committee?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

The recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on the Social Environment on the presentation of telephone directory information pages are being studied by my Department. As a first step, it is proposed to incorporate a number of recommendations in the next issue of the Canberra directory which is scheduled for publication early in 1972.

The practicability of issuing one telephone directory in each State to cover all country areas has already been examined, but has been decided against because of an extensive study of telephone usage has indicated that most subscribers calling habits are such that they have a need only for a directory, covering their own local area. The cost of producing a State-wide country directory would therefore be out of all proportion to the benefit such a book would be to the majority of telephone users. However, where telephone directories are issued in a number of books to replace a former one covering a larger area, it is normal practice, where a subscriber has a need for a directory covering an area formerly included in his directory, to issue one, free of charge, upon request.

page 2410

IMPRISONMENT OF VALENTYN MOROZ

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONOn 9th September Senator Little asked me a series of questions without notice relating to the reported imprisonment of Valentyn

Moroz in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Prime Minister has provided the following reply:

The Government has no official information on this matter. It would not consider it appropriate to act on the honourable senator’s suggestion. The Government receives a great many representations from individuals and groups concerning policies of the Soviet Union. These representations may have included requests along the lines mentioned by the honourable senator, but the Government does not consider it appropriate to divulge the contents of letters it has received or to engage in the research involved in obtaining a comprehensive list of the subjects discussed in them. The Government’s policy in relation to cultural and sporting exchanges between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been clearly staled.

page 2410

QUESTION

GOLD MINING INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1254)

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer give further urgent consideration to the plight of the gold mining industry with a view to preventing the imminent closure of the few remaining gold mines in production.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

The Government has the situation of the gold mining industry under active consideration in view of representations that have been made about changes in circumstances since the decision to extend without alteration the provisions of the Gold-mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1968.

page 2410

QUESTION

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

(Question No. 1370)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

What mechanism exists within the Department of Trade and Industry to evaluate new technological developments and advise industry of their potential usefulness in Australia.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The Government’s policy is to support and encourage through the activities of bodies such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Supply and the CSIRO, a greater technological capacity and awn renew in Australian industry which will enable manufacturers to actively seek out new technology and properly evaluate it. Generally speaking manufacturers themselves are best placed to judgethe suitability of new technological developments for their own particular operations. However, both the Department of Supply and the CSIRO have facilities for obtaining information on new technology and they actively assist a wide range of industries by bringing new technology to the attention of industries and assisting in adapting it to industries’ needs.

page 2411

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

(Question No. 1421)

Senator GIETZELT:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister, when he was the Minister for Foreign Affairs some 11 months ago, describe the decision of the Italian Government to recognise the People’s Republic of China as unfortunate.
  2. Does the Government’s decision to cosponsor the resolution seeking the admission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations Organisation mean that the Government has changed its attitude towards China, or has pressure been applied on the Australian Government by the United States of America to support their current policy towards the People’s Republic of China.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2)I assume that the honourable senator is referring to a Press report in the ‘Canberra Times’ on 7th November 1970 which concerned recognition. The Government’s views on this have been stated on a number of occasions andI have made it clear that it is our long term objective to normalise our bilaceral relations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China. This and other Government decisions on China policy, which have been made clear in public statements by myself and other members of the Government, have reflected changes in the international situation. As regards the alternative part of question (2), the answer is no.

page 2411

QUESTION

INSURANCE

(Question No. 1432)

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has the Treasurer’s attention been drawn to the comments of Mr Daryl Dawson, the inspector appointed to inquire into the affairs of the defunct East Australian Insurance Company Limited, that the provisions of the Victorian Insurance Act were completely inadequate to afford any reasonable protection to policy holders who deal with a newly established insurance company dealing in the comprehensive insurance of motor vehicles.
  2. Has the Treasurer also read Mr Dawson’s opinion that this is, for constitutional reasons, a problem which is probably more appropriately the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government than of State Governments.
  3. Will promised Commonwealth legislation regulating the insurance industry be introduced during the current session of Parliament.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

  1. and (2) Yes. However, it may be noted that Mr Dawson’s criticism was directed to the provisions of the Insurance Act 1932-1966 which is a Commonwealth and not a Victorian Act. The failure of the East Australian Insurance Company Limited was one of the developments which led to the decision announced by the former Prime Minister on 8th September 1970 that the Commonwealth would legislate for closer supervision of general (non-life) insurance companies.
  2. In response to a similar question asked in another place on 6th October 1971, the Acting Treasurer said that every endeavour will be made to have a Bill introduced during the current session,

page 2411

QUESTION

HOUSING INTEREST RATES

(Question No. 1528)

Senator TOWNLEY:

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

  1. Does the sudden increase in the rates of interest on contracts involving the purchase of a house often impose a severe burden on the purchaser.
  2. Will the Government give consideration to the exemption of such contracts from any increases in interest rates that may occur.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Government has no power to control the terms of private mortgage contracts. Because the main lending institutions depend on withdrawable deposits or share capital for their supply of loanable funds they would be likely to lose funds, and so reduce their capacity to lend, if interest rates offered were not raised in harmony with rises in the general level of interest rates. The terms of most private housing loans provide for interest rate variation so that increases in rates paid on deposits and share capital may be offset by rises in interest charged to individual borrowers. An immediate burden on the borrower may be avoided by, lengthening the period of the loan. On the other hand variability of interest rates allows persons who borrow when interest rates are high to share in the benefits of interest rate reductions.

page 2411

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

(Question No. 1558)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Do Australian Government records show that 2.12 million kangaroo skins were exported to the United States during the period 1966-1970, and do United States statistics reveal that 3.76 million kangaroo skins were imported from Australia during the same period: if so, what is the reason for the discrepancy in these import/export figures.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The table below shows details of Australia’s exports to the United States of America of undressed kangaroo and wallaby fur skin, measured by ‘number of skins’, for the years 1966-67 to 1969-70 and United States imports from Australia of raw or cured kangaroo or wallaby skins, measured by ‘pieces’ and by ‘pounds weight’, for the calendar years 1967 to 1970.

As can be seen from the table, throughout the period there is a difference of only 47,410 between the number of skins exported to the United States of America and the number of pieces’ imported from Australia. One reason for this difference is to be found in the fact that the Bureau of Census and Statistics figures relate to financial years while the United States Department of Commerce statistics relate to calendar years.

page 2412

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1611)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Acting Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Why was Mr Joseph not given the reason for the refusal to grant him an assisted passage to Australia when the reason has been given to the Senate?
  2. Will the Minister consider some relaxation of the present policy regarding assisted passages which is prejudicial to non-Europeans, as this must lead to international criticism of Australia?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. It has been the normal practice since the inception of assisted passage migration in the post-war period not to disclose to applicants the reason in the event of an application for assisted passage being refused. The Government reserving the right to withhold the reason is stated clearly in a prominent footnote to the form of application completed by the applicant. The explanation given by the Acting Minister to a question without notice on the policy that appliesinthis respect is not seen asinconsistent with the practice of not providing the reason to individual applicants.
  2. It is not intended that there should be any variation in the present policy that as a general rule assisted passages are granted only to people of European descent and that it would be illogical to promote by financial assistance migration which is essentially limited or restricted by the policy of successive Governments.

page 2412

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

(Question No. 1647)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen the Darwin Conservation Society paper entitled ‘The Uranium Province National Park Suggested Control Over Mining’ dated 19th July 1971?
  2. Was the paper evaluated in relation tothe proclamation of the Top End National Park and other potential national park areas?
  3. Has consideration been giventothe resumption of the 3 cattle grazing properties purchased by Mineral Securities (Australia) Ltd originally for the purpose of adding them to Northern Territory national park acreage?
  4. When does the Minister intend to make a decision on the size of the Top End National Park?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The paper was fully appreciated when proposals for the Top End National Park were considered.
  3. No.
  4. As announced by the Minister for the Interior on 1st October, the situation will be reviewed at the end of 1973.

page 2412

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE ACT

(Question No.1682)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

What have been the numbers of prosecutions for offences under the National Service Actfor each year since 1966 and the results of such prosecutions in respect to (a) failure to register, (b) failure to attend a medical examination and (c) failure to obey a call-up notice.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senators question is as follows:

  1. (b) and (c) Statistics of prosecutions for the three offences are set out in the following table. The figures for the current year 1971-72 areup to 24th November 1971.

page 2413

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister lor Works · Tasmania · LP

– Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1901- 1970, I present the fifteenth annual report of the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13th August 1971.

page 2413

METRIC CONVERSION BOARD

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the Metric Conversion Act 1970-1971, I present the first report of the Metric Conversion Board for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2413

TOLUENE AND XYLENE

Tariff Board Report

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civial Aviation · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a Tariff Hoard report on toluene and xylene, under the Dumping and Subsidies Act, dated 7th September 1971.

page 2413

FRUIT INDUSTRY SUGAR CONCESSION COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to clause8 of the Sugar Agreement 1969,

I present the report on the operation of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee Cor the period ended 30th June 1971, together with the Committee’s financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 2413

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

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

– by leave - I wish to deal with notices of motion Nos 1 to 7 and I should like to make a statement of what I propose. I understand that there is common agreement that notices of motion Nos 3, 4. 5 and 7 should be made orders of the day for the first day of sitting in 1972.

Senator Murphy:

– That is correct.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– In the absence of any indication of assent from the Australian Democratic Labor Party, if that is the understanding,I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI understand that the attitude of the Opposition and the Australian Democratic Labor Party on notices of motion Nos 1, 2 and 6 is that they should be referred to the respective Committees mentioned. The Government does not support these proposals. We do not see any great purpose in having a protracted debate on these 3 issues. The understanding is that the Senate will vote separately on each of these notices. The Government will say ‘no’ on motions No. 1 and No. 2, but each will be carried on the voices. When the Senate comes to notice of motion No. 6, the Government again will say ‘no’ and will call for a division. We hope that the Government will win the division. I wish to establish the fact that we will have one vote and that that one vote will be indicative of our view in relation to notices of motion Nos 1, 2 and 6.

Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts the following matter - The position of and provision for deprived schools (a deprived school being a school in the inner urban or rural areas providing primary education, in which a high proportion of the school population is disadvantaged through background and/or environment), with a view to financial aid to the States to permit the recognition of such schools as special schools warranting a more liberal scale in staffing, equipping and servicing.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs the following matter - The law and administration of divorce, custody and family matters, with particular regard to oppressive costs, delays, indignities and other injustices.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) put:

That, consistent with the Resolution of the Senate of 30th March 1971, which referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the continuing oversight of the problems of pollution, including ways and means of preserving the environment, the Senate refers to that Committee the following matter:

  1. An inquiry into the Clutha Project in order to ascertain to what extent in that project:

    1. the operations of any foreign corporation or any trading or financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth;
    2. the use of territory subject to the control of the Commonwealth;
    3. the export of coal; or
    4. operations which can be the subject of Commonwealth legislation or administration, may constitute or contribute to a problem of pollution or affect the environment.
  2. The Committee is requested to recommend, on or before 30th September 1972, what legislative and administrative measures should be taken by the Commonwealth to preserve the environment and to prevent pollution by the Clutha Project.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus

Cormack)

AYES: 28

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2414

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to certain recommendations made by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development and agreed to by that House. The Select Committee on Constitutional Development was set up by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly on 24th June 1969. Its task was to draft a set of constitutional proposals as a guide for future constitutional development in Papua New Guinea. The Committee presented three interim reports, and made its final report to the House of Assembly on 4th March 1971. Both the final report, and the third interim report presented on 3rd September 1970, contained recommendations for constitutional change. The Committee’s recommendations were adopted by the House on 1 1th March 1971, with the exception of the proposed name of ‘Nuigini’, which was later amended, and the drafting of a bill of rights, which was deferred.

The recommendations of the Select Committee were outlined in a statement by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) dated 27th April 1971, a copy of which was tabled in the Senate on the same day. This statement indicated that the Government had accepted these recommendations. As a result, the Government is now preparing a programme for movement to full internal self-government in the period 1972-1976. The execution of this programme will have regard to the state of opinion as it develops after the 1972 House of Assembly elections and to the policies of the political leaders who then emerge.

The Government also placed before the Parliament in May 1971 amendmentsto the Papua and New Guinea Act which gave effect to the Select Committee’s recommendations on changes in the elected representation in the House of Assembly. Theamendment to the Papua and New Guinea Act at that time provided for the recommended increases in the number of open and regional electorates for the House of Assembly from 69 to 82 and from 15 to 18 respectively, and was introduced iti advance of the present proposals to allow the necessary electoral redistribution to be carried out before the elections for the 1972-1976 House or Assembly in February-March 1972.

In the Minister’s statement of 27*h April 1971 he referred to a further group of recommendations which would be the subject of later amending legislation. These I will deal with now. One recommendation in this group is for a change in the name of the Territory. The Select Committee recommended the name ‘Niugini’. This was rejected by the House, and at a later sitting the House unanimously adopted a private member’s motion that the word ‘and’ be deleted from ‘Papua and New Guinea’. The Territory would be then known as Papua New Guinea’. Clause 5 of the Bill provides thai the Territory of Papua and the Territory of New Guinea shall be together described in the Act, and in other laws and instruments, as ‘Papua New Guinea’ rather than the ‘Territory of Papua and New Guinea’ and other amendments also effect this change of name.

Clause 10 of the Bill gives effect to recommendations on the composition of the Administrator’s Executive Council, lt will be composed of the Administrator. 10 Ministers and 3 official members. The effect of this change is to add 3 Ministers to the 7 previously in the Council and to eliminate Ihe one member previously nominated by the Administrator without reference to the House of Assembly. The 17 Ministers of Ihe House of Assembly will choose one of their number to be the Deputy Chairman of the Administrator’s Executive Council, this choice to be approved by the House of Assembly. Although nominated members of the House of Assembly may be appointed as Ministers, not more than 2 such members may be members of the Administrator’s Executive Council.

The Select Committee report was silent on the method of choosing the Ministers to sit on Ihe Administrator’s Executive Council, with the exception of the Deputy Chairman. The Bill provides that this will be a mailer for the Minister for External

Territories to determine on the advice of the Administrator, who will consult the Deputy Chairman. The Minister for External Territories proposes, in addition, to consult with the Deputy Chairman through the Administrator in the allocation of the portfolios to the Ministers, and in any subsequent changes in portfolios that may be necessary. These provisions will give the Deputy Chairman an important part in the selection of members of the Administrator’s Executive Council and in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities. Clauses 12-15 deal with Ministers and ministerial offices.

In its third interim report of September 1970 the Select Committee recommended that the offices of ministerial member and assistant ministerial member be abolished and replaced by up to 17 offices of Ministers of the House of Assembly of such respective designations as the Minister for External Territories from time to- time determines.’ The titles ‘ministerial member’ and ‘assistant ministerial member’ were used because the office holders did not when first appointed in 1968 exercise full executive authority or take final decisions in respect of their areas of responsibility. However, since August 1970 all ministerial office holders have exercised final responsibility in respect of a wide range of governmental matters specified in the arrangements approved under section 25 of the Papua and New Guinea Act. The change of name therefore reflects a change of function already introduced. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for the replacement of the offices of ministerial member, and assistant ministerial member, with up to 17 offices of Minister of the House of Assembly.

The Select Committee recommended that the House of Assembly should, after the next elections, be composed of not less than 104 members and not more than 107 members, as follows: 18 persons elected by the people to represent regional electorates; 82 persons elected by the people to represent open electorates; up to 3 nominated members, nominated by the House of Assembly for special purposes; and 4 official members, appointed by the GovernorGeneral on the Administrator’s nomination; and clause 16 of the Bill so provides. The recommended increase in the elected membership from 84 to 100 was provided for in the amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act earlier this year and these provisions are merely reenacted now. At the time of the earlier amendment no change was made in the number of official members in the House nor was provision made for nominated members.

Another of the Committee’s recommendations is the creation of not more than 3 positions of nominated member of the House of Assembly which is provided for under clause 17 of the Bill. The inclusion of non-elected nominated members in the House is a new concept in Papua New Guinea but there is a widespread feeling in Papua New Guinea of the need to provide a means for the representation of special groups, for example, women, or persons having a special expertise, in the legislature. As recommended by the Committee the Bill provides for the House to decide itself whether these positions should be filled. A two-thirds vote of the total members of the House is required to agree to the setting up of a 7-man committee of the House to choose the nominated member or members. When the committee, in consultation with the Administrator, has chosen a person or persons, its choice must be endorsed by a simple majority of the members of the House present and voting. The committee would cease to operate after it had chosen the person or persons concerned. The procedure of selecting nominated members is similar to the existing method of selecting ministerial office holders.

The Bill also sets out in clauses 17 to 19 the conditions of eligibility for nominated members. To qualify for appointment as a nominated member, a person must have lived in Papua New Guinea for not less than 5 years. A defeated candidate at the general elections for the House to which members are to be nominated is not eligible for nomination. Should a nominated member chosen by the committee be a public servant or a holder of a statutory office he must resign his position to accept appointment. Once a person has accepted nomination to the House, he will hold office on the same basis as if he were an elected member of the House. These provisions accord with the recommendations of the Select Committee.

The Committee’s recommendation to create the positions of nominated member arose in conjunction with its wish to. reduce the number of official members in the House from 10 to 4, who are appointed by the Governor-General on the nomination of the Administrator. The reduction in the number of official members from 10 to 4 is effected by clause 16 of the Bill and is in keeping with the responsibilities of ministerial office holders. Four official members remain to ensure that Government business regarding matters still under the control of the Commonwealth is introduced in the House, and to explain Commonwealth Government matters to the members.

The other clauses of the Bill are of a machinery nature and arise from the creation of the position of Deputy Chairman, the change in name and the provisions for nominated members and Ministers of the House of Assembly. Clause 27 of the Bill validates the National Identity Ordinance 1971 to remove beyond doubt the validity of that legislation. On 18th June 1971, the House of Assembly made the National Identity Ordinance 1971 which provides, among other things, for the name of the administrative union of the Territory of Papua and the Territory of New Guinea to be known as Papua New Guinea. As the name for the administrative union is provided for under the Papua and New Guinea Act the National Identity Ordinance, insofar as it purports to alter the name, could be invalid. Likewise publication of notices in the Papua New Guinea Government Gazette could be ineffective. This validation clause has therefore been inserted to remove all possible doubt.

The purpose of the Bill, as I have indicated to honourable senators, is to give effect to the remaining recommendations of the House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development as approved by that House. The amendments contained in this Bill give legislative effect to the request by the House of Assembly for changes in the constitutional framework for Papua New Guinea. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 2417

DRIED VINE FRUITS STABILIZATION BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · West ern Australia · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to implement a scheme for the stablisation of returns to dried vine fruits growers for a period of 5 years commencing with the 1971 crop. The scheme to which this Bill and the associated Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971 now seek to give legislative expression has been overwhelmingly supported by a referendum of growers recently conducted by the Commonwealth. The degree of rank and file support is evidenced by the voting figures. Of the 5,004 growers enrolled 4,616 or 92 per cent cast their votes: and of these 4,560 or 98 per cent voted in favour of the scheme offered by the Government. It is therefore with considerable pleasure that I bring down on behalf of the Government legislation so obviously desired by the industry.

To assist honourable senators to appreciate what the scheme contained in this legislation means to the industry I would propose to look briefly at the history of the industry over the last decade. In the 1961- 62 season world prices for dried vine fruits fell to a catastrophic low. In the light of the then circumstances representatives of the various countries which exported dried vine fruits came together and, as a result, the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement was achieved in June 1963, largely through the efforts of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board and particularly through the efforts of its then Chairman, Sir Eugene Gorman. The original signatories to the Agreement were Turkey, Greece and Australia - Australia participated at industry level with the endorsement of the Australian Government - and while the United States was not a signatory it adhered from the outset to the terms of the Agreement in every way. The imple mentation of the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement had an impact on world prices which picked up remarkably and the Australian industry was further helped by the implementation of a stabilisation scheme which covered the seasons 1964 to 1968 inclusive. This scheme was introduced by the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Act 1964 and auxiliary legislation following acceptance of the scheme by a majority of growers at a referendum. The Government made it a condition of this stabilisation scheme that in its closing stages and, if the Government were willing to continue the scheme, another ballot should be taken to determine whether growers wished its continuation - with or without amendment - for a further period.

In the event negotiations with industry leaders were opened by the Government towards the end of the former plan and in March 1970, a further plan was submitted to a referendum of growers but was not accepted by the industry. This plan, if accepted, was to have had retrospective application to embrace the 1969 season and to obtain for 5 years from and including that season. Of the 3,745 growers of sultanas, raisins and currants who registered to vote only 2,437 voted. Of these 1,578 recorded ‘yes’ and 859 ‘no’. Of those voting therefore 65 per cent favoured the plan but, since the criterion for the acceptance of the plan was that there should be a majority of those eligible to vote and since those who vote ‘yes’ represented only 42 per cent of all eligible voters, no mandate for the plan was in effect given to the Government. Within a matter of weeks only of the industry failing to accept the offer of a new plan there came news ofthe generally unexpected possibility of the collapse of the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement. It has been argued by some responsible industry leaders that had the referendum been held no more than 2 or 3 weeks later than it actually was the deteriorating circumstances of the industry which developed might well have brought a completely different result to the referendum. This can of course be regarded only as a matter of personal judgment but it might well be argued that the overwhelming ‘yes’ vote at the recent referendum, held only 18 months after the earlier poll, does give support to this viewpoint.

In April 1970, only weeks after the referendum was held, a delegation from the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board, including a senior officer from the Department of Primary Industry who is the Government representative on the Board, rushed to London at very short notice for an emergency meeting of the parties to the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement. World prices for dried vine fruits were falling dramatically and some of the sales practices of member countries were being fiercely challenged by other members. Further meetings of the parties followed - in Madrid in June 1970, in Capetown in November 1970. and in April of this year in London. It was obvious at the conclusion of this London meeting that the Internationa! Sultana (Raisin) Agreement which had been achieved in 1963 was finished and there was no chance of its surviving, certainly in its then form. In June of this year, representatives of the signatory countries, which had included South Africa from 1970, met for the last time as parties to the Agreement and formally resolved it out of existence. The only ray of light at all in this matter is the fact that the parties have agreed upon the likelihood of their coming together in June of next year to review the events of the 12 months which will have passed by then without international agreement.

During its lifetime the conferences held under, the Agreement were all chaired by Mr Setrakian of the United States of America which is the world’s largest producer of dried vine fruits and which, as explained previously, while not a signatory to the Agreement faithfully adhered to its terms during its lifetime. In a letter which Mr Setrakian wrote to the General Manager of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board at the beginning of last year he said:

I fully agree with you when you say that unless some miracle or strong action is taken it looks as though the Agreement is finished. I think you will agree that the death of the Agreement will, using the words of Eugene Gorman, impose upon the sultana and raising producers all over the world incalculable economic harm. Unless the position is corrected the whole Agreement could well collapse and in a good year we could see prices tumble to 1961-62 levels.

Events have now caught up with the prophesies of Mr Setrakian; the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement has collapsed and world prices are down around the 1962 catastrophic levels.

Late last year the Board of Management of the Australian Dried Fruits Association, known generally as the ADFA, made a submission seeking to re-open with the Commonwealth negotiations for a further stabilisation scheme for this industry. The scheme which has just been so overwhelmingly accepted by the industry is the outcome of those discussions. The framework of the scheme and its machinery are broadly the same as in the 1964-68 scheme although there are one or two new features to which I will make specific reference later. It has been estimated that the cost of the scheme to the Commonwealth over the 5 years of its life and under such conditions as can be anticipated now will be of the order of $6m.

The principal features of the scheme may be summarised as follows:

Separate funds will be maintained for currants, sultanas and raisins.

An average overall base price for the first season of the plan, 1971, of $273 a ton will be adopted. The base price will be adjusted for each season according to movements in cash costs, including family labour, as assessed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

The average base price for sultanas will be the same as the overall base price, $273 a ton for 1971, while currants will bc S40 per ton above the average overall base price and raisins $30 per ton below.

When the average realised return to the grower - that is, gross return less costs necessarily incurred - is within the range of $10 a ton above or below the base price, no payment will be made into or out of the fund.

When the average realised return is more than $10 a ton above the base price, all of the excess over the $10, with a limitation of $20 a ton, will be paid into the fund, subject to no payment being made unless the total pack exceeds the minimum tonnage limitation referred to below.

When the average realised return is more than $10 a ton below the base price, a stabilisation payment equal to the shortfall below the $10 will be paid out of the fund, subject to a maximum of $23 a ton if a Commonwealth contribution is involved and to this ceiling and- the rate per ton being reduced pro ratatothe tonnage in excess of the maximum tonnage limitations referred to below.

Tonnage limitations will be:

The Commonwealth will underwrite the funds.

Ceilings to the funds of$750,000 for currants,$4m for sultanas and $750,000 for raisins will apply. Any excess will be applied first to repay any past Common wealth contribution within the plan period andthen in refunds to growers on a proportionate basis.

Where a stabilisation payment is payable, advances will be made by the Government when realisations are largely known. Bounty will be payable, based on statistics available at 25th February, to the extent of 90 per cent of the then estimated bounty with the remaining 10 per cent payable following final assessment of realisations.

In the above outline will be noted . 3 new features of importance, as distinct from changes in details, of the proposed scheme as compared with that which obtained for the period 1964-68. These features are:

A maximum rate of bounty of $23 a ton is applicable if a Commonwealth contribution is involved. This ceiling did not form part of the earlier scheme.

Where bounty is payable in respect of a season’s transactions the Government will make advance payment against the industry’s bounty entitlement. I know that industry leaders are particularly apprecia- tive of this new arrangement which should prove to be of considerable assistance in helping to finance growers’ seasonal operations.

Repayments to growers of excess moneys over and above the ceilings to any of the stabilisation funds or moneys standing to the credit of any of the funds at the end of the scheme will be made on the basis of proportionate payments being made to all persons who have contributed to the funds prior to that point and not on the first-in first-out basis as obtained under the previous plan. This change has been at the request of the industry.

I should point out that the tonnage limitations provided for in the dried vine fruits legislation, as well as the limitations onthe per ton levels of producer pay-in and Government pay out are designed to protect both grower and Government interests. For example, if growers’ incomes are reduced drastically by production falling below a certain level, provision is made for no levy to be collected even though prices may be high. Moreover, there is a limit of$20 a ton on growers’ contributions to the varietal stabilisation funds so that the grower pays in only a limited amount even if a large price increase should be experienced. On the other hand, the Commonwealth’s financial liability is protected by the provision in the legislation for a maximum payout of $23 a ton up to a certain tonnage limit. The scheme contains certain maximum tonnages beyond which payments from the stabilisation funds, whether from grower or government money, are reduced. I should emphasise that maximum as well as minimum tonnage provisions are included because the purpose of the scheme is to maintain viable returns to producers at stable levels, and not to encourage unlimited expansion of production.

During the negotiations which led up to the achievement of the scheme now given legislative expression in this and the complementary Bills presently before the Senate the industry leaders sought as assurance on the part of the Commonwealth that the operation of the scheme, if accepted by growers, would be kept under review and appropriate action taken bythe Government if necessary.I am happy to state on behalf of the Government that should the ADFA. because of significant changes in circumstances, seek duringthe life of the scheme a review of its operation such an approach will be considered bythe Minister of the day. This Bill and the associated Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971 seek to provide the machinery under which the proposed stabilisation scheme will operate. As in the previous scheme if. during a season, calculations indicate that a charge is likely to be payable to the end of a season, a provisional levy may be imposed and later adjusted when sales for the season have been completed. Moneys collected from these charges will be paid to the appropriate stabilisation fund and payment from the funds will be made to growers when necessary.

Although, as I have stated, a procedure is established for the imposition and collection of provisional levy it is anticipated that, as was the experience of the 1964-68 scheme, there will be no need to implement this arrangement since a special provision will be found in sub-clause (10) of clause 4 of (he Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill that provides ‘where a person has made arrangements that, in the opinion of the Minister or of an authorised perron, are adequate to ensure that any levy that may become payable by that person will be duly paid, the Minister or the authorised perron may, by writing under his hand, exempt that person from liability to pay provisional levy’. Under the previous scheme, the Austraiian Dried Fruits Association incorporated a company, the services of which were available to any grower of dried vine fruit whether he was a member of the ADFA or not, which accepted on behalf of growers the liability for payment of charges and the responsibility for distributing bounty. The operations of this company were so successful that it would be envisaged that exactly the same machinery would obtain in respect of the new scheme and the Bills presently before the Senate have been framed wilh thi-; in mind.

Rural industries in general are today going through difficult times. However, 1 think it fair comment to say that the dried vine fruits industry is being particularly hard hit by the ill winds of adversity. A huge question mark hangs over what the future holds for this industry; the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement has collapsed and world prices are at a painfully low level with some of Australia’s competitors not only showing no desire to see those prices lifted but even tending to adopt measures to drive them even lower with the mistaken thought that the Australian industry can be driven out of existence. This stabilisation scheme which is being now so eagerly sought by the industry offers no panacea for the industry’s ills b it it will provide some measure of security to growers over the 5 years of the scheme and will enable them in that time to examine the problems of the industry in the light of the developing circumstances. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. -

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 2420

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to impose a levy, under certain conditions, on dried vine fruits received for packing. This arrangement is for the purposes of the stabilisation scheme referred to in my second reading speech on the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilisation Bill 1971. This Bill is complementary to the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilisation Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971. The Bill provides in clause 5 that, where the average return for a season in respect of a variety of dried fruit exceeds the base price for the season by more than $10, a levy is imposed on that variety of dried fruit received for packing during the season. However, if varietal tonnage does not exceed 8,000 tons in the case of currants, 60,000 tons in the case of sultanas or 6,000 tons in the case of raisins, no levy will be imposed, irrespective of the level of the average return.

Clause 6 prescribes the formula under which the levy will be charged. Sub-clause (2) of clause 6 provides that the maximum rate of levy which can be charged is $20 per ton. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the levy, if imposed, is payable by the packer of the dried fruit in certain circumstances with provision, under clause 1 1 of the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill, for the packer to recover the levy from the grower. In other circumstances, namely when the grower receives the proceeds of sales of fruit other than through the agency of the packer, the grower is liable for the payment of the levy. Clause 8 imposes provisional levy in accordance with the provisions of the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971. I shall refer to the operation of the provisional levy in my second reading speech on that Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 2421

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is complementary to the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilisation Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971. The Bill provides the machinery arrangements for the payment and collection of provisional levy and levy to be imposed by the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971. Clause 4 authorises the Minister to declare provisional levy which shall be payable within a prescribed time limit pending the establishment of final rates of levy. Sub-clause 10 of that clause, however, provides that where a person has made arrangements that, in the opinion of the Minister or an authorised person, are adequate to ensure that any levy that may become payable by that person will be duly paid, the Minister or the authorised person may, by writing under his hand, exempt that person from liability lo pay provisional levy.

In practice, as explained in my second reading speech on the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilisation Bill 1971, it is proposed thai the Commonwealth will again substantially operate the scheme through the Dried Fruits Stabilisation Committee Ltd, which was the company which was established under the 1964-68 scheme by the Australian Dried Fruits Association, the major indus:ry organisation, for the purpose, among other things of facilitating the payments and collection of the levy. To the extent to which packing houses and selling agents in the industry may make arrangements with the proposed company on behalf of the growers, for such payments and collections, it is envisaged that provisional levy will be waived. It is thought that practically all, if not all, sections of the indus:rv will operate through the company for stabilisation purposes and thus secure exemption from payment of provisional levy. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 2421

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In presenting this legislation I think I should at the same time give honourable senators a further brief account of Commonweal’h policy in the field of Aboriginal advancement during the past year, in continuation of the accounts given by my predecessor in her second reading speeches in previous years. First, however, I will outline the provisions of the present Bill. The legislation provides for a 31 per cent increase in the grants to ihe States, amounting to $9.2m for 1971-72 compared with $7m for 1970-71, $5.41 m in 1969-70 and $3.65m in. 1968-69. As in the past, the Government proposes to allocate the $9.2m as between the States taking account of their percentage of the total Aboriginal population as revealed by the 1966 census and of their relative needs. A table has been prepared, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard, setting out the allocation proposed as between the States for 1971-72 by comparison with the grants for each of the previous 3 years.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– The legislation provides also that of the amount of $9.2m, the greater proportion be devoted to housing. Work commenced in other fields will, of course, also continue.I envisage the following allocation as between the various purposes for which the grants are made to the States:

Experience over the past 3 years has shown that as the financial year proceeds individual States are sometimes obliged to seek variations in the allocations between these headings though within the overall grant to the State; but any such variation will be relatively minor and designed to enable States to adapt their programmes to meet unexpected contingencies arising dur ing the year. It is the Government’s intention that the amounts available for each of these 6 purposes be divided between the States as shown in a further table which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Senator GREENWOOD:

– What do all these figures mean in practical terms? A precise statement of the use made by the

Stales of the 1970-71 grant will help honourable senators to obtain some impression of the impressive contribution made by the

Commonwealth grants in a great variety of fields during that year. I therefore seek leave to incorporate in Hansard such a statement of the actual expenditure by the States of the grants made in 1970-71.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (.The document read as follows):

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Taken along with similar statements provided by my predecessor in her second reading speeches in 1970 and 1969, this provides a running account of the Commonwealth’s endeavour, together wilh the States, over the 3 years of its activity since the referendum. I am sure honourable senators will consider it, as 1 do, a good example of constructive federalism, in which the Council and Office of Aboriginal Affairs have collaborated very productively with Slate departments.

In addition lo ihe amounts which it is intended to apply to housing, health, education, employment and vocational training and .similar purposes through the States grants, it is proposed to apply $3,850,000 to the continuation by the Department of Education and Science of the study and secondary grants schemes and $173,000 to smaller projects, particularly in health and education, through Commonwealth departments. Thus of the total budgetary provision in the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account for 1971-72 of $l4.35m, no less than §13,223,000 will be devoted primarily to efforts in the fields of housing, health, education and employment and vocational training. Expenditure of this order in these fields represents a useful stimulus to Aboriginal advancement where it is most needed.

Funds provided for housing through the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account over the past 3 years have resulted in the construction or purchase of about 1,000 additional houses, and the funds which I propose for 1971-72 will result in the acquisition of some 500 further homes. In addition some SI. 76m has been expended over the past 3 years from the Trust Account by way of the States grants or direct grants on the acquisition, extension, improvement and in some cases operation of hostel accommodation, particularly for employment and educational purposes; and

I envisage a further expenditure of at least S856.000 in 197I-.2. In order to relieve some of the demand for housing I have asked my officers to investigate whether more can usefully bc done in the short term by way of the provision of hostel accommodation.

Funds for health work provided through the Trust Account arc making possible an improvement of rural health services in areas of Aboriginal population. The development of programmes of health education and preventive medicine by professional and sub-professional people should progressively reduce the pressure on the curative services provided in hospitals in Ihe major centres. In addition much necessary expenditure on capital construction and equipment is made possible by the funds from the Trust Account. In the Northern Territory the Department of Health will, on the basis of funds provided from the Trust Account, establish mobile health facilities for the substantial Aboriginal communities in the Borroloola and Timber Creek areas: and. by agreement with the Western Australian authorities, will provide health and medical services for ihe Aboriginal community al the small mining camp at Wingellina in Central Australia.

I also believe that simplified application procedures being arranged by my colleague, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), will make the benefits of the subsidised medical scheme more readily available to Aborigines, particularly in Western Australia. Notwithstanding past and present efforts the health status of Aborigines remains a cause for concern particularly in respect of infant mortality and malnutrition. The problems will not easily be overcome, for they require the improvement of living conditions and Ihe extension of medical and health knowledge and understanding amongst Aboriginal parents, including increased voluntary use of family planning techniques. However, it can be said that we now comprehend, the problems better perhaps. than at any earlier time and that our programme will have increasing effect over a period.

Funds provided for education through the Trust Account are ensuring to Aboriginal Australians more and better educational facilities by way of buildings, equipment, libraries and so on, and are helping the States to ensure that children at school below the statutory school leaving age will receive necessary assistance with clothing, textbooks, travel, tutorial assistance and homework supervision. Beyond the statutory school leaving age, we are very encouraged by the response to the secondary and study grants schemes, which, as honourable senators will be aware, help make it possible for young Aborigines to pursue their studies as far as they are capable of proceeding with substantial benefit to themselves. In the first year, 1970, 2,379 were assisted under the secondary grants scheme, and in 1971, 3,800, while in 1972 it is estimated that the scheme will provide for some 5,700. I am satisfied that very many more young Aborigines are now staying on in secondary school and that there has been generally a marked improvement in the attitudes and application of the children and in their level of attainment.

In regard to study grants, which provide for study in the upper secondary and tertiary level, 114 were assisted in the first year, 1969. 305 in 1970 and some 500 in 1971 and it is estimated that some 600 will receive assistance in 1972. Of even more significance is the growing programme of assistance through the Trust Account at the other end of schooling - through preschooling. In the first 3 years the Commonwealth has expended more than

S500,000 from the Trust Account on additional pre-schooling for Aboriginal children. This is only a beginning and we hope to expand the scheme in the years to come. 1 mention these matters as indicators of progress. There are many others to which 1 could refer - for instance, to the encouraging results achieved by the regional projects we are developing with some States on the basis of funds provided through the Trust Account. These projects involve effort by the whole local community as well as by Commonwealth, State and local government authorities. An example is the purchase, removal and re-erection of Snowy Mountains Authority houses by the Shoalhaven Shire with financial assistance from the Trust Account.

I have mentioned the manner in which about $13.2m of the Sl4.35m sought for the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account this financial year is being applied. Honourable senators will also be interested to know something of the application of the remaining $1.1 27m. This will be used for grants to non-governmental organisations for a wide range of purposes - for welfare work, adult education, the provision and running of hostels, support of arts, crafts and cultural activities, support of youth and sporting activities, Aboriginal housing societies and for preschooling provided by private organisations. 1 have had prepared a a summary statement of grants for these purposes made over the past 3 years, and seek leave for this to be incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Senator GREENWOOD:

– lt is important to realise that the $ 14.35m which 1 have been discussing is in no sense the total provision for direct expenditure on Aboriginal advancement. In addition the Commonwealth is seeking in the Budget $ 16.33m for direct expenditure, mainly by the Department of the Interior, on Aboriginal advancement in the Northern Territory. lt has also provided amounts in the votes of other Commonwealth depart- - ments, such as the $154,000 in the votes of the Department of Labour and National Service for the continuation of. the employment training scheme conducted by that Department - which is, I believe, already having an important effect in increasing permanent employment of young Aborigines. Apart from this the States themselves will, I expect, provide of the order of $13m from their own resources for direct expenditure on Aboriginal advancement during 1971-72, . pursuant to the undertaking they entered into with the

former Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs to maintain and increase expenditure from their own resources. Total direct national expenditure on Aboriginal advancement for 1971-72 will therefore be of the order of $44m for an estimated Aboriginal population of 140,000.

It is important to realise that the amount expended is increasing substantially each year. This “year’s likely expenditure of some $44m compares, for instance, with an expenditure in 1967-68 (the year before the Commonwealth assumed its new postreferendum responsibility) of some $20m. An approximate table has been prepared of major direct expenditure over this period, which points up the overall increases, and I seek leave for its incorporation in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Senator GREENWOOD:

– At this stage the details, particularly of expenditure by the States, are, as I say, approximate only; but the Commonwealth Statistician is preparing more precise tables which should be available later in the year. Another point worthy of mention is that, because of the nature of the programmes to which these finances are devoted, most of the funds are applied to the advancement of the younger generation of Aboriginal Australians. I believe that it is here that the greatest opportunities exist though I also wish to alleviate the very difficult circumstances in which numbers of older Aboriginal Australians live.

While expenditure on Aboriginal advancement has been rising and will rise further, such expenditure is not intended to be a permanent aspect of Australian society. By investing sufficient money in the right areas over the years immediately ahead we will be making it possible for increasing numbers of Aborigines to become independent of the special assistance now being provided through the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account and in other ways, and, where they need assistance, to be progressively cared for by the general provisions made for the community as a whole. In urban communities Aboriginal Australians seem likely to find effective and respected places in our society living and working among their white fellow citizens, although we hope and believe that they will continue to take pride in their Aboriginal identity and culture. In more isolated areas where many communities will be largely or predominantly Aboriginal, developments are likely for some time to have a more corporate or group character and to retain many significant elements of Aboriginal tradition. It is our firm conviction that the choice open to Aboriginal Australians in this way is the surest means of developing the diversity in our one Australian society. This will ensure an honoured place for Aboriginal citizens who will be making a significant contribution to our development and culture.

A recent survey shows that the Aboriginal population may reach 400,000 or more by the end of the century, of which some three-quarters might be persons of mixed descent. Our plans should be based on this expectation. Notwithstanding the rapid rate of increase, we can hope that special assistance directed towards Aboriginal Australians as such will be necessary for a smaller and declining proportion of them. The Council for Aboriginal Affairs has indicated that for this goal to be achieved increasing emphasis must be given to measures to promote the greater economic independence of Aboriginal Australians - as individuals, as groups and especially in the north and centre as communities, and to strengthen their capacity to manage their own affairs. The effectiveness of these policies will be measured by the rate at which progress over the coming years justifies the elimination of measures of social welfare assistance directed at Aboriginal Australians as such, and by the increasing contribution to the national product by Aboriginal Australians, as well as by the increasing contribution to the varied pattern of Australian social life made by their traditions and culture. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72 In Committee

Second Schedule.

Consideration resumed from 2 December (vide page 2382).

Department of Immigration

Proposed expenditure, $66,286,000.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Are there any requests? There being no requests, I declare the vote passed.

Proposed expenditure - Department of Social Services, $51,1 18,000- agreed to.

Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts

Proposed expenditure, $30,460,000.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to move a motion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDOn behalf of the Opposition, I move:

It is not my intention to speak at length on the amendment that I have moved on behalf of the Opposition. It will be recalled that on 4th May last the Ministers of State Bill was introduced in the Senate after its passage in another place. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, when introducing that Bill to extend the Ministry from 26 to 27, said:

Three major considerations have led the Government to propose an increase in the number: Firstly, a desire to allocate to a separate portfolio some important matters which could only otherwise be handled by a senior Minister by adding unduly to the responsibilities now imposed upon him.

One of the functions set out was activity relating to the environment, including the responsibility for the Office of the Environment. At page 1332 of the Senate Hansard of 4th May Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, during the course of his second reading speech on that Bill, said:

There is what has come to be called ‘the environment’. An office to bring together and generally io superintend the Commonwealth’s work and responsibilities in the environmental field is a new initiative, and an important one. Commonwealth activities in this field are beginning to gather moment, and will need the attention of a Minister. Responsibility for them, too, may now with advantage be moved to the new Minister. Putting these proposals in another way, the Commonwealth initiatives in Aboriginal affairs and the arte have now achieved a status and a level of activity that require separate administration. It has seemed desirable at the same time to add what will be a rapidly developing role m relation to the environment.

The Commonwealth, by establishing an additional portfolio by the Ministers of State Bill, accepted its responsibility in the environmental field. It said that the environment was a new initiative on behalf of the Commonwealth, that the environment was an important matter for the Commonwealth and that it would take a rapidly developing role in relation to the environment. That Bill was passed a week later. Shortly after that the present Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) was allotted that portfolio. Thai was nearly 8 months ago. I notice that his portfolio is that of Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities, but there appears to be nothing relating to tourist activities in the heading set out in the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure.

Senator Greenwood:

– Would not that part of his portfolio come under the estimates of the Department of Trade and Industry?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think you will find that he is the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities. 1 think it is fair to say that everybody, particularly honourable senators, were hoping that the establishment of a portfolio would mean getting down at a very rapid pace to the things that matter so far as the quality of life is concerned. All the subjects embraced within the purview of the portfolio are of vital importance to a wide cross-section of the Australian community. Environment and the problems of pollution are the concern of everybody, and practically every person is talking about smog and the hazards caused by what some people call progress. The Senate has shown its general overall concern about the matter. It appointed the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution. At considerable public expense those committees took a great volume of evidence and presented to the Senate very detailed and very excellent reports, but unfortunately it seems that those reports have been gathering dust in the pigeon holes of the bureaucracy. When the Office of the Environment was established we thought that at least the Senate select committee reports would be brought out of the pigeon holes and that action on the part of the Commonwealth would take place.

What are the facts about the environment within the sphere of the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and Ihe Arts? R appears that there is a total allocation for that Department of over $30m, which is an increase of $2. 2m. If we turn to page 29 of the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure we see the headings on which Ihe amount is expended. They are: Administrative, Assistance for the Aits, Commonwealth Archives Office, Australian Government Publishing Service, Australian War Memorial, Office of Aboriginal Affairs, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and National Library of Australia. I suppose that apart from the all-embracing heading ‘Administrative’ there is not one word mentioned about the environment. So members of Estimates Committee B started digging when officers of the Department came before it. lt appears that the total number of officers in the Department of the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts is in the region of

  1. 1 refer now to page 486 of the Hansard of Estimates Committees B, C, D and E of 25th November last. My colleague Senator Mulvihill asked:

    1. want to establish the anatomy of the environment section of the Department as distinct from the other sections. How many of the 75 people would be engaged exclusively on environmental matters?

The officer from the Department replied:

The approved establishment of the Office of the Environment Division is 7.

Senator Mulvihill:

asked:

Much of your work would involve areas dealt with by the Department of the Interior and the Department of National Development. Do you employ your own geologists, conservationists, or people with degrees in those fields?

The officer said:

The 2 senior positions in the Office of the Environment Division - First Assistant Secretary and Assistant Secretary - were created on 20lh May. lt was only in the last few weeks that an appointment was made to the position of First Assistant Secretary.

So it has taken 8 months for that appointment to be made. The officer continued:

A provisional promotion has been made to the position of Assistant Secretary, but that is not yet finalised. The remaining 5 positions of the 7 to which 1 referred include 2 stenographers in position, the remaining 3 being in the process of appointment. None of these is a professional position as such. This is something which will come when the nucleus staff is in position and consideration can be given to the need to employ other categories of stuff.

I turn then to page 489 of the same report where the Chairman said: 1 think that the point raised by Senator Davidson is one that would concern all members of the Committee and certainly it concerned mc when I went through the list of officers. I wonder why, when you have a new division of a department being established and the estimates contain provision in relation to that and when it has become normal for officers representing not only the top administration of the department but the various divisions of the department to be present, it was not possible to have somebody present to represent that division.

At the bottom of that page the officer representing the Department said: 1 think there arc 2 elements involved. First of all, it is a matter of judgment as to how many elements of a department of our kind need to be represented. In fact, there are some elements of the Department not specifically represented heretonight. Secondly, I think the important point with the Office of the Environment Division is that it is true, as the Minister says, that I have jurisdiction over this area of the Department. But, we have in fact 2 officers, one of whom has been in position approximately one month and the other one who is really only half there because he has been provisionally promoted but is subject to appeal. So 1 suppose it can be said that we have one officer and a bit.

J repeat those words. The officer said: ‘I suppose it can be said that we have one officer and a bit.’ At page 490 the Minister said:

Insofar as there is an office of the environment which is nol, at least as yet, categorised as a separate division, thai will be directly within the responsibility of the Minister. I think one must appreciate that this is u new Department, that Commonwealth responsibility with regard to the environment is a recently accepted responsibility and that the extent of that responsibility is hogtied by constitutional limitations :Ind ‘here is a very real .limit to the effective work which can be done. Earlier statements by the Minister have indicated that there is a role of co-ordinating, cooperating and initiating wilh the States, and constitutionally it is very hard to see how any activity apart from that could be exercised by the Commonwealth in the light of the broad Government policy that it desires to co-operate with the Stales.

So we have been told that the Office of the Environment Division has one and a bit officers and apparently no specific policy has been determined or outlined for this Division of a department which is to have a total staff of 75 officers. Only last week the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment presented to the Senate its report on Canberra sewage effluent. The Committee referred to this subject at page 2 of its report, where it said:

The administrative step of establishing the Office of the Environment within the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has been taken by the Commonwealth, but this Office appears at the time of the preparation of this report to have done little more than play the part of a liaison agency without developing the operative co-ordinating role in Federal action that seems desirable to focus the Commonwealth’s multifarious interests in spheres of activity bearing on environmental problems. The 2 Senate Select Committees referred to in the terms of reference emphasised the need for action at the national level. Though some specific moves have been made by individual authorities, the Federal activity apparent to this stage suggests a lack of concentration and purposeful direction towards the Commonwealth’s proper role as a leader in a national effort rather than mainly a liaison authority primarily responding to initiatives taken by others.

We say that, if the Senate believes in the committee system, as it does, and especially in the select committee system, and if we want action taken on reports of those committees, we cannot tolerate the present situation where there is such slowness in bringing up to its full establishment of 7 the staff of the Office of the Environment Division.

Die TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I rise to speak to the question of the activity or inactivity of the Government in relation to environmental control. My reason for raising this matter is that 2 committees of this chamber have taken extensive evidence and presented their reports - one on air pollution and one on water pollution. When the second report was presented, on the motion that the report be adopted an amendment was moved and carried unanimously by the Senate. That amendment was that the report should be referred to the Government for urgent attention. Therefore, in view of the resolution of and the interest manifested by the Senate, it is important that honourable senators should know what action, if any, has been taken bv the Government, not only on the general question but also in the light of the resolution carried by the Senate. The Senate has been very deeply concerned about the protection of the environment, has created 2 committees and has commended proposals in relation to one aspect for urgent attention.

During the discussions in the Estimates Committee on this matter I drew attention rather briefly to what has been the activity in the States and said that it was tremendously important that the Commonwealth should move coincidentally wilh the States because the report on water pollution at least contemplated that there should be, so far as possible, uniformity of approach to this problem by the Commonwealth and the States. We members of the Select Committee on Water Pollution visualised great commercial difficulties that could arise if a formula which was laid down in one State were not applicable in another State in similar or identical terms, where for commercially competitive purposes enterprises might elect to move to a State in which the disciplines were less rigid than they were in another State. Undesirable practices of that type could arise and there could actually be a bargaining between authorities to have disciplines that were more lax so that they would be able to attract enterprises which were not prepared to operate under the more severe disciplines of other areas.

The States have moved extensively in this field. Perhaps it is not without point that I should indicate to the Committee of the Whole, rather than to the Estimates Committee, what has been done in the various States. 1 have had a dissection taken out as at October 1971. lt shows that last year in New South Wales 3 Acts were passed to increase the effectiveness of existing State legislation. They were the State Pollution Control Commission Act. the Waste Disposal Act and the Clean Waters Act. In addition there was an amendment to the Motor Traffic Act in relation to pollution arising from the operation of motor vehicles. The bodies which were created, re-created or strengthened under those Acts were the State Pollution Control Commission and the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority, and an environment improvement committee was to be set up. In Victoria also there was quite intense activity. Victoria has been conscious of the need for environmental projection, which was evident from the many Acts in that State dealing with this question. My recollection is that there was such a variety of legislation and authorities with jurisdiction in one area or another of environmental interference, and therefore of control, that it was very difficult for Victoria to operate successfully. However, the position in that State now is that the Environment. Protection Act provides for the Environment Protection Authority, the Environment Protection Council and the Environment Protection Appeal Board.

The main part of that Act, which is a recent Act, has not been proclaimed. That is the provision regarding the enforcement of the Act, licensing, delegation of duties, etc. The operative sections of the Act are the establishment of the Authority, the establishment of the Council and certain policy making provisions. The bodies that are created are the Environment Protection Authority and the Environment Protection Council and, at the University of Melbourne, environmental research sponsored by the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works, the Australian Universities Commission and a consortium of Commonwealth and State governments has been embarked upon. I understand that last year an Act called the Environment Protection Act was introduced and that the Victorian Minister for Public Works, Mr Byrne - a man, obviously by his name, of intense and dynamic energy and interest - proposes to introduce 9 anti-pollution Bills in the spring session of the Victorian Parliament.

In the State of Queensland we find that the Sta e authorities have been most alert to this question of water pollution. The State Government has an intensive, highly skilled and highly sophisticated unit under a very distinguished Queensland scientist who has done enormous work in this field.’ What Queensland has done is to set up an Environment Control Council and 2 technical advisory committees relating to noise and solid waste disposal. An interdepartmental committee has been set up by Cabinet to look into the problems of sand mining and ‘o prepare a report to Cabinet on that subject. An interdepartmental committee is investigating control measures along the Queensland coastline with a view to implementation. A clean water council is to be set up. The Queensland Acts, which are somewhat old now but have operated for some time, are the Clean Air Act 1963, the Clean Air Regulations 1968, the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act Amendment Act 1970 in which provision was made for the establishment of the Environment Control Council, the Litter Act 1971 and proposed legislation on the pollution of waters and the Pollution of Waters by Oil Act.

In South Australia, the Premiers Department, at the date of the compilation of this information, was awaiting a report from the Committee on Environment. That was the position as of June 1971. The departments there entrusted to take action are the Department of Marine and Harbours and the Department of Fisheries. The Engineering and Water Supply Department is continually engaged in water pollution activites. There is a Clean Air Committee of the Department of Health. However, no recent legislation has been introduced in South Australia nor apparently is further legislation contemplated. The la:est legislation was introduced in 1969.

In Western Australia, at the time of the preparation of this information a report from the Department of Environment Protection was anticipated. The Physical Environment Protection Act 1970 proposed to set up a Department of Environment Protection which was to be constituted by a Bill to be introduced in 1971 which would constitute also the Environment Protection Council and the Environment Protection Authority. Therefore, that State is alert and anxious to move in this field. In the State of Tasmania pollution controls exist, as the Senate standing committees found out. The Environment Control Section has been recently established under the portfolio of the Department controlled by the Chief Secretary and a Director of Environment Control is to be appointed. An Environment Control Bill has been prepared to deal with all the main types of pollution. This Bill is similar to the Victorian Environment Protection Act, to which I have made reference, and the licensing of scheduled premises, similar to the. .provisions of the New South Wales Clean Air Act, is being considered.

That information indicates a very high level of activity and interest among the States. But obviously the States must be circumscribed by the constitutional limitations of their power. The Senate Select Committee found for example that there were water bodies - that is, rivers - that flow from State to State and that although a State can control the element of pollution within its own confines, when a water body travels interstate that States jurisdiction is limited and denied. Unless there is a close area of co ordination and cooperation many measures taken by a State U’” be ineffective. On the other hand a State may not be conscious of the need for control of water bodies and allows a stream to be polluted. That river flows into another State and then a great deal of damage is done to the State next door which might be taking quite intensive and extensive measures in order to control pollution.

It was in those circumstances, as you know, Mr Temporary Chairman, because you were the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, that our Committee had the opportunity to recommend alternatives. It could have recommended the use of constitutional power to give ihe Commonwealth an overall disciplinary control of water pollution that would go, perhaps, to pollution of the environment generally. It was thought that by co-ordination and by calling upon all the available powers or fragments of power under many of the place ta of the Constitution, this would be effected. However, this Committee thought that it was much preferable that we should move in the realm of co-operative federalism coordinated with the States which are the administrative bodies and ultimately have the responsibility.

Therefore, the role of the Commonwealth apart from the role within its own Territories should be one of coordination, stimulation and perhaps the provision of finance. That is why the whole intent and purpose of the recommendations of at ‘.east one committee was that the Commonwealth should move actively and should move early so that these activities of the States should not emerge unco-ordinated and undisciplined but in conjunction with the co-ordinating authority - and the Commonwealth was the only authority really available to do it - might move in unison so that wc get a common code and a common approach to this question, and those undesirable practices which we visualise and hope would he avoided would in fact be avoided.

I am anxious that the Minister may seize the opportunity, because I know that statements have been made as to the activity of the Commonwealth in this field, to acquaint the Senate of what the Commonwealth has done and is doing in this field, how far, therefore, the reports of these Committees have been taken into consideration by the Government and how the resolution of the Senate that a tremendous urgency exists on this whole matter has been received in governmental quarters. 1 do not propose to take the matter beyond that, apart from showing that there is tremendous State activity and it would be a shame if the opportunity were lost by the delay, inattention or disinterest of the Commonwealth Government to co-ordinate all these available activities so that we might get what we call a national approach to the whole question of interference with the environment. This problem oan be handled only on a national scale. This is the time to do it. 1 am anxious that the Minister be good enough to tell us to what extent the Commonwealth has identified itself with these activities, what its contribution has been and to what extent it has attempted to co-ordinate all these State activities.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I follow in the footsteps of Senator Douglas McClelland. I suppose that we could sum up the establishment of this Department by saying that it is too little too late. Senator Douglas McClelland referred to some of the dialogue which ensued between members of Senate Estimates Committee B and the officers of the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. I think thai what was said can be summed up in a question that T asked later in the Committee’s proceedings. I had some concern, which was subsequently confirmed, about the curbing effects on staff recruitment of Public Service Board policy. This answer, I think, sums the situation up: lt is true that when the restrictions were announced in February-

The witness was referring to retractions on staff recuritment a decision was made not to formally set tip an Office of the Environment Division hut when, as it then was, the office of the VicePresident of the Executive Council was formed, it was decided to go ahead. There has been since then a series of administative acts which finally have resulted in our obtaining, us I say, 2 people on the ground. More are coming . . .

The basic criticism I make - this has been developed to a certain extent by Senator Byrne - concerns the weighty research documents which have been produced by both Air Pollution and Water Pollution Committees. On top of this has been adopted a policy of fragmentation and no uniform authority. If there was one thing which was brought out in the evidence taken by the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution it was this: We studied 20 years of efforts by the States of the United States of America in which each State went its own way and established some watery co-ordinating plans, none of which worked. The result is that in the last 3 years there have been presidential edicts and all sorts of efforts to try to get some positive action in the form of a national water authority. I think it was Mr Finch, who was Secretary for Health in an earlier United States Administration, who indicated very forcibly that a time will come when an industry virtually will have to be told to close down if it is an extreme polluter of the atmosphere. I want to apply that background to the current scene. It has been apparent from many questions asked by honourable senators that an incessant warfare is waged between the Department of National Development and the Department of the Interior. However, I do not want to delve too deeply into that subject because I will have more to say on it when we deal with the estimates of the Department of the Interior. The situation is summed up in an answer supplied to me by Senator Cotton on 9th March to a question without notice I had asked. I had referred to a conflict of interests in the Northern Territory md the Minister finished his answer with this gem:

Any conflict or Interest between conservation and mining interests will be given the closest attention by the Government.

Fortified by that assurance I waited for the honourable Peter Howson, who is Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, to get cracking in this field. I attended protest meetings held on the north coast of New South Wales over Kalanin deposits near Smokey Cape and in one or two other areas. Before Estimates Committee B came to grips with these problems I found that I would get acknowledgements of my letters fairly rapidly but when I received answers to my questions, in the main they were a rehash of what had been said by a State Minister or by the Minister for National Development or the Minister for the Interior. I have in mind, for example, questions about the creation of the Australian Mining Council. It may have been Senator Greenwood, deputising for the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, who supplied the answer I have in mind. The prospect was that with the establishment of the Australian Mining Council the big mining interests would have a change of heart; that they would get around the table and talk to the various Ministers. But then situations arise such as has occurred at Dampier Sound. I appreciate that it has overtones for the Western Australian Government, but it is clear that the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has no ammunition to enable him to play a valuable role.

Senator Douglas McClelland referred to the need for technical people such as geologists and conservationists. Without them the situation is comparable to putting a 4- round fighter in with a main event fighter. He would be outclassed. I do not doubt the motives of the Department, but in view of developments in the United States I had hoped that the honourable Peter Howson would have assumed the mantle of Steward Udall or Henry Hicker, or even Mr Morton, a subsequent Secretary of the Interior in the United States. It would be all very well if a gigantic freeze of mining operations could be carried out. I never aim too high and in that way I avoid disappointment, but I suggested to Mr Howson that the first thing he could do would be at least to utilise the Bureau of Mineral Resources for a gigantic national mineral survey so that every time there was a controversial mining operation which could be a threat to the environment, the Minister could say: ‘You cannot operate here, but you can operate there.’ The next stage would be to have skilled accountants who could be employed to examine claims that it would cost so much per ton mile to take a certain course. The accountants could prove whether the claims made were inaccurate.

What I am suggesting has been the pattern of many conflicts in the United States and I had hoped that it would develop here. However, the most glaring anomaly is that when Cabinet sub-committees have sat Mr Howson has not been invited in his own right to participate. I do not deny that it would not matter if Labor were in office. These problems would arise as they do now with the present Cabinet. Obviously the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) has a vested interest in mining expansion. I believe that about 95 per cent of the officers of the Department of the Interior support conservation principles, but I had hoped that the appointment of a Minister for the Environment would give us an edge in making decisions in favour of conservation.

It is significant that when conflict arose in the Northern Territory and I looked for positive steps to be taken I received an answer, as late as today, from the Minister for the Interior which indicates that at some time in 1973 a decision will be made on the Northern Territory national park as to its size and whether certain areas that may hold uranium deposits will be excluded. Two Sundays ago I visited the Parramatta River, one of the most polluted waterways in Sydney. I have referred previously to the working of government in compartments. Conservation society interests have a link with the New South Wales Forestry Department in promoting a vast river beautification scheme. In the first instance the New South Wales Maritime Services Board told the conservation interests to stay out of it. With proper deference to Senator Drake-Brockman, I say that he gave me an each way answer. He said that it was all right with the Department of the Navy. Then he qualified his answer by referring to falling leaves. We should have had in the background a song suitable to the idea that falling leaves would be a fire hazard on the powder magazines. In his answer he deliberately excluded a reference to the storehouses on the other side of Ihe river where we advocated the planting of Norfolk Island hibiscus trees. Some honourable senators may feel that I am talking about rather mundane matters. 1 am not very much worried about whether the honourable Peter Howson has a staff of 100 or of 10. It is surprising what a small number can do when there is a will.

In New South Wales the Wyong Shire Council showed guts in not succumbing to the blandishments of the cheque books of the big rutile mining interests. They invoked an ordinance on tree planting and they have the mining interests jumping through hoops. They do not know where to go. I would like to see similar intestinal fortitude displayed in the top ministerial ranks. Mr Howson has limited authority but he has the prestige of a Minister of the Crown. Perhaps he could come out occasionally and blast these people, hut that does not happen. All we get are revised statements of what has been said by Mr Swartz as Minister for National Development or by Mr Ralph Hunt as Minister for the Interior.

Government supporters talk blandly and say that as the year goes on the staff of the Department will be increased, but it will be a belated effort. I suppose I am displaying great temerity in venturing into the legal field in the presence of SenatoGreenwood and referring to the concept of a National Water Commission, a commissioner and 6 deputy commissioners. In this context I could quote the words of another illustrious senator, Senator Rae. He, Senator Byrne and other legal men were the architects of the concept of a big brotherhood in this field. Senator Greenwood said that we were shackled by the Constitution. 1 think he used the word ‘hogtied’. He showed a spirit of defeatism. We wanted a partnership with the States. At present we are getting fragmented reports. i know that Senator Laucke will not feel that I am divulging secrets which were learned in camera. 1 would like to hear the final details of the anti-pollution measures favoured by the Department of Shipping and Transport. 1 appreciate that after the conference in Perth it was almost felt that the milennium had arrived, but I do not accept that, lt gets back to my idea of the functions of an Office of the Environment. 1 think the Minister for the Environment should be a sort pf administrative filter who would vet all these ideas and determine what is true and what is false.

In the electorate at large 6 months ago when 1 mentioned the name of the honourable Peter Howson in circles interested in the environment the light of hope came into people’s eyes, whether on the north coast of New South Wales in a fishing village or out in the central west region of New South Wales where interest was taken in, say, a mining venture or the erection of « pipeline for oil wells. Unfortunately, the more that Estimates Committee B went into this subject the worse the outlook appeared. I do not wish to labour the subject as we have a very busy week ahead of us. One thing was remarkable: Gathered around the table were senators who embrace a variety of political ideologies, but they all accepted that we could learn from countries with federal control of environmental matters and in that way much more effective action in the field of the environment. We have nol taken it so far. I interpret the proposal that has been put forward by Senator Douglas McClelland as a salutary slap at the Government for nol giving sufficient priority to this matter. It should be remembered that the former Prime Minister, who was at one time a member of this chamber, did go out on the hustings and say that he was fully aware of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. It is an unfortunate feature of the history of Australia that every time there has been any economic contraction it is said that it is not time to do something or to think big. I cite as an example the unification of railway gauges: but many other propositions have been pui away in mothballs.

I conclude on this note: I believe in the proposal which has been put forward by the Opposition. 1 hope it will galvanise the Office of the Environment, which is the victim of the big brother attitude of senior Ministers in the Cabinet. I sincerely hope that this proposal will be adopted and that in the next few months we will see lots of activity in this field.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– A great deal has been said so far in the course of the discussion of the estimates for the Department of the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts and I feel I ought to make some response at this stage. I propose to have something to say in due course about the basis of the motion which has been proposed by Senator Douglas McClelland, but before doing so I would like to refer to the constitutional basis upon which the Commonwealth must determine how it is to act with regard to the broad question of the environment. In starting may I say that, in terms of the environment as a subject matter of constitutional power, the Commonwealth has no direct legislative powers whatsoever. At the very best it must seek to bring together incidental aspects of other matters on which it may legislate and hope that these will be a foundation for a worthwhile edifice. If those incidental matters cannot be relied upon, there is very little the Commonwealth can do as there is no power available to it to legislate.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Professor Sawer gave us ideas.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I will come to that aspect in a moment. Something .vas said about it in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. But the position is that, under our Constitution, the power to make laws with regard to air pollution, water pollution, and the environment generally is essentially disposed to the States. We all know that the States are very jealous of their perogatives in this area. That is a fact of life which the Commonwealth must take note of and which the Senate, as the States’ House, ought to recognise.

Against that background, what has been the development in this area of the environment? The Senate has had 2 committees which have dealt not with the subject of the environment but with matters which have come to be part of what is involved in a discussion of the environment. Firstly, there was the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution, which reported in 1970. In the course of its conclusions and recommendations^ - 1 do not propose to read all of them because they were comprehensive proposals - that Committee reported that a more uniform approach to the problem by the States and the Commonwealth was essential. It also suggested that steps be taken in pursuit of that co-ordination objective to have conferences of one sort and another. I have referred to that Committee’s report and conclusions because they illustrate a need for uniform action between the Commonwealth and the States. lt was not suggested that in all the areas with which the committee was concerned the Commonwealth should go it alone, although the Committee did specify particular matters in which it considered there was an opportunity for Commonwealth action. The broad point which I wish to make is that there was recognition of the need for co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States. Secondly, there was the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, which also reported in 1970. That report advocated a national approach: It stated:

In particular, the Committee identified the following activities which it believes cannot be effectively handled otherwise:

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

There is a clear indication from a reading of that report that this co-ordination was anticipated. Indeed, in regard to what I think is the major aspect of that Committee’s report - the setting up of a national water commission - it was anticipated that the States would co-operate because the commissioners would be representatives of the States or be appointed from the States.

The aspect of the report to which I again draw attention is the need for CommonwealthState co-operation.

It must be recognised by those who say that there must be Commonwealth-State co-operation that there could be difficulty in getting that co-operation. I should think that anybody with half an eye and half a nose for what is going on in Australia at the moment would recognise that the achieving of Commonwealth-State cooperation is hedged with enormous problems. So it has been that diligent efforts have been made by the Commonwealth with a view to seeking the co-operation of the Slates with the Commonwealth in various areas relating to the environment. Following the presentation of the reports of the committees on air pollution and water pollution discussions have taken place with the States in regard to the environment. One further factor complicating the problems of co-operation is the area of divided authority within both the Commonwealth and the States. I was very interested in what Senator Byrne had to say. He stressed how tremendously necessary it was - I think those were his words - for there to be Commonwealth-State co-ordination and he pointed to what he described as the obvious high level of activity within the Stales of the various bodies which had been appointed. He then went on to acknowledge that the constitutional limitations must be recognised. I would say, taking what Senator Byrne has said as the very basis on which to make worthy comment, that if there is divided authority in the States as to the various bodies which have responsibility in this area it is much more difficult in the Commonwealth area where, lacking the constitutional power, it is necessary to look at the incidental work of other bodies. That is a very real problem.

The Commonwealth has not been slow in setting up Commonwealth-State bodies in other areas and those bodies have some incidental impact on environmental problems. For example, there are 6 existing councils of Commonwealth and State Ministers the activities of which have significant direct environmental consequences and with which any environment council necessarily would have to establish a satisfactory liaison.

What are those bodies? They are the Australian Water Resources Council, the Australian Forestry Council, the Australian Agricultural Council, the Australian Fisheries Council, the Australian Transport Advisory Council and the Australian Minerals Council. They are all bodies, as I have said, which have as their constitution Commonwealth-State ministerial representation and they all have some responsibilities in the area of the environment.

So, bringing it all together, one has a problem essentially of Commonwealth-State co-operation - the need for the Commonwealth and the States as entities to get together. What is necessary is for the new State Ministers for the environment or the State Ministers with new responsibilities in the field of the environment to get together with the new Commonweath Minister for the environment and try to work out an area of responsibility. They already know that there are existing areas in which responsibility is held and jealously safe-, guarded. In addition, it must be recognised that there is a variety of overlapping authority in the States which does have some impact in the area of the environment. In the Commonwealth we have the same problem. It is not an easy task to determine the area of responsibility. Let us consider what has been done. Since the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution submitted its report there have been discussions, as I have said, with the Australian Water Resources Council which comprises Commonwealth and State Ministers with responsibility for water resources. That Council is under the chairmanship of the Commonwealth Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz). It has discussed the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee and the Council’s proposals are currently under consideration.

In the case of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution, action has been taken by the Commonwealth and the States through the Australian Transport Advisory Council on the Committee’s recommendations relating to the control of motor vehicle emissions. In addition, the National Health and Medical Research Council has established an Air Pollution Control Reference Sub-committee with terms of reference to inquire into and advice on ambient

Sir quality standards and emission standards for air pollutants. The Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and his Department have been giving consideration to other recommendations of the Senate Select Committee.

What did Mr Townsend, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and ihe Arts, say to Senate Estimates Committee B when he appeared before it? 1 will quote what he said from page 488 of the Hansard report: . . let me again emphasise thai on the ground al the moment we have 2 executive officers. One of them has been with the Department for about one month. This is merely to illustrate the early stages in the formation of the Office of the Environment Division. ‘ But within all this there is continuous consultation with all the executive departments which have some responsibility for the care of lbs environment, including the Department of National Development, CSIRO and the Department of Health. Literally, this is going on daily. It is true that the degree to which consultations should take place is written down in a definite fashion. But they do take place and they are the only way, of course, in which we cun operate. I assure you that this is quite a continuous process.

I believe we are dealing with an area in which people’s idealism outstrips their realisation of what can be achieved practically. That is nol a bad thing but I feel that idealism which really has a hope of achieving something worthwhile must take account of what is practically realisable.

What is it that the people who have been criticising and asking for action in this area really want? Obviously, in a broad sense, it is action, but what sort of action? In this area the Commonwealth : is painstakingly building up from grass roots a new department and it is doing so in the face of all the problems of constitutional limitations under which the Commonwealth labours in this area. The real, breakthrough - 1 believe it is a breakthrough - occurred only last Friday. I would have thought that those people who have been reading the Press and keeping their ears to the ground would know that the work which was taking place before last Friday had many pitfalls. What I refer to is the conference of State and Commonwealth Ministers relating to environmental matters which was held in Perth.

That meeting last Friday agreed to the establishment of an Australian environment council. I can say. because 1 know something of the efforts he was under taking, that a very real impetus to the development of that council was given by the present Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), lt is proposed that through this council effective consultation and coordination between the Commonwealth and State Governments will be achieved on appropriate environment matters. One of the foremost topics discussed by the Ministers was the need for measures to encourage enterprise and individuals to increase efforts to combat pollution and protect the environment. The Ministers also agreed that there was a need to assess any other possible measures which could encourage the installation of plant, equipment and buildings to yield definite benefits for the environment. The meeting discussed financial and technical problems associated with community and industrial waste, together with ways and means of sharing costs between the polluters and the community. The Australian environment council is to., have prepared a statement of requirements for environment research in relation to national and State needs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I am impelled to express my disappointment at what I regard as being a comparative lack of action at the Federal level in respect to the legislative background necessary to meet problems of pollution in the Territories which are directly within the responsibility of the Commonwealth, that is (he Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. At the State level we see real activity to meet the problems within their particular jurisdiction.

Senator Rae:

– We hear mere verbiage from the Commonwealth.

Senator LAUCKE:

– lt is a lack of what I call firm action, 1 believe most firmly in Commonwealth-State co-operation on matters which should be looked at with a high degree of overall national interest. To have this co-operation 1 think that in the first instance we should be matching the diligence of the Slates in respect of their environmental problems through legislative provisions. Then we would have a base from which to work to seek this cooperation which I feel is so essential to achieve worthwhile things in Australia in the field of pollution generally and in maintaining our environment. In the report submitted last Thursday by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment, of which I am Chairman, we said:

Most aspects of environmental pollution fall within the administrative responsibility of the States, except in relation to Commonwealth Territories. The complex matter of CommonwealthState relations that are involved require a careful approach by a Standing Comittee of the Senate of the Commonwealth-

Such as our Standing Committee on Social Environment - in the present circumstances ki which all the States have embarked on new legislative and administrative initiatives while there has been no specific legislative activity on the Commonwealth’s part.

We went on to say:

The administrative step of establishing the Office of the Environment within the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has been taken by the Commonwealth, but this Office appears at the time of the preparation of this report to have done little more than play the part of a liaison agency without developing the operative co-ordinating role in Federal action that seems desirable to focus the Commonwealth’s multifarious interests in spheres of activity bearing on environmental problems. The two Senate Select Committees referred to in the terms’ of reference

That is the two commitees which inquired into air pollution, in the first instance, and water pollution in the second instance - ephasised the need for action at the national level. Though some specific moves have been made by individual authorities, the Federal activity apparent to this stage suggests a’ lack of concentration and purposeful direction towards the Commonwealth’s proper role as a leader in a national effort rather than mainly a liaison authority primarily responding to initiatives taken by others.

The report continued:

In this situation, the Committee believes it should first turn its attention to the Commonwealth’s sphere of responsiblity, and then, where appropropriate, examine State situations in a spirit of co-operation wilh State authorities. For it will be the Committee’s purpose to help all the States wherever possible.

I am keenly interested in firm action being taken within the ability and competency of, firstly, the Federal Parliament and then by the States acting within their own rights. This co-operation should be based on an approach which will ensure maximum efficiency and correctly attain those things which we desire to attain. There should be no intrusion on State rights. I do* not like intrusion into the sovereign area of a State. We can do very much if we have the foundations on which to work. If wc were to have a really mobile, active, alert and diligent attitude at the present time toward environmental matters we would be discussing with the States their position in regard to providing open space for instance, while there is still time to obtain it, in areas of rapidly growing population. In these areas land is being used for sub-division. More of it should be retained as green belt or green area, recreational grounds and so on.

Through the years in South Australia we have seen the keenness of local governing authorities which have drawn on their borrowing capacity to the utmost to ensure that in some of the most rapidly growing areas near the metropolitan portion of Adelaide they have areas which are now of real value. Wihout the foresight shown 9 or 10 years ago these areas would not have been available to those local governing authorities. The State assisted local governing authorities to obtain these open spaces. But there are many instances where land has been foregone, as.it were, for this purpose because there is no monetary ability to obtain such land. With the Commonwealth and the States looking keenly at a situation to provide certain things I can see a big opening for action which will be purposeful, helpful and of advantage to posterity. It is my wish and great hope that through this Office of the Environment we will achieve those things which will be of permanent benefit to Australia. Again, I admit that I will be disappointed if I do not see greater action taken in areas where, it could be taken. An example has not been set. It is impossible to discuss with (he State authorities good ideas for betterment in a general setting, when we have not provided basic foundations to achieve to such betterment, as recommended in reports concerning the environment, particularly from the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and the Senate Select. Committee on Air Pollution.

While not being one who takes pleasure in criticism unless it be constructive, this afternoon I do feel that it is high time that the things which are being said now should be said. I feel that it is only by expressing disappointment - as I do at this moment - that perhaps we will see a better attitude evolving. More action should be taken which will give us backgrounds which are vitally necessary if we are to give purpose and meaning to the environment and the problems associated with it. We should ensure that we do not leave to posterity a liability but rather an asset of which we can be proud and which will be of great help to those who come after us.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish to join in the debate on this motion. Lest there be any confusion, I wish to make it quite clear at this stage that unfortunately, asI feel that it is necessary, I propose to support the motion. The general problem of pollution and the general recommendation in regard to it are not matters to be treated lightly. The problem has been investigated carefully, and I believe fully, by 2 Senate select committees composed of responsible members with expert assistance. They obtained and collated a body of evidence never before available in Australia as to the extent and the nature of the problems which confront us in the preservation and protection of our environment.

That body of evidence is, to anybody who wishes to read it - this would apply even if he read only the summaries which arc contained in the reports of the committees - frightening, disturbing and of any other description which one might like to give to it and which can create in one a sense of urgency and alarm. I believe that unfortunately this sense of urgency and alarm has been absent so far from the activities of the Government of whichI am a supporter. I believe that it is most unfortunate for any supporter to have to criticise the Government in the way which I feel it necessary. But there has been ample opportunity, notwithstanding anything which has been said by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood), as Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), for this Government despite any constitutional problems which may exist to have taken action and to have shown an awareness of the problem and a keenness to take steps to overcome the problem.

So far, the steps taken are that last year during the election campaign it was announced by the then Prime Minister that steps would be taken in relation to the environment. That announcement was made following a report presented by the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and dared 10th June 1970- that is 18 months ago - and a report of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution presented earlier in the year. As a result of that promise action was taken. Eventually, a Ministry was created to deal with this matter. Now. some 14 months after the announcement, all that can be said by the officer who represented the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts before Estimates Committee B is that’one and a bit’ officers have been appointed. I find the lack of seriousness and lack of gravity with which the problem is approached to be appalling.

If this was a war in the normal sense. I find it hard to believe that 14 months after the declaration of war we would have ‘one and a bit’ officers appointed to look after it. I regard the war in relation to the preservation of the environment as being of significance comparable with that of a war in relation to the preservation of a society from external attack. What really is the difference between the insidious and cumulative effect of pollution and the rather more dramatic effect of external attack? Both can destroy a society. It is said that ‘one and a bit’ officers are all it has been possible to appoint to date. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of a serious approach being taken to what I regard as a very serious problem. I endorse Senator Laucke’s remarks. I accept completely the general remarks which he made and I wish to add to them.

I wish to add that there is no evidence of Commonwealth action on a real basis. It is suggested that there is no opportunity for Commonwealth action because the Constitution does not provide the power which would be necessary.In answer to that argument, I point out that one of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution was that there should be, firstly, a quantitative assessment of the past, present and future pollution situation in Australia and, secondly, a continuing assessment of water resources. There is no reason at all for saying that the Commonwealth has not the power. That is something which can happen. At the moment, apparently, it is happening through the Australian Water Resources Council, but without any urgency and without any relationship between the twin factors which are essential in relation to this problem, namely, quality and quantity.

The second aspect in relation to which the Commonwealth could take action, notwithstanding any limitations that there may be in relation to its constitutional power, is the techniques for abatement and control. Where are the research, the development and the techniques for overcoming these problems being developed by the Commonwealth as a result of the expenditure of Commonwealth funds, in the way in which this is being done in other countries to find out what is the real problem and how it can best be overcome? Can the States, divided and singly, be expected to attack this major problem and to devote the maximum of the nation’s resources to the earliest possible solution of its problems? I believe not. I believe that it is a responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to undertake the sort of programme which is being undertaken by the governments of other countries which are similarly attacked by this problem. But there is little evidence so far that any approach has been made to real testing and researching in an endeavour to overcome the problem.

I had the privilege of visiting in Japan the research station which is run by the Tokyo and Japanese governments to try to find out how they can best overcome the various serious problems in regard to pollution which they have. They regard their problems as serious. But I wonder how many Australians have thought of the fact that, according to the evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution of which I was a member, Sydney Harbour is no longer capable of sustaining marine life in its lower levels and that the crucial level is rising quickly from the bottom to the top, so that unless something is done soon Sydney Harbour is unlikely to be able to sustain any normal marine life. 1 wonder how many people have thought of the situation in my home area of Launceston and the Tamar River. I wonder how many people sail down that river and see the changes that have taken place in the past few years, how quickly this problem is creeping up on all of us and how little action is being taken by the people who should be concerned but who apparently are nol concerned about this problem.

Let me go on to deal with the further things that the Commonwealth could do and is not doing. The determination of criteria is something which could be done. It could be put forward. If the States will not accept it, they will not accept it, and they will be shown up for what they are if they will not. But it is something which could be done and to my mind there is no excuse for not doing it. Other matters which could be considered are the general research question, the overall research question and the education programme. Both of the Committees decided that one of the basic problems with which we are concerned is how to educate the people to the existence and the reality of the problem; how to educate them to overcome it. What is being done about the development of an education programme? What money is being expended by the U members of this division of the Department in relation to the development of an education programme and the expounding of that education programme? What is being done in relation to tax measures to overcome the problem? Surely to goodness some real consideration could be given as to how best the major taxing authority could adjust its taxing measures to encourage industry, to help industry to provide a protection from the pollutant effects which very often are a necessary result of industry unless uneconomic steps are taken to preserve the ecology of the area in which that industry is set up.

These are matters which 1 believe could well be given consideration by a serious department. So far, I find, we are told that there has been a conference, that we have started, that something has happened. If the States are so small minded that they are prepared to fight to the death for the protection of their own rights to control this problem and are not prepared to engage in a co-operative effort to overcome a national problem, I believe that if proper action were taken by the Commonwealth, the States would stand condemned, if in fact that is their attitude; and I find it hard to believe that it is. I cannot believe that anyone realising the extent and the nature of this problem would be prepared to stand by and say. ‘The preservation of my own rights stands above the preservation of the rights of those who are to follow us in this country’. That is why I cannot believe that any States would be sufficiently small minded to stand out from a suggestion which was made not in a spirit of taking away from the States their rights but in a spirit of what is the only solution which is available to this country to a problem which is a national problem, if we wish to preserve for those who are to follow us anything like the beauty, the majesty and the integrity of the environment which we inherited.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I want to lend my support to this discussion which is before the Senate tonight. I suppose it is fairly easy to become emotional about this question when, like many other honourable senators in this place, I have been involved in a couple of committees relating to specified areas that concern the environment, and have moved into the area dealt with by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment. I think it is probably quite wise to draw attention to the content of the report of the Senate Estimates Committee B in which, in referring to the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, there are references to what the Committee called on that occasion it considerable degree of confusion, a lack of information, and slow progress in reaching establishment in certain areas, particularly the section dealing with the environment.

I recall that during the course of (he discussions that took place before Estimates Committee B 1 myself was involved in this area of discussion. I drew the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood), who represented in that Committee the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), as well as of the officers who were with him that there were references within the departmental estimates to a considerable number of officers within that Department such as those involved with Aboriginal affairs, the arts and various other matters. 1 asked why there was not an officer concerned particularly with the environment. I received an answer that indicated that the Office of the Environment was the central part of the Department. On the other hand, I pointed out. and I point out again, that in the last three or four years there has been considerable public interest in the environment, particularly in the sphere of water management and matters related to air pollution. I reiterated the fact that not only was this of public interest but also there had been a considerable public response both at State level and at local or regional level, and it was a matter of considerable personal disappointment to me that nothing was contained in the estimates and there seemed to be no provision that gave those of us who sat around the table any idea that there had been not only some initiation but also some development within the area of the environment. I hope that the Office of the Environment within the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts does not go down as the Department that is credited with one and a bit officers. I do nol repeat what other people have said this evening. I simply repeat what is on the record under my name during the discussion of the estimates for this Department.

This is an area of our Australian community which has received a great deal of attention and a great deal of public discussion. I lay claim, as 1 have laid claim before, that a great deal of this development and a great deal of this discussion spring from the tact that the Senate in its wisdom set up a couple of committees to go into the matter of air pollution on the one hand and water pollution on the other hand. I speak as one who was involved with the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Indeed, it is not without significance that nearly everybody who can speak in this discussion and who was a member of that Committee has taken part in the discussion on the amendment before the Committee. We have done this not to gel on any bandwagon because we have been involved in these matters for some considerable time, but because we feel very keenly and very strongly about them.

Rut water pollution is only one aspect: air pollution is only one aspect. I draw the Senate’s attention to the report of the Water Pollution Committee which states that this is only part of a much broader pollution problem which is threatening the whole of our national environment. In its conclusions the Committee pointed . out that it can be solved most effectively only by tackling it as- a national problem. It was stated further in the conclusions that in co ng so Australia, must recognise its responsibility in an international movement to clean up what we call spaceship earth, and it must recognise that it may bc both polluter and victim in international problems such as that presented by oil pollution.

When discussing this matter in our considerable and extended discussions during the hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution we found, much to our dismay, that the legislation, authority and, indeed, direction was not only marked but, if I may say so, marred by the fact that there was a fragmentation of authority. My problem and concern at the moment is that as the State instrumentalities have responded to the work which has been going on there is a grave d danger in a continuation of this fragmentation. It may be that it is at a different level and it may be that it is in a different way but nevertheless there is this fragmentation. I listened this evening to the reference by the Attorney-General to the constitutional problem. I acknowledge his authority in that area but 1 say again to the AttorneyGeneral, as he knows I have said lo him on many occasions during the course of directing questions to him, that our Committee had a considerable amount of advice which led us quite firmly to put down on paper that we believed and we felt that there was a sufficient coalescence of powers for the Commonwealth at least to take a more active, a more leading and a more positive role than in my view it is taking at the moment. I hope it will recognise the fact that in this debate on the estimates for this Department, and in the proceedings of the Estimates Committee there has been this expression of strong feeling from senators right around the table, including members of the Government parlies, it should recognise that Australia is in a situation in which, unless there is some form of national leadership, national administration, national co-ordination and national co-operation, it will become the victim of environmental problems in the same way that other countries have become victims of such problems. Within the next 6 months there will be the great United Nations conference on the environment. It will be held in Stockholm in Sweden. More than 60 nations will be represented. I understand that Australia will be one of the 60 nations. When the voice of Australia is put on this most significant, urgent and international problem will it be the voice of Australia or will it be a mulled collection of 6 voices, or whatever the number may be, none of whom knows what the other will say or what the other is thinking?

I acknowledge what the Minister has said in recognition of the conference which took place in Perth. I for one am very glad that it took place and that certain things have been laid down, but in his comments this afternoon the Minister referred to the variety of councils involved in the environmental area. I refer again to what we of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution discovered and I am sure my colleagues on the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution also discovered, that is, that this is an extension of the fragmentation that has existed for a considerable time. We have to realise that we no longer live in a frontier world in which everybody’s rights and freedoms can be expressed, as they were 50 or 100 years ago. We live in a limited world in which there has to be a balance between the rights and the freedoms. It may well be that some rights have to be sacrificed so that the freedom of all to enjoy the total environment can be achieved.

I urge the Attorney-General, who represents this Department here and who has been speaking, sharing and bearing with us on some of the matters which honourable senators have put, to recount to the Government the strength, depth and intensity of feeling that there is. A great deal of work has been done by the Senate. It has been a study in depth, intensity and detail. lt has not been a study of dirty water or clean air or things of that nature alone. It has been a study of constitutional, legal, social and all the other environmental problems. Matters relating to the environment know no Slate boundaries because the coastline goes from Stale to State, rivers flow from Stale to State, the air goes from State to Slate. It is extremely important that we recognise it as a matter of grave national importance so that not only in terms of water or air but in the whole concept of the environment and the styles of life which are threatened by reason of our advancing technology the benefit of a good environment can be preserved for mankind not only for this generation but also for the future. I recognise the terms of the motion. I am glad that we have had an opportunity to discuss it in this way in the Committee.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– Although I express an amount of diffidence,I have a deal of satisfaction in knowing that the real contributions in this debate have come from members of the Government parties. They have illustrated a concern which has been expressed forcefully and which evidently has been sincerely held.I do not believe for one moment that the words that they have expressed will fall on deaf ears. They have expressed their views cogently. Those views permeate through the organisations which represent the Government parties, and in that way their views have an impact. But I feel that those honourable senators have not given due weight not only to what the Government has done but also to the words of the committees of which they have bean members and upon whose recommendations they rely. I refer to page 142 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, which expressed its view on the constitutional position of the Commonwealth. The report states:

The Committee has been presented with problems and possible solutions necessarily involving consideration of the distribution of constitutional power.

In formulating its recommendations the Committee has recognised the following general principles.

  1. That recommendations should be made for desirable Commonwealth action within the areas that are fully, and indisputably within Commonwealth power and responsibility. These include the creation of the necessary administrative authority, the provision of finance, and the determination of policy, within the ambit of a national policy, for the Commonwealth Territories and within the other areas under Commonwealth jurisdiction.
  2. That evidence presented to the Committee tended to establish firmly-

What does ‘tended to establish firmly’ really mean?

Senator Poyser:

– This is the lawyer coming in - the old Q.C. coming into it again.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– May I be allowed to express a point of view, Mr Chairman? It may be that some time some day, through some ability which defies rational observation, members of the Opposition will be able to express a point of view which a 10-year old child would understand, but until they do I ask that I be given an opportunity to express my viewpoint coherently. The report slates:

  1. That evidence presented to the Committee tended to establish firmly that the Commonwealth has, through a coalescence of Commonwealth power in the fields of taxation, defence, external affairs, meteorology, fisheries, quarantine, and other fields, sufficient legislative competence to lay down and enforce a national approach through Commonwealth legislation alone.

However, notwithstanding this, the Committee believes that, bearing in mind the Federal concept of the Constitution, it is preferable to. attempt to achieve the national approach through the system of concurrent, parallel or complementary Federal and State legislation.

In October 1970, the previous Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, in his policy speech for the Senate election, announced that the Commonwealth Government would establish an Office of the Environment. The estimates of the Department which we are now considering flow directly from the fulfilment of that promise. The Department was established in May of this year. I venture the suggestion that criticism of the estimates of this new Department may be a little premature.

I make this point: In December, less than 2 months after the Government had been returned at the Senate election, the then Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers of the States inviting their co-operation in coming together to discuss the environment. The Government believes in working with the States. I would have thought that as a matter of policy and in fulfilling the recommendations of committees it was not unreasonable for the Commonwealth Government to make that approach. It received from 4 of the States an immediate response that they would co-operate, but from 2 States it received the immediate reaction that until those States had set up their own legislative framework with regard to the control of the environment they were not prepared to co-operate, lt was not until July of this year that there was a willingness on the part of all States to meet with the Commonwealth to discuss these matters. The first meeting took place in September and the next meeting took place only last Friday. In the time available to me earlier I partly described to the Committee the results of that meeting.

In the time that the Office of the Environment has been established as part of the central administration of a new department formed in May of this year, there has been achieved, in the face of apparent difficulty and opposition, the agreement to the establishment of Ihe Australian Environment Council. The gibberish of Senators Keeffe and Poyser worries me not at all because it is something which their own colleagues disown. 1 believe that the fact that an Austraiian Environmental Council has been established is of significance in the Australian approach to these matters. I recognise much weight in what Senators Laucke, Rae and Davidson have said. If I suggest to them that they have given inadequate appreciation to the difficulties of a new department in’ a space of less than 6 months in taking the steps which have to be taken in a very difficult, constitutional area, where there is a multiplication of authorities which have to be resolved and accommodated in some way, it is noi to deny the fact that there is a need for a recognition of these problems.

I believe thai the Minister whom I represent, as his own words reveal, does have an appreciation of this problem, and I think (hat his arm will be strengthened by the remarks which have been expressed, temperately yet persuasively, by my colleagues on this side of the chamber. I think that this demonstrates, as so many other things demonstrate, that the real movement and impetus in the affairs of this country come from the Government parties. Believe me, so long as there is a reactionary attitude on the point of the Opposition parties the real movement and impetus will continue to come from this side of the chamber. I must say one further thing: There has been criticism of what was said about this Department in the hearing before the Estimates Committee. 1 regret very much that the words of officers have been taken and used as a basis for criticism. Certainly officers stand by their words - they would not have it otherwise - but I must say that 1 think there has been some unfairness drawn from certain remarks which have been made. I say only this: This is a department - Senator Douglas McClelland gave chapter and verse - which was created in May of this year. On this aspect 1 refer to what Mr Townsend said:

The 2 senior positions in the Office of the Environment Division - First Assistant Secretary and Assistant Secretary - were created on 20th May. It was only in the last few weeks that an appointment was made to the position of First Assistant Secretary. A provisional promotion has been made to the position of Assistant Secretary, but that is not yet finalised.

At a later stage Mr Townsend said that because the Assistant Secretary’s position was under appeal it might be said: ‘We have one officer aud a bit’. The fact is that there are 2 persons there. Mr Townsend continued to give evidence to the Committee:

The remaining 5 positions of the 7 to which I referred include two stenographers-

They have been appointed - . . the remaining 3 being in the process of appointment. None of these is a professional position as such. This i» something which will come when the nucleus staff is in position and consideration can be given to the need to employ other categories of staff.

But what bas been done by the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts? I remind honourable senators, in talking about the Department, that ^ represent the Department and that, if the Parliament establishes a public service structure, the Parliament also bears some responsibility. I put it to the Committee, in response to the criticism of slow progress in reaching establishment, that the creation of positions for this new Department was recommended on 24th March and approval for the creation of the positions was given on 20th May. Applications for the positions had to be called for. Applications for appointment were then invited on Ut July, the time for applications closing on 15th July. Seventy applications were received. This called for a substantial amount of work in the way of assessment. Appointments to the 2 positions which have been mentioned were made on 7th October. In respect of the 3 additional positions which have not yet been filled, approval’ had been sought on 24th June.

Approval, with a variation, was obtained on 12th November. The substantial part of the period from June to November was taken up by the Public Service Board and the Department of the Treasury - not the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts - in dealing with the proposal. A provisional promotion was made to one position on 1 8th November.

The Parliament over the years has made and sustained a system under which appointments to the Public Service shall be made through the Public Service Board. If the Parliament wants to change that system, let it change it; but 1 believe that, on the inadequate information which was available to the Estimates Committee which looked at this matter, there was no warrant for saying that the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts was responsible for slow progress.

Senator Georges:

Mr Chairman, I rise to order.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– During the Committee proceedings not one question was directed to slow progress, notwithstanding that questions were directed to a number of other matters. Accordingly, I feel that what has been said lacks a fundamental basis.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! Senator Georges wishes to raise a point of order.

Senator Georges:

– I would like to know on what aspect and to which line of the Estimates the Minister is referring.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I remind the honourable senator that there is a motion before the Chair.

Senator Georges:

– Honourable senators will recall the situation in which the Committee found itself last week. If any of us have any conscience we will not want a repetition of that situation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is very true. I hope the honourable senator realises that at present the Committee is discussing a motion and is not undertaking a line by line examination of the Estimates. There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator Georges:

– There is no substance in the point of order?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable senator will resume his seat.

Senator Rae:

Mr Chairman-

Senator GREENWOOD:

- Mr Chairman

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Is the Minister speaking to the point of order?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– No. 1 sat down only because a point of order had been raised.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The point of order has been dismissed. I call Senator Rae.

Senator Rae:

– Thank you, Mr Chairman; but it is my understanding that the Minister has not finished what he wished to say and so I defer to him to enable him to complete his remarks. However, I should like to take up the discussion of some of the remarks just made by the Minister, as soon as the opportunity arises.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I apologise to the Minister. I call him now.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I regret that Senator Georges is not aware of the arrangements which have been made by the leadership of his Party with our side. This procedure of having a motion which we could debate was an arrangement agreed to and accepted by leave. In conclusion I wish to say only that I appreciate, as I know the Minister whom I represent appreciates, the constructive remarks which have been made. As I have said, they indicate the sincerity with which honourable senators hold the view that action with regard to the environment should be taken. However, I believe that there is an inadequati appreciation of the very real constitute nal problems which are involved in the Commonwealth taking any action. I have adverted to what Senator Davidson said-

The C HAIRMAN-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– There are 2 aspects of the remarks made by the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) on which I wish to comment. The first is the suggestion that Estimates Committee B was not justified in making the report which it made because it did not have sufficient information. To that comment I reply that, if it did not have sufficient information, that was not the fault of the Committee, the criticism of which around this chamber was that it had been too probing and too long in its examination of these matters. The criticism which flowed quite freely in this chamber, or at least through the corridors outside the chamber, was to that effect. The Committee sought information, and if the information was not forthcoming it was not the fault of the Committee. I assert on behalf of the whole Committee - not any party represented within the Committee, but on behalf of the whole Committee - that it acted bona fide on the basis of the information which it was able to elicit in the course of its examination of the estimates.

The further point thatI wish to make is this: Accepting as I do the information given by the Attorney-General - for whose information, veracity and opinions I have the greatest of respect - as to the workings of the Public Service in relation to the appointment of officers to the Environment Division of the Department, I can say only that this has demonstrated more vividly than anything else I can imagine in quite some time the need for the Senate to forgo the number of references to Committees which were passed today and to look urgently at the workings of the Public Service. If it takes so long to get under way and past the one-and-a-bit stage, or two subject to one appeal stage, of appointments to what is regarded by most members in this place andI think, the community generally as something urgent, there must be something seriously wrong which should be looked at. That is the second comment whichI wish to make. I do hope the Minister will give consideration to the effect of what he has told us and perhaps the Committee itself and honourable senators will give some consideration to those factors.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is very little thatI wish to say in reply to the debate that has taken place. The only person who has spoken in support of the Government’s contention on this matter throughout the whole of the debate has been the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) who represents the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson).

Senator Greenwood:

– The honourable senator is not surprised that I should speak in that way.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am quite surprised that the Minister should so speak having regard to the way in which the evidence flowed - for want of a better term - before Senate Estimates Committee B. The Minister seems concerned that as a result of the digging and probing which went on at the Estimates Committee hearing certain facts were elicited.I again remind the Minister that on page 29 of the document entitled ‘Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Services of the Year ended 30th June 1972’, under the heading Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts’, we find the following divisions listed: Administrative Assistance for the Arts, Commonwealth Archives Office, Australian Government Publishing Service, Australian War Memorial, Office of Aboriginal Affairs, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and National Library of Australia. When one finds those divisions listed in the appropriations for the Government for the year, the ministerial portfolio is the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, and no mention is made of the Environment section of that Department, what does the Government expect? Does the Government expect that we of the Opposition will sit down at the Estimates Committee hearing and ask no questions?

Indeed, at the Estimates Committee hearing, as the Attorney-General will remember, not only members of the Opposition but also supporters of his own Government who were not necessarily members of the Estimates Committee were inquiring as to the situation. If the Minister thinks that no constructive criticisms or suggestions came from this side of the Committee or from the members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and that the only constructive criticism heard in this chamber during this debate was from those who sit behind him on the government benches, thank God that there was someone from the government benches who had the temerity and the courage to get up to support this proposition.

It is a warning to the Government not only from members of this chamber but also from the Australian people that they expect this Government, if it creates a portfolio to which some $30m of the Australian taxpayers’ money is appropriated for expenditure, to get on with the job and not to pussyfoot around. The Government has had 8 months to do something about it. It is 8 months since this Department was created. The Department was proposed many months before that. The Minister was talking about December 1970. Al] right, we will not go back as far as that. We will go back only to May of this year. That was when the portfolio of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts was established. Although there is an establishment of 75 in the Department - in fact the establishment within the division of the Environment is only 7 - the Australian community would expect in a period of -8 mon:hs more than ‘one-and-a-bit’ officers would have been created to deal with matters relating to the Australian Water Resources Council, the Australian Forestry Council, the Australian Agricultural Council, the Australian Fisheries Council, the Australian Transport Advisory Council and the Australian Minerals Council, just to name those that were mentioned by the Minister.

We say that the Committee should carry this motion to show to the Australian people that at least this chamber means business even if the Government does not. I urge the Committee to support this proposition to the hilt and to urge the Government to get on with the job and to tackle the problem of the environment because it is much more serious than apparently the Minister seems to think it is.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I wish to reply quite shortly only because I feel that it is obligatory upon me to reply. I think that the reason why I have risen will be understandable to members of the Opposition. The basis upon which the comments and criticisms of Senate Estimates Committee B have been made is the answers which were given in response to questions. Insofar as those answers were given by me, I am quite happy - and I hope I am able - to defend myself at any time. But the officers who gave their evidence on this occasion are not in a position to defend themselves. If there should be a criticism of the Department on the basis of answers that have been given, at least I can set the record straight as far as this Parliament is concerned so that if people who read the Hansard records or who sit in the galleries wish to express any judgment or’ to form any judgment they are able to do so.

I have read through the Hansard record subsequent to the report of the Senate Estimates Committee. That report state.!:

Whilst recognising that the Department ot the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts is a newly established Department and obviously some reasonable time is necessary to obtain full efficiency, the Committee, in its examination of the Estimates of the Department, found that there was a considerable degree of confusion, lack of information and ‘slow progress in reaching establishment in certain areas.’ particularly the section dealing with the environment. f can only say - and I invite anyone to read this record and to contradict what I say - that I can find no evidence in the Hansard record of a possible concern expressed by any member of the Committee about the progress in reaching the establishment of areas other than the office of the Environment division. Even in respect of that division, the questions and answers did not relate to whether the rate of progress in ‘ reaching establishment was reasonable or otherwise.

Whilst questions were asked as to what was the establishment, I do not think there was the concern expressed in the Committee, to which a response could then have been given, which has since found expression in the chamber. I have striven to suggest that the comment of the Committee was unfair to the Department; obviously that is an area in which opinions will differ and that is something with which the Department must live; to the extent that I challenge it, and there is evidence to back my challenge, the Committee must live with it. But it is out of that stuff that debate and worthwhile constructional criticism can emerge. All 1 am concerned to Say at this stage is that the Senate is developing a new procedure. I hope that there will not be criticism of. departments founded on the statements made by officers, when the real concern which expresses itself has never been expressed to them in order that they may be able io put a point of view in reply. The Hansard record of this debate will show that all the information asked for was forthcoming. At one stage a problem arose as io the appropriation out of which the salaries of officers of the Interim Council for a National Film and Television Training School were to be paid, but that information was soon forthcoming. It was not said that any information was unavailable.

Insofar as problems have been disclosed in the fulfilling of the establishment which the Public Service Board approved in March of this year, I hope it has been demonstrated that activity on the part of the Department has not been lacking. It has not been for the officers of the Department to determine when the Public Service Board shall make its decisions. Quite apart from that, I hope that the Senate and the nation generally will recognise that in areas of environmental control a very real problem is postulated by the Federal Constitution, The Government has twin policies, the first of which is that in these matters involving constitutional difficulties it shall seek co-operation through the States. The Government adheres firmly to that policy.

The second aspect is that the Govern ment is concerned to promote awareness in the community in the way that Senator Rae expressed it of the need to be conscious of damage to our inheritance and our future in what is happening to the environment which we have taken for granted. Insofar as the Government is able to take action, it will take action. The Government as with the public, needs prompting from time to time andI think thatthis debate has provided that prompt- ing.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Civil Aviation

Proposed expenditure, $88,830,000.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to relate my remarks to the Adelaide Airport. As the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) well knows, on a number of occasions in the Senate South Australian senators on both sides of the chamber have sought to determine whether extensions are to be carried out to the Adelaide Airport. At present there is some uncertainty about this matter. Fairly recently the Minister stated that he intended to visit South Australia and to inspect the land available as a substitute for extensions in the event that some part of the area now under the control of a reserve trust might be required for other purposes. I will re-state what I have understood the Minister to have said previously. He has said that there is uncertainty whether extensions to Adelaide Airport will be necessary. I would like him to confirm whether that uncertainty still exists and also whether, in the event that extensions are necessary, alternative land is available.

The Minister will remember that the people in the area have stated that no alternative land is available there if extensions are necessary, is the Department of Civil Aviation examing the prospect that ultimately a second airport will be required to service Adelaide? It seems to me that what should be stated clearly by the Minister and the Department is a recognition or otherwise that in the long range there should be a second airport. The site of a second airport should be outside developed areas. From the information I have been able to obtain in South Australia there have been some surveys conducted and information has been collected by the Department of Civil Aviation which would tend to support the notion that in South Australia the Department has accepted the principle that ultimately there will be a second airport because the present airport cannot serve the needs of the industry very far into the future and because of developments in the type of aircraft that will become available.I ask the Minister firstly: What is the position in relation to the second airport? Secondly, has he had the opportunity to inspect the sites as he promised if my memory serves me correctly, to do by 1st December? Thirdly, has he information as to the sites available which need to be considered as alternative areas for reserves? Can the Minister give an undertaking on this matter which is of great concern to the community and particularly to residents in the vicinity of Adelaide Airport?

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I did say that I would try to have a detailed look at Adelaide Airport as soon as I could possibly do so. I had hoped to visit Adelaide Airport before now. All I can say is that I flew over Adelaide Airport yesterday on my way back to Canberra from Perth, but that was not a detailed look. 1 did have a talk to the people there and to the Regional Director about this, master. Mr McLeay, the Assistant Minister for Civil Aviation, lives in Adelaide and recently he had a good look at the airport on my behalf. I expect that when the Senate rises for the recess I will be able to spend more time there myself. That is the general situation. I am aware of the position to which Senator Bishop has referred as he and I have discussed it and corresponded about it. He has asked questions about the matter and I have answered them. 1 will give the picture as 1 remember it because 1 do not have any particular papers wilh me that bear on this matter. We have arranged for close consultation with the South Austraiian Government both as to development of the existing airport and as to a future second airport that obviously will be called for to serve the city of Adelaide. A South Australian Minister has been nominated for consultations with us and our departments have been in touch with each other. Local knowledge of the situation in South Australia is being fed into the process by that Minister on behalf of the South Australian Government.

Consideration has been given to whether the principal runway at the existing airport at West Beach could require extension if aircraft types that will serve that airport should change markedly. The latest information I have is that it appears quite unlikely to the Department - and it seems so to me - that the aircraft types that will serve Adelaide Airport will warrant consequential extension of the runway. Some runway strengthening will be required. The amount of land available for extensions is not very great and the possibility that extra land could be acquired has been discussed. An examination has shown that there is not quite a perfect balance and a little more land might be required than would be voluntarily surrendered for extensions. However, that may not matter a great deal because it appears that runway extensions at the airport will not be likely having regard to the type of aircraft likely to be chosen for the next phase of aircraft utilisation. It is thought that the matter might be satisfactorily handled within the existing runway length. However, runway strength ening is another matter altogether, lt is not a matter that will not affect the problem mentioned by Senator Bishop.

Although it does sometimes upset people to hear this said - I have no wish to do that - 1 think I should point out that the Minister for Civil Aviation has to be very clear in his mind about what an airport is designed to do. I have said around Australia that the principal city airports of Brisbane, Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide - I do not except Adelaide - are good airports; they are well located; they serve the community very well; they are there to s’ay; and they are there to be utilised efficiently and competently within the limits of the demands upon them. The airport in Adelaide is a very good one, It is well and most efficiently located for the purpose of serving ihe community of Adelaide and South Australia. But that is not to gainsay that people are inconvenienced by living close to it. Some of those people have without a doubt lived there for a long time, but there are others who arrived long after it was established. I am very concerned about the inconvenience of the public, but I am equally concerned about the responsible expenditure of public moneys. A balance has to be obtained. All the first location airports are well chosen. They are all competent airports and they all serve the community well. 1 am very conscious of the fact that there are people who are inconvenienced because they live close to the Adelaide Airport. I am also conscious of the fact that any extension of the runway could cause further inconvenience. The Department of Civil Aviation and I, as well as the South Australian Government - we are very grateful to it for its co-operation - have watched this matter very closely I return to the case of the present airport and say that it now appears as if the aircraft which will be coming into the next stage of service are not likely to impose any problems. I say ‘not likely’ because I do not want it to be claimed after 1 have left this place that I had said something which was not true. To the best of my knowledge and on the information available to me at the present time, what I have just said appears to be the case.

Without any doubt Adelaide will want another major airport at some time in the future but I cannot say when that Will be. On the best projections of the growth of the airlines business in South Australia that is principally served by the Adelaide Airport, the necessity for a second airport looks to be about 20 to 25 years away. Despite that, great care is now being taken by the Department of Civil Aviation and the South Australian Government in the evaluating of sites for a second airport to serve Adelaide and South Australia in order to make sure that the right site is chosen well ahead in time and that it is adequately protected so that when the time comes for that site to be made available it can be made available without inconveniencing a lot of people.

The Department of Civil Aviation is involved in trying to serve the public interest, lt is involved not in trying to be popular but in trying to do what it believes to be correct and proper with Ihe best knowledge it has and looking a long way ahead. It is following that policy with regard to the proposal for a second airport for Adelaide. It is looking a long way ahead and is trying to choose the best site for a second airport. I do not think I can say any more than that. But, as I have said in this place before, I should point out that I do not regard myself as holding certain knowledge for my own selfish purposes; I regard myself as being responsible to the people of Australia. The reason why 1 sometimes do not say a lot of things is because I do not know at that point of time or because I am not sure. However, I am anxious to assist at all times.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I shall be very brief. 1 wonder whether, in spite of the multitude of land tenure problems he has insofar as potential airports are concerned, the Minister for Civil Aviation could tell me what is the latest position in regard to negotiations between the Bankstown Council and other groups in the Bankstown area as to certain land that the Department of Civil Aviation is either on the verge of acquiring or has acquired.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– As far as I know, discussions are still under way with the State Planning Authority, which has imposed some kind of overriding restriction on the land. The honourable senator is referring to a piece of a golf course which has been offered for purchase to the Department of Civil Aviation to enable it to make extensions not to- runways but to aircraft hangar spacing. The Department agreed to buy that land from its owner. However, to the best of my knowledge, the owner subsequently found out that he could make more money from selling it for light industry sites. 1 understand that during the process of negotiations the New South Wales Government, through the State Planning Authority, made some declarations of intent as to that land. The negotiations have not yet concluded. However, the Department of Civil Aviation’s requirement for the land is for the purpose of constructing aircraft hangars, workshops and offices.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– In view of the reply by the Minister for Civil Aviation to the remarks of Senator Bishop in respect to the present Adelaide Airport and the Minister’s reference to the possibility of a second airport being required for Adelaide in 20 to 25 years time, 1 would like to know whether options have been taken over or purchases have been made of sites which ultimately could be required for the proposed second airport for Adelaide?

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– A very careful evaluation is being made of potential areas. I cannot say, nor do I think I should say, what is being done about the acquisition of potential sites. That is not something which it is proper for me to comment on al this point of time, except to say that areas are being looked at and evaluated and that when the time comes for an area which is thought to be the optimum site to be acquired the necessary steps will be taken to endeavour to ensure that that land is protected for that purpose.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Having suffered at the hands of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) for 2 days, I do not wish to tempt the Minister for Civil Aviation into a lengthy answer on the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation. Therefore I shall be brief in what I say. Firstly, what is being done to upgrade the Gladstone Airport to match the rapidly developing economy of that city or town? Secondly, what action is being taken to allow TransAustralia Airlines to operate from Cairns to Thursday Island? A third matter which exercises my mind is the collision at Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith) Airport between a TAA aircraft and a Canadian Pacific aircraft. Perhaps I should inform the Minister that I believe that this matter is to be taken up tomorrow night in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I would appreciate answers to the 2 questions I have asked.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I am quite conscious of the situation in Gladstone, which is a rapidly expanding industrial complex on the central coast of Queensland. One of the things 1 am most anxious to do is to have a good look as soon as I can at Gladstone. The Gladstone figures do not disclose such a tremendous demand for air services as to necessitate any need to press the matter urgently, although 1 wonder whether this could be due to the fact that the services are not being used because they are not available. This is one situation in Queensland which does need looking at by myself and the Department of Civil Aviation, but I cannot be more precise than that. I am aware of the problem. It appears from what 1 can remember of the papers I have called for on it that a fairly large operation is involved which could necessitate the shifting of the airport. I will undertake - I can do no more than that - to take up the matter after this session is over.

I am informed by the policy side of the Department of Civil Aviation that certain aspects of the Cairns-Thursday Island application are still being examined and that no decision is yet available on this matter. I suppose the Cairns-Thursday Island service by Trans-Australia Airlines would be a part of the general service between Australia and New Guinea. 1 think I will need to have a further look at this particular matter. I have noted Senator George’s statement that there could be some comments made tomorrow night in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate on the accident at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between a TAA aircraft and a Canadian Pacific aircraft. That is probably an appropriate occasion on which to raise this matter.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I would like some comment from the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Colton) about the application by TransAustralia Airlines for the right to operate on the Perth-Darwin route. I know that TAA has applications for other routes within Western Australia but they can be granted only with ihe consent of the Western Australian Government. TransAustralia Airlines has the right to operate on the interstate route: the High Court of Australia decided that in 1946. 1 do not know exactly when TAA applied to fly the Perth-Darwin route but I know that an application was made in 1957 and that negotiations were completed. The West Australian Government agreed to allow TAA to enter that sphere in that State and just as the agreement was about to be signed the then Minister for Civil Aviation instructed TAA to break off negotiations. I know that since that time there has been quite a build up in the population of Western Australia north of Perth, f know that the agreement that protected the operations of MacRobertson-Miller Airlines on this route expired on 30th September and that TAA made its application some months before the expiration of that agreement.

I understand the procedure is that the Department of Civil Aviation makes a recommendation to the Minister for Civil Aviation and that the Minister then has the right of veto, the right to recommend whether or not the airline shall be allowed to operate on a certain route. I think that is the procedure but 1 am not too sure. I would like to know what the procedure is to be now. Over 2 months have lapsed since the agreement expired and AnsettANA still is not providing the service required in the northern part of Western Australia. For instance, I wanted to go to Darwin next Sunday. A flight is scheduled by MMA from Perth at 6 a.m. on Sunday but it has been cancelled. I know from speaking to people who wish to travel in Western Australia that flights are frequently cancelled for no reason whatsoever. Time schedules are not maintained. I know that MMA constantly off-loads cargo from its flights north in order to take up passengers because that traffic is mote lucrative. MMA is not providing the service now required in the north of Western Australia. It is not sufficient for Ansett to distribute pamphlets in his aircraft asking One or two, what’s best for you?’. That is quite subtle propaganda. I think it is time a decision was made on this matter. At present there is no agreement protecting MMA and there is no agreement protecting the Australian public. Ansett could discontinue his flights in Western Australia at any time. I repeat that the agreement expired on 30th September. This is not the first application made by TAA to enter this route, and 1 think it is time something was done about it.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– The agreement under which MacRobertsonMiller . Airlines had exclusive rights; to oversimplify the case, expired on 30th September 1971. Not long before that Trans-Australia Airlines applied for permission to fly principally from Perth to Port Hedland and Darwin and reverse. That application has been examined in fine detail. One could offer the comment that one thing that needs to be established in this matter is whether the existing ground facilities will serve the purpose of another operator or whether the Commonwealth will be involved in extra expenditure on the ground to fulfil that application. That is one of the reasons why the matter has taken a little bit of time. I think all honourable senators will agree that in the public interest we have to consider the total demand on the public purse.

I was interested to hear Senator Cant observe that there have been some complaints about the service that the single operator is rendering in Western Australia. I have just come back from Western Australia and I have been assured by a great number of people that the service is impeccable, that it leaves nothing to be desired, and that no improvement would take place if a second carrier were given the opportunity to operate there. Indeed, it was said to me that if a second operator were given the opportunity to fly there also both operators would be much worse off and the service to the public would be diminished.

These are the things one has to evaluate in the public interest in the best way that one can do that. This is going on at the present time and I expect this matter to be decided before very long. I want the Senate to understand that that is how 1 have approached the question. I have looked at it and have tried to ask myself: What is in the general public interest in this matter? We must consider the convenience of the public, the efficiency of their flying and their safety. But we also have to consider equally the demand upon the total body of taxpayers for an extra commitment, if any, for ground facilities if aircraft types are not to be the same as those being used now or are not comparable.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– With due respect to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) I think his trip to Western Australia last week was conditioned by the pamphlet bearing the words: ‘One or two, what’s best for you?’ - the public relations job put out by Captain Kleinig. The Minister said that he had to evaluate this project to determine whether increased expenditure would be required of the Commonwealth Government. 1 take it that that money Would be for ground facilities and that sort of thing to provide assistance for aircraft. I remind the Minister that when MacRobertson-Miller Airlines introduced the F28 aircraft, facilities at most of the aerodromes in the north of Western Australia were not of the standard required for it. The Department of Civil Aviation issued a certificate allowing MMA to use an aircraft which did not meet the standard of the aerodromes. The landing strips were 100 feet wide instead of 150 feet wide. Subsequently the regulations were amended to allow this type of operation to be conducted legally and to save the Commonwealth having to spend money to bring the ground facilities up to the standard required by the aircraft.

If that can be done for one airline it can be done for another if it finds that it has to put on a similar type of aircraft. This is not a reason for saying that , the Commonwealth will be subjected, to added cost if Trans-Australia Airlines, is given the right to fly this route.

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

Senator Cant is entitled to his view but he does not need to remind me of the point he raised. I am well aware of it. He was talking about a comparison between the F27 and the F28 aircraft. I am thinking of other kinds of comparisons. He does nol have to remind me of the point he made as 1 know it very well. I have to look at the total situation, and a picture is being given to me of what the introduction of different aircraft types would mean. He may res; assured that I will not in any way be abdicating my responsibility for ensuring that efficiency and safety are maintained. Senator Cant is looking at a comparison which is nol quite the same.

Senator McLAREN:
Sou.h Australia

– I wish to raise a point in connection with the estimates for administration and operational expenses for the Department of Civil Aviation. I refer to the present facilities at Darwin Airport. On 23rd November I asked a question of the Minister for Civil Aviation about whether 330 acres had been set aside at Darwin Airport for development of a civil aviation complex. The Minister told me in reply that he had been informed that an area of 330 acres hud been set aside on the north-west corner of the Royal Australian Air Force joint user airport at Darwin and that this area was reserved for the development of civil aviation, lt has been so reserved since the early 1960s, lt is now the early 1970s and the people of Darwin are very concerned about the congestion at Darwin Airport. On 25th November I asked the Minister another question abou! the congestion which was outlined in the Department of Civil Aviation Notice to Airmen on I1th November. I stated: . I a>k ihe Minister to what degree Ihe proposed expenditure of $650,000 .(.m additions to the existing terminal will relieve ihe present congeal ion.

I shall condense the reply which the Minister gave me. He said thai it would relieve ihe congestion most considerably. 1 am concerned at the congestion which exists, particularly as Darwin is the gateway to Australia on northbound and southbound Qantas flights. Because of quarantine restrict ions all passengers leave Qantas flights on arrival from overseas at Darwin. On the northbound exit flights Boeing 747 passengers cannot leave the aircraft while it spends about an hour on the ground. Apparently this is because or lack of facilities at the airport. This situation is causing quite a lot of concern to passengers.

One matter which causes the most concern in Darwin relates to the Darwin Aero Club which operates quite a good service in Darwin in teaching people to fly. Also it operates light aircraft which assist with Territory communications. I am told that the Darwin Aero Club has an amount of about §100,000 set aside lo build its own hangar so that it can service its aircraft. At the present time the club has about seven or eight light aircraft, lt cannot go ahead with the construction of a hangar until the Department of Civil Aviation develops the 330 acres as a civil complex. When we ask for development to be undertaken on certain projects in various States we are told of the problems which have to be overcome in regard to legislation and obtaining agreement with State governments. This problem does not arise in the Northern Territory because the Commonwealth has sole jurisdiction.

The people in Darwin can see no reason why money cannot be allocated which will allow the development of the Darwin Airport to go ahead, particularly as it serves a joint purpose - for defence and civil purposes. Recently in Darwin the Air Force conducted quite considerable exercises. They added to the congestion which exists at Ihe Darwin Airport. As I said, the people of Darwin are very concerned that the Federal Government is not going ahead and developing the 330 acres. I understand that this area was procured some 10 years ago. I would like the Minister lo tell me about this mutter so that I can inform ihe people of Darwin just when they can expect the 330 acres to be developed to give them belter facilities.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

- One of the simple facts of life in relation to civil aviation is this: In economic growth rate terms ‘the Australian economy grows at about 5 per cent or 6 per cent per annum. The civil aviation business grows at something like 14 per cent to 15 per cent per annum. Its demands on resources are increasing steadily all the time and its needs for priorities are of a very high order. The problem in the civil aviation business is that one cannot obtain all the money one wants al any given dale to do all the things people want to do. Darwin Airport is such a case. 1 do not gainsay all the honourable senator is saying about what the local people would like to have and when they would like to have it. In the Department of Civil Aviation I know a number of people who feel like the Darwin Airport people. My problem is obtaining the resources out of the total body of resources to do all the things that people would like to have done. I have one or two notes about the Darwin terminal and the 330 acre area which I think may be useful to the honourable senator. In the first instance I have some information about the airport as it is now placed and the apron situation.

There are 7 aircraft parking positions within the civil apron area at Darwin. Darwin is one of those cases of what I call a joint user airport’. I do not apologise for the fact that the Department of Civil Aviation and the Department of Air, as far as possible, try to encourage aerodromes to be joint user aerodromes which can be used by both departments. This makes for more sensible use of the people’s resources. It helps the resources to go further and it adds to the capacity of this country both in times of peace and in more difficult times. So Darwin is a joint user aerodrome where ownership is vested in the Department of Air and the Department of Civil Aviation is, in effect, a tenant for its purposes. The manner of using these arpon positions is flexible. It depends on the combination of aircraft which needs to be accommodated. I think this will be of particular interest to Senator McLaren who has taken a lot of interest in the Darwin Airport problem. With the completion of the further extensions to the passenger terminal, for which tenders are expected to be called in the first or second quarter of next year, there will be room to handle one Boeing 747 aircraft or 2 Boeing 707 aircraft international movements al the one time and up to 300 incoming and 300 outgoing passengers.

The passenger handling arrangements, after taking into account the normal combination of heavy, medium and smaller aircraft, approximately balances the earlier mentioned capacity of the aircraft aprons. With the co-operation and support of the Department of Air arrangements are being made to extend the car parking area. In the longer term - and 1 can put no more precise time on the matter than that - it is proposed to establish a new civil terminal area in the north-west corner. At the present time this matter is subject to very detailed master planning to show what effect this will have on the City of Darwin as it develops in regard to aircraft flight paths for landing and take off, circuit paths, and the effect of noise over the city of Darwin on hospitals and schools. Generally, the mast planning covers the kind which Senator McLaren and other honourable senators will understand are taken into account when an evaluation is carried out.

It is believed that the civil air terminal arrangements which were mentioned earlier will suffice until the time of transfer to the new terminal provided we can avoid what I call ‘excessive peaks’ in domestic and international arrivals. This calls for some planning to see that there is not a concentration of arrivals of aircraft. This lends to happen at all the world airports because aircraft are getting bigger and faster and, therefore, there tend to be fewer aircraft movements to carry more people.

The honourable senator spoke about the problem of the Darwin Aero Club. At the present time I do not have a paper on that matter. 1 am prepared to hear representations from the Darwin Aero Club if it wants to do something about its problem. I understand that the 330 acres of land are laid out for the final purpose. I will try to co-operate with the Darwin Aero Club if it wants to move into that area earlier. The matter would need to be the subject of representation, a letter or an investigation. It is not a matter with which I can deal tonight. There is no reason why it should not be taken up. I. do not promise that 1 can fix the matter but I promise to look into it.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– In relation to the subject of administration, I shall advert to the statement which the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) made last week about cut-rate fares charged by Qantas Airways Limited. The Minister will recall that he gave a progress report which seemed to indicate that early next year Qantas would be operating with very low fares between Australia and Great Britain. Firstly. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any impediments to these developments at the present time. When 1 say impediments’ I am referring to arrangements with foreign countries in relation to landing rights.

When the Minister gave answers to questions about these fares he gave an answer to a question asked by Senator Davidson which related to the readjustment of domestic fares. He said that fares within Australia might be lowered because of the external fares which would operate when Qantas received the new charter arrangements for new cut-rate fares. From the Minister’s answer it would appear that not only can we expect that Qantas will reduce fares over long sections of its flights within Australia but also that the domestic operators Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia will also be required to charge lower fares over long sections. If I remember correctly there was a reaction from the operators which placed a number of obstacles in the path of any reductions because of a number of new imposts which have been made in recent years. In relation to the latter matter I ask whether, in fact, it is likely that fares not only in relation to Qantas within Australia but also in relation to Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines might be reduced correspondingly with any reduction which is made in operations as announced by the Minister last week?

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

– I think the answer given about the Qantas situation was quite clear. Tt applied to the flying of Qantas between Australia and various parts of the world. Qantas is an international flag carrier. It is involved in flying over Australia but not flying internally in Australia. Senator Bishop, as I have, has shown much interest in this matter over quite a long time. I think he is very pleased to see that cheaper international flying to and from Australia is about to commence. I think he has in his mind the details of how all this is coming about. As at this morning, the situation of negotiating for landing rights is moving along quite satisfactorily. There are 3 facets of this matter that are important. These are the landing positions in the United Kingdom which had given one or two problems; the landing positions in Europe which, I think the honourable senator will agree, are quite important to this country in establishing direct links with Europe; and, as the honourable senator will recall, at the end of the statement I mentioned that negotiations were proceeding very satisfactorily with governments on the North American continent. This is so. If the honourable senator casts his mind back to the earlier announcement about negotiations on flying between Australia and America, he will remember that that was one of the points on which we were most anxious to reach agreement. We wanted to reach agreement with the American Government to have low priced flying across the Pacific and for Australia to have its share of this traffic. So, I believe that negotiations on international flying to and from Australia are progressing quite satisfactorily.

When Senator Davidson spoke, I had very much in mind a factor that all honourable senators would have in their minds, ft is this: The purpose of trying to obtain lower priced international flying is twofold. Firstly, we are anxious to see that Australians who want to go to other parts of the world to visit relatives or see something will be able to do so at prices they can afford to pay, provided they are prepared to put up with some of the inconveniences of what I call group bulk travel. Secondly, we are anxious to induce other people to come to this country to see it. They would be doing the same kinds of things in reverse. So one says to oneself: These people are induced to come quite cheaply to Australia on a group bulk travel basis. They reach one of the Australian gateways. Of course, there is more than one gateway for international flying. There is Darwin, Sydney, which is the principal gateway, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. Such people want to come to any one of those cities as a full plane load. When they arrive they want to look at Australia and see the country’.

Consideration then has to be given to whether the 2 domestic airlines are giving consideration to encouraging bulk group travel over long distances. I have referred to this, and I have directed the attention of the airlines to it. I do not know whether it was a new thought to them. I should be surprised if it was. It would not be a new thought to honourable senators. A plane load of people arriving in this country at Sydney on board a Boeing 747 aircraft want to do many things. They will want to go to Queensland, perhaps to see the Great Barrier Reef; perhaps they will want to go to Perth; and they may wish to go to other places. The same problem arises as to how they can be transported over long distances at lower prices. This calls for bulk group travel. That kind of flying in this country is in the hands of the 2 domestic carriers - Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines. As Minister for Civil Aviation, I would be hoping that they would be giving the same attention to making it possible for such people to fly cheaply in bulk group travel in Australia as I would be expecting the international airlines to give to transporting people to and from Australia. That is the position.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I have been asked to raise the question of the subsidy paid to Connair Pty Ltd in the Northern Territory. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) replied recently to questions from Senator McLaren on this subject. But, because this matter has occasioned some interest in the Northern Territory, it has been left to me to raise a number of general principles and to find out whether, since the Minister has said that in his view an inquiry into the existing subsidy is nol necessary, the Government has given any further consideration to the matter. I will be as brief as I can in dealing with this subject. The opportunity to raise the question was not available in the other place because of the pressure of work. I refer to a statement reported in the ‘Northern Territory News’ on Saturday, 6th November 1971. It included a long statement by Mr Cavill who is the managing director of South Australia and Territory Air Service Pty Ltd. He challenged the Government to reveal the full details of its cost-plus subsidy which created unfair and unbalanced competition with other operators. He went on to state that the subsidy which had been granted to. Connair this year amounted to over $800,000 and that this bad, in fact, doubled the subsidy paid last year. The terms of Mr Cavill’s argument were that to subsidise this airline meant that, in fact, a legitimate operator such as SAATAS would be prejudiced.

This information in the local Press raised much controversy within ihe Northern Territory and encouraged not only the newspapers there lo make a number of very important comments but also the Federal member for the Northern Territory to say a number of things and a representative in the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory to add his points. All the comments represented the notion that there ought to be an inquiry into the operations of Connair. It would seem to me that some sort of a case does exist for an inquiry. 1 noticed that recently the manager of Connair said that the company would welcome an inquiry. The manager of Connair is Captain Kirk, and his statement to :hat effect was made as recently as last November. The Northern Territory News’ recently said that, whilst it admitted that Mr Cavill, who is the managing director of SAATAS, had an axe to grind, it supported the call for an inquiry. One of the reports of SAATAS said this: lt has been pointed out to the Director-General of Civil Aviation and the Minister for Civil Aviation, and 1 believe accepted by them, that one of the best ways to judge the efficiency of a subsidised operator is lo allow private enterprise to compete alongside them. 1 will be as quick as 1 can on this matter because 1 understand that it is still under consideration. I wish to refer to what was said in November in the ‘Northern Territory News’. Amongst other things, it said in an editorial:

SAATAS chief, Mr Dick Cavill, has claimed that the subsidy is a ‘cost-plus affair’ and that the airline is able lo carry on only because of the subsidy.

Heavy subsidisation of one operator to the exclusion of all others must have a demoralising effect on the industry itself.

These allegations and suggestions that an agreement was written for Connair guaranteeing subsidy to 1980 should be answered in the interests of the public and in particular the airline industry and Connair itself.

If the Government has nothing to hide .it should lay all the cards down face up now. Searching inquiry may not then be necessary.

These matters came before the attention of Mr Calder, the representative of the Northern Territory in the Federal Parliament. A statement by him was reported in the newspaper I have mentioned on 9th November 1971 in the following terms:

The Federal member for the Northern Territory, Mr Sam Calder (CP.), said yesterday he would urge the Government to hold an inquiry into the operations of the Territory airline Connair. Mr Calder was commenting on claims made last week by the managing director of the charter’ airline SAATAS, Mr Dick Cavill.

Mr Cavill said that the hugs subsidy . paid to Connair was not necessary and was corroding the airline industry generally. ‘

He said he was shocked by the announcement that last year Connair had been given a Federal Government subsidy of $838,000, almost double the previous year’s subsidy.

And yet before June 30 this year they owed the Commonwealth $620,000 by way of direct loan.

In the meantime, Mr Calder has placed upon the notice paper of the other place the following question, directed to the Minister, representing the Minister for Civil Aviation:

Will the Minister institute an inquiry into the operations of the subsidised airline operator Connair Pty Ltd of Alice Springs in order to ascertain by the thorough taking of evidence (a) what alternatives there are to the present Connair regular public transport standard operations in the Northern Territory and outback northern Australia; (b) what is the requirement of these areas, in its fullest context, for the provision of adequate air services having regard to (i) economy, (ii) safety and speed, (iii) passenger comfort, (iv) proper freight handling and (v) suitable aerodromes: (c) what is the ability, nf existing or aspiring operators in these outback areas to give the standards of service, safety and maintenance to which travellers in the Northern Territory and outback Australia arc entitled: and (d) what is the feasibility and practicability of Connair’s F-27 aircraft proposals as a replacement fur current similar operations by major airlines?

I mention that not only Mr Calder was interested in this matter; Mr Fisher, who is a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Council for Fanny Bay said according to the ‘Northern Territory News’ on 25th November that any inquiry into the operations of Alice Springs based Connair should be widened to cover all airline and charter flying in the Northern Territory.

He went on to say that he thought that the Government should in fact institute an inquiry to clear the air in respect of all operations in the area. To summarise the matter as quickly as possible, as far as 1 am aware the Commonwealth Government has not yet given an answer to a request that the Western Australian State Shipping Service ought to be subsidised to allow a continuity of service on the seaboard between Fremantle and Darwin. This is an essential service; 1 think Senator Cant and Senator Wilkinson have spoken about this matter in the Senate. At the same time as the Commonwealth Government refused to give any consideration to a subsidy to this service it has accepted apparently a con- tinuing application to subsidise Connair to the extent at the present time of nearly

Sim a year.

I do not want to refer to what has taken place between the competing airlines in the Northern Territory, but it is true to say, looking at the reports of the Department over the years since 1967, that Connair has needed a great deal of propping up. It would appear to me that there is substance in the complaints of organisations like SAATAS and other bona fide airlines which are operating on their own merits and who are in fact doing a reasonably good job. I am informed that in addition to its presence in the Northern Territory, SAATAS has been able to carry, the Australian record of efficiency into the Indonesian area. At the present time it is carrying on profitable services between Australia and Borneo, Indonesia and Bali. It has a record which would certainly not quickly reduce that airline in the opinion of any observer. So it would seem to me that what is required is for the Department of Civil Aviation and the Minister to give fairly reasoned consideration to what has become a controversy in the Northern Territory.

I wind up by saying simply that while the Minister on this occasion will not be able to give a long report, the matter certainly needs a study in depth rather than the one which has been given, and . to which focus has been given. The Minister’s reply to Senator McLaren has been publicised in the Northern Territory. I know that there has been a great deal of negotiation between the airlines, the Department of Civil Aviation and the Minister which forms a background to this matter. So 1 raise this matter with a hope that there will be more study into the need for an inquiry in order to bring about a more efficient airline operation in the Northern Territory. 1 ask the Minister for his comments, even if they are only part comments al this stage.

Senator COTTON:
Aviation · New South WalesMinister for Civil · LP

Senator Bishop concluded by saying that he appreciated the fact that this master was being looked at fairly exhaustively, and he asked that it be given consideration and thought. That is exactly what has been happening to it. The honourable senator would understand what I mean when I say that. He referred to a number of newspaper comments in which Mr Cavill of SAATAS had a lot to say for himself. Mr Cavill is a charter operator; he is not an airline operator. Let us be fair to the Connair Pty Ltd people. Connair went through the hardships of this business in a pretty rotten time, and nobody else wanted to do it. Nobody else would take it on or look at it at any price. People on those outback stations wanted to get to doctors and their children wanted to get to schools, hut no-one would do anything about it. There were no Mr Cavills around in those days. They could not be found. Connair took on a rough, tough, rotten job in putting communications into the far flung pastoral areas. He had to be helped. That is what happened. That is what was done.

Now that he has got it going he is having a difficult time in keeping the service running at a profit. This is to be expected. He is a competent operator. When one looks at his record of maintenance and efficiency and what he has done, it is easy to criticise but not easy to duplicate. The Department is looking at the whole situation throughout Australia, as we always do, quite carefully. We have not seen any demonstrated case for an inquiry to be conducted. It seems to us that what we are looking at here is a manoeuvre by somebody to pick up some part of the business to suit himself. We are looking at the total need for air transport into this outlying part of Australia which is difficult of access, difficult of terrain, and difficult of climate. It is admitted quite freely that it has taken quite a lot of subsidy money to keep that Connair service in business. No-one quarrels with that. Every year when that money is made available the most detailed scrutiny and careful examination of the cost of granting that subsidy are conducted. I go through the final papers myself. But what we are really talking about is this: Do we want to continue to give to those people in the outlying parts of Australia an air service in communication which otherwise they probably would not be able to ge’? I think Senator Bishop knows me well enough to know that this matter is receiving the careful consideration for which he asks.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Proposed expenditure - Department of Trade and Industry, $39,641,000- agreed to.

Proposed expenditure - Australian Tourist Commission, $2,650,000 - agreed to.

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure $39,680,000.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the proposed expenditure of the Department of National Development by $1.

This request is sought as an instruction to the Government to introduce as a matter of urgency the implementation of a national policy on fuel and energy. Since last year when we dealt with the estimates for this Department, there has been quite some development in this field. At that time I moved that there should be an inquiry into the establishment of the nuclear development plant which at that stage was being developed at Jervis Bay. Since then, of course, the Government has withdrawn that proposal. Tn fact, it finally accepted the warnings that the Australian Labor Party had been giving in regard to this proposal over a long period of time. Tonight it is not necessary to issue the warning again. The Government has taken that warning already, although it rejected it last year. I think it is very apparent that what is required in Australia today is a scientific development of our natural resources. There is no doubt now that we have raw materials and the skill for Australians to become leaders in metallurgy, metal fabrication and engineering. We have a unique situation in Australia. We have the natural resources and we have a race of people who seem peculiarly adapted to this type of work.

There is no doubt that Australia is a world leader in the production of such natural resources as fissionable materials; fuel and energy resources. There have been warnings not only in Australia but all over the world that the end of the need for the old standby coal, with which we have grown up and which we have been exporting, all over he world, particularly to Japan in increasing quantities, is in sight. It is not very important whether that will occur 5, 10, 15 or 20 years hence; the fact is that it will not be a long time hence. Australia is exporting something that is not replaced. The unfortunate thing about mining is that every ton of coal or whatever is taken out of the ground is never replaced. It is not like reaping a crop which can be replaced next year. Since last year the Government has set up the Australian Industries Development Corporation, which was a very radical proposal for a conservative government. It was welcomed by the Opposition. It has started to invest money, but we believe that as well as the AIDC there should be a lead from the Government as to what should be done with our tremendous natural resources. The AIDC should be given an indication as to the direction in which it should be moving. I think it is pretty clear from the debates that took place at the time that the Bill was introduced that this was the basis on which the AIDC was set up. The Austraiian Labor Party believes that the indication I have mentioned is very much overdue. Japan is tremendously dependent on our natural resources, and it is becoming more and more dependent on them. Therefore there should not be any hesitation by the Commonwealth, on behalf . of Australians, to ensure that in the secondary and tertiary stages of these developments there should be a majority Australian control. This has been an age-old argument and I think the Government is coming to see more of what the Australian Labor Party has been saying over the years, to the point that there will be an examination by the Senate at least, and I hope by both Houses of Parliament, of overseas control of Australian industries.

Japan is now in the position - it makes no secret of this - that it has to export its manufacturing processes from Japan. Because of the tremendous cost structure in Japan today it can assemble in Australia as cheaply as it can in Japan. It can manufacture and assemble more cheaply in the Asian countries than it can in either Japan or Australia. Because of the limitation due to the size of Japan, it is at a stage at which it must export its pollution. I do not say that harshly. One does not realise the extent to which there can be pollution until one goes to Japan and sees it, and sees the problems with which Japan is being faced. It has problems associated with stockpiling. Every time it tries to stockpile it runs into problems associated with pollution. Japanese municipal authorities are demanding control of pollution. Industries are finding that this is quadrupling their costs and making impossible the little stockpiling that is possible in Japan.

There is no doubt that iron and steel manufacturing in Australia will be increased. Over the years we have been largely dependent on one company - the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. We have grown up with it; it has been part of our life. We have relied on it. But there will be another iron and steel manufacturing plant in Australia. Already wc are getting plenty of offers for overseas capital, but J suggest that if we allowed the second iron and steel plant in Australia to be developed almost wholly by overseas capital it would be a tragedy. The one thing about BHP is that, I think, it has the greatest number of Australian shareholders of any company in Australia. The Australian-owned Ampol company has the second greatest number of Australian investors. I suggest that all honourable senators would want to preserve that if they could. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth should be insisting on and taking an interest in this matter. The tremendous resources that we have are not infinite; they are finite. Whether it occurs in our time or in our sons’ time or our grandson’ time, they will be expended. Therefore, when we are selling them we are entitled, as a nation, to get the full value of our assets.

There should be laid down in the policy which this motion seeks to have implemented that before there are any exports we should be satisfied that they are being sold at the full world price. There would be nothing innovative about such a suggestion. The petroleum exporting companies which are based around the Persian Gulf look at petroleum not only on a national basis but on an international basis. The countries are geographically suited, which helps them quite a lot. Nevertheless, they do not hesitate for one moment to fix prices and charge what they think the market will bear for the export of petroleum. Japan is one country which has to get in the queue to buy from these countries. If it is good enough for those countries to do it in relation to one commodity - petroleum - it is obvious that Australia should be doing it in relation to all its finite resources. We should be laying down very clearly that we will not export materials which we require.

Ari evolution has taken place. I refer to the discovery and mining of metals and exporting them to Japan. I agree that the evolution has been a fast one. We should be moving into the secondary and possibly the tertiary development of those metals. I have read the figures, ls it worth going from the first to the second or third grade of development? Plenty of countries would say to us: ‘Surely you should, be developing the metals. That makes sense. We are the boys with the money and the technology. We will, come down and do it for you’. I feel sincerely that, if we do not make up our minds very rapidly in the very near future and if we do not let the importing countries know exactly what we will take from them, the amount of capital we will let them invest and the degree to which they can come into the manufacturing of the metals, we will do what we have done with so many other industries: when we wake up one morning we will find that control is in the hands of other countries. 1 think we are inclined to say that because nature has been so bountiful to us development is not all that necessary, but we should be laying down a comprehensive guide to exploration and development of our resources both on the land and under the sea. That is why I asked a question about the matter this afternoon. As 1 indicated in the question, when Sir Garfield Barwick was the Attorney-General some time ago he said that it was tremendously important, particularly in relation to the sea bed, thai because of the almost chaotic legal situation we should be staking our claim very firmly indeed. We should be preventing the depletion of our fuel and energy reserves.

I return to this point: Because we are fairly bountiful we are inclined to sit back and say: ‘She’ll be right, mate. Let’s worry about that on another day’. 1 refer honourable senators to surveys that have been made, particularly the warnings that go to the American President. I do not like quoting figures, because J suppose one could get differing views. 1 do not know how anybody could be completely accurate about our reserves. The fact is that they are limited. They will not last a long time. Therefore we are faced with the simple business proposition of making the most of our resources - the most of our assets - while we have them. Tied up in all this is the ecology. I do not want to go into that too deeply because we had a fairly good debate on it this afternoon. There is no doubt that the business world is starting to realise that the Australian public demands from it more than merely making huge profits, employing people and not worrying about the ecology. This is influencing Japan and other countries. In a fuel and energy policy and in looking at the development of our natural resources we must look not only at the assets that we can sell arid at the secondary and tertiary developments but also at the ecology. We could get. ourselves into a situation similar to but not as bad as that of some other countries. All these things could be brought about wilh the establishment of a national fuel and energy policy. No matter how humble its beginning, it should be started as quickly as possible because, wilh that great fossilised thing called the Constitution, there has to be a tremendous degree of cooperation between the States and the Commonwealth to make sure that the States are fitting into the areas about which 1 am talking tonight.

Last but certainly not least is the ceasefire or freezing that we have witnessed on the question of nuclear energy. The Government went into this area, as we indicated last year, a little like a bull at a gate, after it had decided not to proceed with the Cape Lambert explosion in Western Australia, it seemed that somebody wanted lo get into the act. Some day, of course, Australia will have to get into the act, and it should not delay for too long in doing so. Mistakes were made in respect of the project at Jervis Bay. They are mistakes that have now been admitted. But what happened there should not freeze the situation for all time with respect to our use of nuclear energy. There is no doubt that we have great uranium deposits in Australia. I think there is no doubt that enriched uranium will be a commodity we will be exporting in the future.

Anyone who is aware of the set-up in Japan will know that that country is tremendously keen on this source of power.

Japan has a 7-man committee - if that is the word, although it is the same thing whatever the name might be - composed of 6 technical people and one diplomat. The diplomat is there because the moment they want to discuss this question of importing enriched uranium from other countries the diplomat will move in and take the matter out of the hands of the technical people. It could very well be that we could be a big exporter of enriched uranium in the future. This is something different from nuclear technology in other ways.It need not necessarily be associated with the type of plant that we were considering for Jervis Bay. This is an area in which we must bring our technology up to date. If it is necessary in these areas to import some of the know-how and technology, so be it; we will have to do that.

But the fear is that we will allow this development to grow up like Topsy. While we are not concerned about the amount of overseas capital that comes into Australia and overseas ownership we could find ourselves in the position in which we find ourselves in respect of so many other industries where overseas capital is starting to swamp us. We are in a peculiarly suitable position to develop the production of enriched uranium, and to develop it very rapidly. We have the natural resources and we have the type of people who are very good in this work-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

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

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– That was a most interesting exposition from Senator Willesee, but it was not really much devoted to an examination of the estimates for the Department of National Development. What the honourable senator was talking about was the need for a national fuel policy, a consideration of overseas ownership of assets in Australia, a very wide-ranging argument dealing with an examination of natural resources, national fuel and capital investments. What I am concerned about is a situation in which honourable senators deal with the estimates in the Committee of the Whole when they have dealt exhaustively and in detail in the Senate Estimates committees with the same subjects. It seems, to me to be a profitless exercise to pursue this matter very far. I think honourable senators will find themselves able to agree with me on that. Senator Willesee is proposing at present an amendment which is changing its form but which substantially is directed as an admonition of the Government for not having a national fuel policy, to which a number of other things have been hung, such as on a Christmas tree on which there is a present for everybody.

Senator Murphy:

– We will correct the situation.

Senator COTTON:

– That is good. Senator Willesee has spoken for a long time about our need for a national fuel policy. I could do that, too. I could talk about the coal situation, about the time which I recall very well when, as all honourable senators will recall, it was said that we did not have enough coal, but then the time came when we discovered that we had immense reserves of coal. There was a time when it was said that we did not have enough iron ore, but the time came when we found that we had great reserves of iron ore. There was a time when the same was said of uranium, but the time came when we discovered that wehad immense deposits of uranium.

The main sources of power in Australia for both now and the future are very well held in our own hands as raw material for power generation. The need for a national fuel policy has been said to be paramount. We have already what amounts to a national fuel policy. If honourable senators consider the matter they will appreciate that within the federal system, in most of the areas that have been talked about, the proper constitutional responsibility lies with the States. The Commonwealth and the States are joined together in a variety of ways - through the Water Resources Council, the Joint Coal Board and an examination of the resources, utilisation and exploitation of the off-shore continental shelf. The Bureau of Mineral Resources, which itself is a Commonwealth organisation, has in conjunction with State government departments conducted a most exhaustive survey of coal resources. The same situation applies with uranium. The fuel branch of the Department of National Development does the same with respect to oil and gas supplies. The Water Resources

Council studies our water potential. In effect, what we have in Australia under a federal system of government is joint responsibility and joint power, which in effect is the situation for which honourable senators have been asking. They have been asking for a national fuel policy; but, in reality, if we were to accept the Labor Party’s proposition we would be required to take from the State governments all their power over fuel matters and to put them in the hands of the Commonwealth. 1 shall not involve myself in a discussion of capital ownership overseas. We have been through this on many occasions. The simple facts of life are that Australia raises about 85 per cent of its capital resources out of its own savings. Australia is a country with very high savings. We get additional money from overseas to further growth in which all share through improved living standards and prosperity. In simple truth, to go without that money is to diminish our living standards. With these few words, I think the matter should be disposed of because the Committee has much work to do and the estimates of many departments to consider. I would not want to be the person to keep us here on Christmas Day.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– 1 support the amendment moved by Senator Willesee because I believe it is important that the Parliament, and particularly the Senate, look at the fuel resources of this country. I refer particularly to the resources of natural gas. Japan is very anxious to purchase natural gas from Australia or from anywhere else in the world where it can be obtained. Its main purpose in buying natural gas is to be able to reduce the pollution of its cities. It would achieve this by using natural gas as a fuel in heavy industry and in other ways throughout its cities. I believe that natural gas, used in a liquefied form in motor vehicles in city traffic, will be the fuel of the future for the reduction of pollution. I cannot see why this fuel should not be controlled by the Government.

It is all very well to say that we have a control over the continental shelf, but who owns the resources available to us there? How much of those resources do we control? In the Bass Strait area we have control by ownership of 50 per cent of the natural gas in the area. In the Cooper Basin in South Australia, in the main, there is overseas control of gas resources. There is potentially a huge gas field off the coast of Western Australia, but that is owned by overseas interests. By means of a takeover only a few days ago by the Burmah Oil Company, which although British is no different from any other overseas company as it is part of the world’s oil cartel and will operate to suit its own economic interests and profits rather than Australia’s interests, we lost control of the northwest shelf. The gas which has been found in the adjacent area of the Northern Territory is mainly under the control of a French company. This is the fuel of the future; yet we have lost control of it.

I would like to ask at a later stage other questions associated with the Department of National Development. I would like to know the answers to these questions at a later stage: Who have the permit areas which have been issued to Woodside Oil NL and Mid-Eastern Oil NL for the north west coast of Western Australia and for the adjacent area of the Northern Territory? What is the position of the shareholders? I read that Mr Hughes-Jones objected to the takeover of Woodside Oil and Mid-Eastern Oil by the Burmah Oil Co., which subsequently was able to obtain- 70 per cent of Woodside Oil and 60 per cent of Mid-Eastern Oil and then declare its offer as unconditional. Mr HughesJones advised other shareholders in Woodside Oil and Mid-Eastern Oil to accept the offer of the Burmah Oil Company otherwise they would be left without any stock. Their only stock was not the gas but the permit area in which the companies could explore for petroleum and exploit petroleum if they were able to find it. That was their asset.

Has this Government, through the Department of National Development, agreed to a transfer of the permits from Woodside Oil and Mid-Eastern Oil to the Burmah Oil group? Is that the way that this Government has sold out the shareholders in Woodside Oil and Mid-Eastern Oil? Has the Designated Authority in Western Australia done the same thing because it must be done in collaboration? The Designated Authority does it in Western Australia and the Minister for National Development in the Commonwealth approves of it, if he is consulted or if he has not told the Designated Authority that he does not need to be consulted. These are questions which must be answered. This is a very important fuel to this country. It should bc in (he hands of the people. In fact, it should bc in the hands of the Commonwealth Government and not in the hands of the Stale governments at all.

Whatever may be said about the rights of the States, their rights do nol extend beyond the 3-mile limit. Not one ounce of natural gas or one teaspoonful of crude oil has been found within the 3-mile limit off shore. All discoveries have been found in Commonwealth territory. Yet the Commonwealth is doing nothing to control these areas that belong to the people, lt should take action through this Parliament. As soon as possible a national fuel and energy policy must be established by this Government. We must conserve the use of the fuel that we have.

There is one other very large deposit of natural gas in this country. It is in the Mereenie and Palm Valey basins in the Northern Territory. It is within the ambit of this Government to control. Yet proposals have been put up to pipe that gas to the Gull of Carpentaria, liquefy it and send it to Japan. Only recently the Westem Australian Government, before the big strikes on the north west shelf, had to stake a claim for the Commonwealth to protect its interests to be able to pipe that gas to Western Australia to be used in the mineral field of the eastern goldfields and down through the industrial areas in Western Australia. The State Government had lo make an application to the Commonwealth Government to protect its interests in respect of this fuel. This adds to the need for the Commonwealth to establish a national fuel and energy policy.

I urge upon this Government the need for a proper survey at the earliest opportunity to see that the fuel resources of this country are in the hands of the people or in the hands of this Government for the people. Those resources should be properly surveyed. Proper data should be collected ascertain exactly what quantity of fuel we have. We do not know what amounts of coal we have. We can only guess at the amount of uranium that we have. We saw the fiasco at Nabarlek where many thousands of ions of uranium were alleged to be. Instead of 55,000 tons of uranium, the deposit finished up at 9.000 tons. We do not know what amount of fuel we have. It is lime thai a central collecting office was established at which all of this data could be assembled so that Australia may know what its fuel resources are. Then we would be able to manage the distribution and use of those resources. For those reasons, I support the amendment moved by Senator Willessee.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

Mr Temporary Chairman, I have been informed that the format with respect to requests of the type that I have moved is somewhat altered this year. The Opposition wishes to move a motion in a positive form. I therefore seek leave to withdraw my request.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Request withdrawn.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I move:

Thai the Committee is of the opinion that the Government should prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and power policy. 1 do not wish to repeat what I said in support of my earlier amendment. I merely make a comment on the Minister’s reply. Although it is true that much of this area lies within State jurisdiction, the whole purpose of this amendment is that the Commonwealth should become the leader in this Meld. As Senator Cant has pointed out, some of these deposits are in the Northern Territory which is under the direct con,rol of the Commonwealth. The buyers are acting virtually as one body because of the co-operation that they arc able to obtain from overseas countries. Petroleum distributors in the Persian Gulf act virtually as one seller. We do nol think that we will put ourselves in a strong position until the Australian sellers, be they State Government, Commonwealth Government or private, have their activities co-ordinated through the Commonwealth. This would put us in the same favourable selling position as interests overseas. I commend my amendment to the Committee.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I do not think there is any need for me to add to the comments that I made as, by doing so, I would be entering into a general debate. I will answer the matters raised by Senator Cant. Senator Cant directed a couple of questions to me for precise information. The officer responsible in this area has only just arrived.I will get the information that the honourable senator seeks and provide it to him. I hope to be able to send it to him tomorrow. The honourable senator knows my rule that I do not drag information out of the air. In the conditions operating here,I do not wish to add to the process exceptto say that I do not agree with Senator Cant and Senator Willesee. The reasons why I do not agree I have developed earlier and on other occasions. I suggest that the amendment be put.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– On 18th August 1971 I asked of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development some details concerning the salaries paid to geophysicists in the Department of National Development. The purpose of asking the question was to ascertain whether or not geologists -to use a short term - employed by the Commonwealth were paid less than those employed by the State of New South Wales.. If this were so, there would be a drain from the Commonwealth area to the State area. In his answer,the Minister gave me a whole series of figures into which I will not go at the present time. These figures indicated that the salaries paid in the Commonwealth sphere were not only considerably lower than those paid in private industry but also were lower than those paid by the New South Wales Government.

The question is posed: How can the Department cany out the surveys which are necessary to meet the suggestion put by the Opposition? If it is impossible for the Departmentto hold these specialists because of the disparity in the returns, what action is the Department taking to make certain that there is not a continuing drain ofgeophysicists in particular from the Department? No organisation responsible for national development can operate successfully without the men to carry out the surveys necessary to establish the extent of our mineral resources. The other matters become redundant unless this problem is corrected. I would like to have some assurance from the Minister that some action is being taken to upgrade the level of remuneration to this body of personnel.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I would like to reply to specific questions. I remember that Senator Georges was concerned on an earlier occasion about the disparity in pay rates of geologists and geophysicists, a matter he has raised again tonight. Some months ago the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed clown an increase of about 15 per cent for these people which makes the rates payable to them by the Commonwealth, the States and private industry approximately comparable. The problem about which Senator Georges has been concerned should now be overcome by that determination. The rates are as follows: class 1, $455l-$7133; class 2. $7498-$8421 : class 3. $8855-$9935: class 4, $10,384-$11,112; and class 5, $11,485- $12,234. It is believed by the Department that that determination of a few months ago should overcome the problem.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– Earlier, a whole series of motions was circulated purporting to stem from the Estimates. The first motion moved was in relation to the environment. Obviously it stems directly and logically from the consideration of the Estimates by Estimates Committee B, as it states ‘The Committee is of the opinion that the report of Estimates Committee B relating to slow progress’, and so on. For that reason the Democratic Labor Party considered the motion on its merits and decided to support it. The other motions in the host that have been circulated in this form donot appear to us to be at all appropriate to the modes and procedures which have been followed in relation to the Estimates committees. All these motions are of substance and of great moment, opening up vast topics. We do not think that as these motions have come forward in this form at this time, purporting to stem from the Estimates committees but not stemming directly or logically from them, the Senate is in a position to give them the consideration and investigation in depth that matters of such substance require. Let me read some of the motions.

Senator Willesee:

– They are not moved yet.

Senator BYRNE:

– No, but they were circulated.

Senator Willesee:

– No. They are not circulated.

Senator BYRNE:

– We have copies of them.

Senator Willesee:

– Yes. You got them from the Clerk.

Senator BYRNE:

– No, they were left on my table. They were circulated and subsequently collected from around the chamber. What that means, I do not know.

Senator Willesee:

– They are withdrawn until they are circulated.

Senator BYRNE:

– They are withdrawn technically until they are circulated. May I, Mr Deputy Chairman, ask Senator Willesee whether he proposes to move these motions or whether they have been abandoned?

Senator Willesee:

– I have moved one motion.

Senator BYRNE:

– I am asking whether it is proposed to move all the other motions.

Senator Willesee:

– Deal with the one 1 have already moved.

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 am asking because 1 am discussing this one. in the context of all the subsequent motions. Is this one of a host of motions all of which were circulated as .being intended to be moved and subsequently collected from around the chamber? I have received no intimation that they have been actually abandoned. I lake it that it is proposed to move them and to circulate them in immediate anticipation of a particular motion being moved. I will therefore proceed with my contribution to this discussion on the basis that it is intended to move all these motions in turn.

Senator Webster:

Senator, I think you should be reasonable. I doubt that anybody read those motions.

Senator BYRNE:

– That may be so. If Senator Willesee now cares to disavow them and to say that he docs not intend to proceed with them i will not continue the speech I am about to make, but in the absence of an assurance from Senator Willesee I take it that the motions already circulated and withdrawn will be re-presented and moved at the appropriate time. On that basis 1 draw the attention of the Senate to the type of thinking behind the motions. For example, I refer to the motion to be moved in relation to the Department of Civil Aviation, lt provides That there be set up an independent permanent air accident investigation board separate from the Department of Civil Aviation- ‘

Senator Keeffe:

– J rise to order. Senator Byrne is discussing things which are not even before the Committee. He is using his own imagination to project something. On that basis I say that it is definitely out of order for him to start talking about something not even before the Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Senator Lawrie) - Senator Byrne, the motion to which you refer has already been . passed.

Senator Cotton:

– I might add to the sum of knowledge - of to the confusion - by pointing out that if that was lo be a motion in respect of the Department of Civil Aviation it does not mean much because the Department’s estimates have been passed. That is’ finished.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I want to support and perhaps answer something that is worrying Senator Byrne about the proposal of the Opposition. I attack it in this way: One of the reasons why I support “this idea of a reduction of $ I-

Senator Byrne:

– Are you speaking to the point of order?

Senator Mulvihill:

– No, 1 thought you had finished.

The TEMPORARY ,’ CHAIRMAN- 1 rule that there is one motion before the Committee, Senator Byrne, and you must speak to it.

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 am speaking to that motion. I am merely saying that that motion in pattern is one of a series which apparently at some stage the Opposition intended to move and may still have the intention to move. In the absence of an assurance that they have been abandoned, I am entitled to presume that they will be moved at the proper time and individually. If an assurance is given that they have been abandoned I will abandon this speech. I am waiting for the Opposition to indicate whether it proposes to abandon them.

Senator Georges:

– One has been abandoned.

Senator Murphy:

Senator Byrne should go ahead and make his speech.

Senator BYRNE:

– I presume that the Opposition intends-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– You cannot anticipate those motions. We have been told that they have been withdrawn. You must confine your remarks to the motion before the Chair.

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 presume that I am entitled to refer to something which was circulated and is not now formally before the Committee. The motions were circulated and, quite properly, I have copies of them. I presume that I am entitled to refer to them as indicating the thinking of the Opposition in relation to these matters. They are not formally before the Senate, but there are-

Senator Murphy:

– Can you tell us in simple terms what your complaint is?

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 am trying to do so but I have been interrupted by points of order and interruptions of all kinds.

Senator Murphy:

– Can you tell us what you are really complaining about?

Senator BYRNE:

– If the Temporary Chairman will allow me, I will certainly do so.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I call Senator Byrne.

Senator BYRNE:

– Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I am saying that presuming that the motions which were circulated are still proposed to be moved by the Opposition at the appropriate time-

Senator Cant:

– I rise to order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I invite your attention to the fac. that the estimates of the Department of National Development are before the Chair. I ask you whether Senator Byrne should direct his attention to any other department.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Byrne, you must link your remarks to the estimates of the Department of National Development, which are now before the Chair.

Senator BYRNE:

– I am linking my remarks to the motion moved by the Opposition in relation to this item of vote. I am saying that this motion, on the basis that the other circulated motions will be moved, is part of a pattern of motions which the Opposition in .its best judgment proposes to present to the Committee during this debate. That is all 1 am saying and there is nothing wrong with that. If I am wrong in my presupposition it is up to the Opposition to say that it proposes to abandon them and that they are no longer relevant. In the absence of that assurance 1 presume that they are relevant. If that is so, I say that this type of presentation must completely contradict the whole pattern of the Estimates debate and the operation of the Estimates committees. I would like to refer to these matters that have come to our proper notice. One was a substantive motion in relation to the Department of Civil Aviation to the effect that the Committee is of the opinion that the Commonwealth has failed to make reasonable financial arrangements.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Byrne, you cannot refer to motions that are not before the Chair. I have ruled that you must refer to the motion before the Chair.

Senator BYRNE:

– Wilh the greatest respect, Mr Temporary Chairman, 1 am dealing with the motion which is before the Chair and I am saying that it is a part of a pattern of motions which the Opposition in its best judgment, apparently proposes to move in this chamber. I want to make the point that the motion before the Chair is a substantive motion and that the others are all substantive motions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Byrne, the Chair knows of no other member of the Committee who has any knowledge of these matters.

Senator BYRNE:

– Then, Mr Temporary Chairman. I am delighted to be able to inform the Committee of this fact. 1 am attempting to redress that impenetrable unawareness. The point is that if the Committee is not aware of them then I am not mentioning something that is before the Committee; I am mentioning something that has come to me ab extra. Surely 1 would be entitled to refer to something which came to my attention in. say: King’s Hall. These other propositions may not emerge as motions in the Committee, but obviously the Opposition had them in contemplation

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Byrne, 1 must rule against you referring to those matters. The only motion under discussion is the one which is before the Chair. You cannot refer to the other ones.

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 bow to your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman. All 1 will say is that the motion which is before the Committee is a substantive one. It is a motion that in other circumstances might well have been moved in a formal manner for a formal debate. The object of the exercise of the Estimates Committees was to examine the Estimates in depth and in detail, more particularly as regards their financial implications. To move a motion of this character dealing with very substantial matters impinging on the general policy of the Department concerned seems to me to be a complete contradiction of the concept of Estimates Committees. In those circumstances, I think the moment is inappropriate and the available time inadequate to allow the Committee to consider matters of this substance at the necessary depth. If this motion is part of a pattern of similar motions - that is purely speculation, of course, and my judgment may be wrong - the Australian Democratic Labor Party is unable to agree that it is a matter which can be given the necessary consideration al this stage. The notice necessary to enable it to be studied in depth has not been given. For those reasons and in those circumstances the DLP would not be prepared to support it. Quite apart from the individual merits of the matter, we think it is inappropriate on that basis to ask the Commit- tee to come to a formal definitive decision on a matter of such consequence. Therefore the DLP does not support the motion which is now before the Committee. It did support the first proposal because it was germane to the Estimates concerned. However, this proposal is not in any way stemming from the report of an Estimates

Committee. In those circumstances, my party does not find it possible to support this motion or any similar motions which may be put forward.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party is entitled to adopt any view that it wants to adopt. The Government and the Opposition have agreed upon a particular course being taken and, instead of pursuing what might be regarded as the appropriate method of raising matters of this nature - moving to reduce the estimates by SI or $10, which is the ancient formula and which is a little out of touch with reality - we have decided that it is better to seek an expression of the opinion of the Committee on various matters.

Senator Byrne:

– It is very doubtful whether matters of this substance should be discussed in the Committee of the Whole rather than in the Senate itself.

Senator MURPHY:

– The procedure in the House of Commons and the House of Representatives is to raise these questions by means of a motion to the effect that the estimates be reduced by §1 as an indication to the Government that, for example, a national fuel and energy’ policy should be prepared urgently and implemented. The Government and the Opposition have agreed between themselves that, instead of using the ancient method, it is more desirable

Senator Byrne:

– I must say that it was considerate of the Opposition and the Government to exclude the Australian Democratic Labor Party from this arrangement.

Senator Little:

– Let me remind honourable senators that it is fatal not to include us.

Senator Georges:

– Why?

Senator Little:

– Because (he motions will not be passed.

Senator MURPHY:

– We have heard that it is fatal not to include the Democratic Labor Party in any negotiations, but we have not heard to whom it is fatal. The Opposition is content with the arrangement which has been reached. I should think that the public would prefer the decisions to be made in this straightforward manner. Probably there are certain advantages to the Opposition in conducting the debate in this clear manner, lt is also probable that there are certain advantages to the Government in that it does not have to contend with a decision being taken to reduce the estimates, which would cause it all sorts of complications that would have to be sorted out. 1 think it would be much more preferable, even from the Government’s point of view, to have an expression ot opinion- regardless of whether it is for or against the Government - than to have the nonsense of a reduction of the estimates by $1. lt is for those reasons that the Government and the Opposition prefer that matters of this nature be decided on the simple issue of policy, lt is no argument for the Democratic Labor Party to say that not enough notice has been given. Most of the matters raised have been on the notice paper or were argued in the House of Representatives.

Senator Byrne:

– What has that got to do with it?

Senator MURPHY:

– The honourable senator would not complain if the Opposition were to seek to reduce the Estimates by $1. He would say that he understands that proposition because it has been put before. But if the ground for that proposition were exactly the same as the ground that the Opposition is now advancing– : Senator Byrne - No ground has been given in the first proposition. It states simply that the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the vote by $1. Why? That is one of the unmentionables.

Senator MURPHY:

– The Committee has advanced beyond that stage. The Government has indicated that it would prefer the real ground to be set forth in the motion, which is what has been done. If the honourable senator were listening carefully he would know that Senator Willesee withdrew a proposition of that nature and put forward the substantive proposal that the Committee is of opinion that there should be prepared, urgently and implemented a national fuel and energy policy.

Senator Byrne:

– What notice was given of Senator Willesee’s abandonment of the old form and the substitution of the new one?

Senator MURPHY:

– That was the basis upon which Senator Willesee moved for the reduction in the first place.

Senator Byrne:

– How were we to know that?

Senator MURPHY:

– It was the basis upon which the matter was put in the House of Representatives. A national fuel and energy policy has been one of the great issues of the last 3 or 4 years. 1 should imagine that any political party would have a settled policy* in relation to this matter and would have no difficulty at all in determining what its attitude was on the simple proposition that a national fuel and energy policy ought to be prepared and implemented. I do not know whether the Australian Democratic Labor Party considers itself to be caught by surprise by such a proposition and needs time to think about it, but if that is so I think the country should be made aware that tonight in the Senate the Democratic Labor Party could not make up its mind, after all the discussion that has gone on for the last 5 or 6 years, whether we should have a national fuel and energy policy. The Democratic Labor Party’s attitude is that Senator Willesee has done a terrible thing by suddenly calling upon it to say whether it is for or against the implementation of a national fuel and energy policy. Senator Byrne has said that it is terrible that the Democratic Labor Party should be suddenly called upon to vote on this simple proposition. I can understand the difficulties of the Democratic Labor Party. However, the Opposition would prefer to have these matters decided on a substantive basis rather than on the basis of an old form which is of no great importance. Therefore I ask the Committee to decide in favour of the motion.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I have been in the Senate for 12 years and I do not recall ever having heard such an extraordinary statement as that made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). I have understood always that when the procedures to be adopted in this place were under consideration it was regarded as a matter of ordinary practice and courtesy for all parties to be consulted and given the opportunity of considering their attitude. In this case a most extraordinary procedure is being adopted. I am not allowed to refer to them in detail but floating around the chamber are a large number of amendments of all kinds relating to the Estimates. We have been informed that this procedure will be timesaving but every amendment would take a full-scale debate lasting two or three days. Then we were informed that this method of procedure had been determined apparently at a secret meeting between the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), and the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator Rae:

-Not to my knowledge.

Senator McMANUS:

Senator Rae, a Government supporter, says that he has no knowledge of this arrangement, I certainly had no knowledge of it. It is most extraordinary procedure and if it is persisted with it will achieve the object of a number of members of the Oppostion who desire to wreck this new procedure for dealing with the Estimates. On behalf of the Democratic Labor Party I express the strongest resentment of the fact that an agreement like this can be reached between 2 of the parties while apparently the other party is left out of discussions. The proposal certainly has not been reported at meetings of my Party.

Senator Cant:

– Why do you not take your preferences away from the Government?

Senator McMANUS:

– Sometimes the prospect of the alternative is worse. When my Party meets tomorrow, we will examine this particular question andI hope we will be able to take some further action to demonstrate that on such matters the time hallowed procedure of leaders of all the parties and all members of the parties being acquainted with what is proposed should be adhered to.I do not for one moment appreciate learning that backstairs or hole-in-the-corner arrangements are being made.

Senator Murphy:

– That is a bit unnecessary. The Government parties and the Opposition represent 90 per cent of the membership of this place.

Senator McMANUS:

- Senator Murphy did not moderate his language when expressing his opinion of our attitude. He spoke very strongly and very, definitely in saying what hehad to say.I do not think he should object if I try to speak in like manner. That is the first thing. Senator Murphy said that surely the Democratic Labor Party is equipped to talk about a thing like a fuel authority and all the rest of it. We are equipped to talk about a lot of things but there is such a thing as courtesy. Over the yearsI found that when his predecessor was in office there was one thing he did. If his Party intended to move an amendment, unless it involved a matter of tactics when naturally he was not in a position to do so, it was his practice to inform the leaders of all parties in the Senate of his intentions or what his Party proposed to do.

Senator Cavanagh:

– To whom are you referring?

Senator McMANUS:

– I am referring to Senator McKenna. He adopted that practice and it was appreciated by the leaders of all parties. In spite of Senator Murphy’s attitudeI do not think we should do this. He is not entitled to assume that members of other parlies can be called upon to debate questions at a minute’s notice. He would not expect his Party to do that. Nor is it a desirable procedure for honourable senators to be called upon to debate questions at a moment’s notice. What Senator Murphy is saying is simply that all these old fashioned courtesies which used to be observed in this place must now go by the board; people are going to make agreements and arrangements behind the scenes and not tell others, and amendments are going to be sprung on certain people in the Senate and some people will know about them and some will not know.

Senator Murphy:

– The motions have been circulated.

Senator McMANUS:

– If that is the way we are going to play it, all right; but I merely want to say that the Senate would be a much happier place if these ordinary courtesies that used to be observed over the years were restored.

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

– There are one or two points I would like to make quite briefly. The motion moved read:

That the House ofR epresentatives be requested to reduce the vote by $1.

Subsequently that motion was changedto read as follows:

That the Committee is of the opinion that the Government should prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and power policy.

The alteration occurred at the beginning of the speech made by Senator “Willesee. His speech was directed not towards the reduction of $1 but towards the need for a national fuel and power policy. My own observation is that the advantages to the Government canvassed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) totally elude me. 1 cannot detect them. To my mind an estimates debate* is an examination of the estimates of the department under review by honourable senators sitting as the Committee of the Whole.

I return to the observation 1 made earlier: These estimates were examined quite critically, carefully and in detail by the Estimates committee before which I had to answer on behalf of about 8 departments. Tonight we are considering the Estimates in the Committee of the Whole and I have advisers here from the Department of National Development to aid honourable senators. When they listened to the debate they properly observed that they did not come here equipped to take part in a general debate on a national fuel and power policy. Nor would they be able to do so. Honourable senators would agree that that is the practicality of the situation.

The old practice of seeking to reduce the estimates by $1 has long since passed. Once upon a time that was a method of defeating a government and sending it to the people. Therefore I do not regard it lightly. For my part 1 believe that in this estimates debate we are engaged in examining the estimates of the Department of National Development which have been very thoroughly examined at an earlier stage. In the process of this we are being called upon to make a decisive vote on a major policy issue. I again say that in the Federal sphere a national fuel and energy policy is being pursued. This motion really says that ull fuel and energy matters should be taken out of the hands of the States and put in the hands of the appropriate Commonwealth department. All I say in closing is that we might well put this matter to the vote. 1 have some extra information for Senator Georges who directed himself to the matters under review. He referred to the number of geologists in the Department of National Development. Just over 90 per cent of the professional positions in the Department of National Development are filled. We expect that by 1st January the professional cadre of the Department will be fully established. I think this should be a matter of satisfaction to all honourable senators.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

Mr Temporary Chairman, the motion-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– We will be here next week.

Senator RAE:

– Perhaps we will but I would like to say what 1 wish to say about the motion, lt states:

That the Committee is of the opinion that the Government should prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and power policy.

I can well understand and sympathise with the remarks made by Senator McManus about the lack of notice and the complete surprise with which honourable senators are called upon to debate this matter. 1 believe that this is a serious matter, a matter of great moment to this country and a matter which should not be debated without notice, without prior warning and without an opportunity of considering it by having a proper and full debate. What on earth does the motion mean? The Government is to prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and power policy. That is an ambiguity which I find hard to understand. There are significant and important difficulties in this matter which relate to uranium, coal, oil, gas and one might even say timber and various sorts of fuel and power. Does this mean fuel for domestic use or does it mean fuel for export? Does it relate to Australia’s negotiating position and the policy it should adopt in relation to the export of our fuel and power resources or does it mean exploitation for domestic purposes? Presumably, if Senator Murphy means that the motion is comprehensive then it covers both purposes.

Let us consider uranium for which there is a very limited market. It is a market of limited duration on which the price and demand are likely to increase temporarily for perhaps a period of from 15 to 20 years. Depending upon which projection one accepts, the demand might decrease almost entirely. It could be a market in which control is in the hands of a very few multinational or supra-national companies and in which the consumers are limited in number and subjected to incredible degrees of control by a few people. Can we say that the policy there is to be the same policy as that to be adopted in relation to coal? Can we say in relation to oil and gas which, basically at the moment, have an unlimited future on the consumer market, that we should adopt the same policy that we adopt in relation to uranium? These are questions which should be considered. I hope and trust and believe that they are being considered. But to mouth some words of a genera] and imprecise nature will do nothing either to the credit of this chamber or to the credit of the party which moved the motion.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Perhaps it is pertinent to remind the Committee that on 4th November 1971 when this same Bill was being considered in the other place the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) moved a similar amendment. I am sure that all students on the Government side and in the Australian Democratic Labor Party who are interested in this matter are well aware that the honourable member moved:

That the proposed expenditure be reduced by $1.

He stated:

I do so as an instruction to the Government to prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and power policy

He set out the reasons for that. They were stated at some length. On page 3065 of the Hansard the honourable member stated the policy of the Australian Labor Party. That answers the question which Senator Rae asked. The honourable member for Cunningham stated:

Labor will establish a joint Federal/State Fuel and Energy Commission to devise and implement an integrated and co-ordinated national fuel and energy policy.

The Commonwealth will

regulate the exploration, development, transportation, marketing and use of oil, natural gas, coal, fissionable materials and generative water,

prevent depletion of fuel and energy resources needed to match Australian requirements in mineral processing, general industry and national development, and

guard the ecology and environment from pollution by fuel extraction and energy generation.

Labor will stimulate the growth of nuclear technology, particularly by the earliest possible Com monwealth initiative to establish nuclear power stations using enriched uranium in reactors of basically similar design.

It certainly should have been no surprise to anyone that we would come here and move that this estimate be reduced by $1, exactly as the Australian Labor Party did in the other place on 4th November, as an instruction to the Government to prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and power policy. Tonight Senator Willesee moved that the estimate be reduced by $1, exactly as the Australian Labor Party did in the other place. At a request from elsewhere that this matter be put in a more positive form the Opposition agreed - and fairly so - to put this motion in a more positive form. Senator Willesee transposed bis motion. I think that the Minister should be the last to complain that Senator Willesee altered his motion to state:

That the Committee is of the opinion that the Government should prepare urgently and implement a national fuel and power policy.

That is the proposition. I think that all these arguments about being caught by surprise and so forth are really not to be entertained by the Committee. I hope that the motion might be put and dealt with.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– What I am complaining about is having to deal with a motion at all on an estimates debate which to me does not seem to lend itself to the motion.I am grateful to have clearly from Senator Murphy what we are talking about - a total expression of Labor Party policy.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Willesee’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Laucke)

AYES: 23

NOES: 29

Majority . …. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative. (The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly)

page 2482

ADJOURNMENT

Conciliation and Arbitration - India and Pakistan

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I present the following papers:

Conciliation . and Arbitration Act - Ministerial Statement by Minister for Labour and National Service, 7 December 1971.

Photostat copy of letter from Sir Richard Kirby, Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to Hon. Phillip. Lynch, written for the purpose of being communicated to Parliament and dated 3 December 1971.

India and Pakistan Situation - Ministerial Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs, 7 December 1971.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– It may well be that the Senate would like to express some opinion on these ministerial statements and the letter from Sir Richard Kirby. I appreciate the course that the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) has followed. But it may well be that the Opposition will wish to move a motion or speak to these matters tomorrow. I will not delay the Senate, but I suggest that if an occasion arises tomorrow an opportunity might be given to deal with these subjects.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 December 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19711207_senate_27_s50/>.