Senate
22 March 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 769

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– by leave - I wish to inform the Senate - this statement was made in the other place by the Prime Minister - that Mr Garland, in addition to his duties as Minister for Supply, will assist the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). I also wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) is to leave Australia tonight to have discussions and make inspections in the urban transport field in South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Europe, and to attend the launching of the Australian National Line container ship ‘Australian Explorer’ in Germany. He is expected to return to Australia on 12 April. During his absence the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) will act as Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 769

PETITIONS

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 56 citizens of the Commonwealth:

The Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising with the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which is should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received and read.

Sewerage Plant in Launceston

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the appalling pollution of the River Tamar is caused by the raw effluent of the City of Launceston being prevented escape into the sea by incoming tides. This tidal motion of raw effluent is rapidly breaking down the River’s ecology with disastrous effects on the bird and fish life in and around the River.

Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Ensure that emergency Commonwealth finance is made available to the State of Tasmania for the establishment of a Primary and Secondary Sewerage Plant in Launceston. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Senator RAE (Tasmania) - Mr President, I ask for leave to make a short statement of explanation in relation to the petition and some associated signatures.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator RAE:

– The petition to which I have just referred was accompanied by 2,231 signatures on a document which was in a form not appropriate as a petition but which clearly expressed the views of the persons in similar terms to the petition which I have in fact presented.

Petition read.

Senator RAE:

Mr President, I move:

That the document containing the 2,231 signatures to which I have referred be received with the petition.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will give consideration to that motion and put the matter before the Senate later.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– On behalf of Senator Fitzgerald, I present the following petition:

The ‘Honourable The. President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resultingin both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament asssembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be. subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Senator WILLESEE:

– As this petition is in identical terms with that presented by Senator Murphy I shall not move that it be read.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable The President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Senator CARRICK:

– As the petition is in similar terms to those already presented 1 do not propose that it be read.

Education

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

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

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a. severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.
  2. That extra Federal finance is urgently requiredto save the government school system.
  3. That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts, of public money are being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners must humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the Government is specifically responsible:

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

Petition received and read.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable The President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned 395 citizens of. Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various title of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service, to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree en which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDBecause the petition is in similar terms to that presented by Senator Murphy I do not move that the petition be read.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable The President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned 56 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– As similar petitions have already been presented by other honourable senators I do not propose that the petition be read.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable The President,, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned 34 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: -

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that tha Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the. proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– As a petition similarly worded has been presented by Senator Murphy I do not propose that the petition be read.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable The President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The. humble petition of the undersigned 16 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: -

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post D/fice until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Senator KEEFFE:

– As a petition similarly worded has already been presented by Senator Douglas McClelland, I do not propose to move that the petition be read.

Petition: Postmaster-General’s Department

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Rae, earlier this afternoon you asked me whether you might, by a motion, include a document containing a large number of signatures with a petition of 5 persons which you had presented in accordance with the Standing Orders, and which had been received and read. When you asked me that question I bore in mind some of the strictures relating to the presentation of petitions and for that reason requested time to consider your motion. I have considered the matter and have come to the conclusion that, unusual though it is, you may move a motion to obtain the agreement of the Senate to have this document included with the petition already presented.

Senator RAE:

– I move accordingly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 772

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Capital Territory Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1971.

page 772

QUESTION

CHEMISTS

Senator MURPHY:

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to reports that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia is to recommend to chemists a 33 per cent increase in profit mark-up on prescriptions not covered by the national health scheme? Has the Federal Government been approached on this matter by the Guild? What is the Government’s reaction whether or not it has been approached?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am not in a position to say that we have been approached on the matter. I read about it - as the honourable senator obviously did - in the Press. I shall seek some information from my Department and respond to the question. As I indicated here as late as yesterday, I am having discussions with the Pharmacy Guild in relation to matters linked with the National Health Act. Of course this matter is outside the scope of those discussions as Senator Murphy very properly points out. I shall ascertain from my Department how much information it has about the matter and I shall make the information available to the Senate.

page 772

QUESTION

URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT

Senator WILLESEE:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for National Development table in Parliament the terms of reference of the Franco-Australian joint feasibility study on the technical and economic aspects of constructing a uranium enrichment plant in Australia?

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

– The honourable senator will appreciate that this is really a policy matter for decision by the responsible Minister. I shall have to communicate that request to him.

page 772

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask whether the attention of the Minister for Civil Aviation has been drawn to a letter in today’s Financial Review’ which refers to what the newspaper describes as the Concorde debate. Does the Minister agree that the circumstances surrounding this discussion involve both the environment, on the one hand, and Australia’s involvement in the international transportation system, on the other? I ask the Minister whether his Department has had any conference in depth with the Department of the Environment about this matter. If not, will the Minister give favourable consideration to doing so? Further, will he inquire whether some study of this relationship can be undertaken at the United- Nations conference on the environment in Stockholm in June?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have not read the letter in the ‘Financial ‘ Review’ but the honourable senator and the person who wrote the letter would be correct in saying that not only the elements of transportation and a new phase of transportation in the air, but also the matter of the environmental impact are involved. As the honourable senator knows, on. many occasions I have referred to the Academy of Science report on a particular aspect of this matter. The report should be available by about 25th of this month. The Department of Civil Aviation has communicated with the International Civil Aviation Organisation in relation to further studies on this matter. Even last year in Vienna we decided to take part to any extent we could to help in the world body study at Stockholm in June this year. The Department of the Environment has been kept informed by us of any work which we have done in this regard as, indeed, it has kept us informed of its work.

page 773

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As Press reports state that the Government may abandon some of the guidelines on foreign investment laid down by the former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, in 1969 and in view of the hints made by the Prime Minister about the Government’s view to foreign investment guidelines, will the Leader of the Government expand upon this theme and explain to the Senate the Government’s attitude towards foreign investment? Can the Leader of the Government say when a Treasury White Paper on foreign investment will be completed and presented to the Senate?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I invite the attention of Senator O’Byrne to the fact that he has asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate to make a statement. If the Leader of the Government wishes to answer the question he may do so, but if he wishes to make a statement he must ask for leave.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I shall respond to the question very briefly. I will not ask for leave to make a statement because, as you will appreciate, Mr President, this is a matter of Government policy. In relation to the first part of the question, I am asked to state a view about something which Senator O’Byrne has read in a newspaper. 1 must say to the honourable senator that what he reads in. a news paper is some journalist’s view of what that journalist thinks. It is not necessarily a matter of Government policy.

page 773

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the growing need, both economic and social, for action to be taken to relieve the problems arising from inordinate growth of our capital cities, as against country centres, will the Government give urgent consideration to the objectives enunciated by the Australian Council for Balanced Development, which seek to ease the pressure on capital cities through intensively promoting provincial growth centres and to consolidate development in country areas by the continuation and extension of the aids currently provided by the various State decentralisation and development departments? Will consideration be given to a major Commonwealth Government involvement, in conjunction with the States, to assist in the attainment of the Council’s objectives?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– That is a very long question. I think I would tend to tax the patience of you, Sir, as the Presiding Officer, and of honourable senators if I gave all the information I have in response to the question. A CommonwealthState Officials Committee on Decentralisation was established in 1964, following a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers. The task of that Committee is to research the complex question of decentralisation. In undertaking its task the Committee has commissioned a number of studies on matters relevant to decentralisation. The Committee, currently is engaged in the preparation of a report which, amongst other things, will bring together the findings of the various commissioned studies. When finalised this report will be circulated to the Commonwealth and State Governments and will be given the most careful consideration by the Commonwealth Government. I could expand on that from the brief I have on this matter. But, having said what I have just said, I think I should give a supplementary answer to the question posed by Senator Laucke.

page 774

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– Is the

Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry able to give any indication as to when Professor Grant’s report on the independent inquiry he is conducting for the Government into the. facts of the wine industry, including sales before and after the imposition of the wine excise, will be available?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– At the present time I am not in that position, but I will seek to put myself in that position before the eve.ning draws on.

page 774

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

(Senator Keeffe having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories)

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Before calling Senator Wright I shall give consideration to this question. Honourable senators are aware that I deprecate in the strongest possible way the making of statements in the guise of questions. Senator Keeffe’s question, or pseudo-question, carries all the characteristics of such a statement. I will let it pass at the moment to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. He can deal with it as he wishes.

Senator Keeffe:

– It was a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I intend to be emphatic about stopping this practice. I am getting tired of it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I require notice of the question.

page 774

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– Will the AttorneyGeneral supply a list of persons who have been assisted financially over the last 5 years in arbitration court actions after application to the Registrar, and also the names of the trade unions concerned?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am aware that in the 4 years up to the beginning of 1971 some 25 persons had been assisted, the Registrar having directed that financial assistance be granted to them under regulation 138 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations. I regret that I do not know the position since that date but I have no reason to believe that the information cannot be readily obtained. I would ask the honourable senator to put his question on the notice paper.

page 774

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer lo the Prime Minister’s statement about grants for industrial research and development. Do plant and equipment which qualify for grants for industrial research and development and which fall within the scope of industrial processes allowable under section 62aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act also attract the investment allowance if some assessable income is produced?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The grant received by the taxpayer would be included in his assessable income, while the expenditure incurred by faim on eligible plant and equipment would qualify for the investment allowance as well as for depreciation allowances. That is my clear understanding and my knowledge of the position. If the honourable senator wants further elaboration in response to her question I will get it for her, but the information that J give is quite accurate.

page 774

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the report released yesterday by the Australian Wool Industry Conference seeking full powers of wool clip acquisition makes no reference to the possible cost of the scheme to the taxpayers? Will the cost of such a scheme be made public before the Government makes a final decision on the implementation of the scheme?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Not having seen the report or the news release which speculated on the contents of the report I am unable to say. In due course I shall see the report.

Senator Poyser:

– You should have read it. You are a Minister.

Senator COTTON:

– No doubt Senator Poyser, with his great knowledge, will nil me in on the details of it. I will then be better informed and I will try to help all honourable senators.

page 775

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Was the Minister for Foreign Affairs correctly reported on his recent return from Bangkok as saying that Russia was capable of sending nuclear submarines (o patrol the Indian Ocean in a very short time? If so, does that statement indicate a growing concern by the Government to strengthen Australian naval and air defences in the Indian Ocean, a policy which has been advocated strongly by the Democratic Labor Party in recent years?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am unable to confirm the report that the honourable senator quoted. The statement that the Minister for Foreign Affairs made in that context was emphasising Soviet capacity to place forces in the Indian Ocean rather than specifying the number of Soviet vessels there at present or at any other particular time. The Australian Government is most anxious to avoid any competitive activity in military affairs in the Indian Ocean. Of course, that is not in any way inconsistent with keeping a close watch on deployments in the Indian Ocean which in fact is the responsibility of the Australian Government.

page 775

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Is the Minister for Civil Aviation aware of rumours circulating within the managerial staff of Qantas Airways Ltd that in addition to the already large number of retrenchments that have taken place well in excess of another 100 salaried staff are to be retrenched within the next fortnight? Is this report correct? Has the Qantas board rejected the proposals of the Australasian Transport Officers Federation concerning severance pay, compensation for displaced officers, retirement and voluntary redundancy payments? Will the Government, as a matter of urgency, direct the Qantas management to suspend immediately any contemplated retrenchments in order to enable adequate discussions and better negotiations to take place between the officers of the Association, the Qantas management and the Minister?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I expect to have the benefit of a discussion with the Australasian Transport Officers Federation in

Sydney next Monday. 1 have seen the Federation’s representatives before on several occasions. I do not think I want to say a great deal more until 1 have had a chance to talk to them and to find out what the situation is as they see it.

page 775

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINATION

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

– I direct my question to the Minister for Health. In view of the fact that the National Health and Medical Research Council in October 1971 considered that there was inadequate evidence that group vaccination had had any significant influence on the incidence of influenza or in providing significant protection for the individual, and that the benefits of immunisation against influenza were doubtful, why has the Government not prevented its own organisation, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, from advertising suggestively to the contrary?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

That is a question which I would not presume to answer without notice. I will take it on notice and get a reply.

page 775

QUESTION

FOUR CORNERS

Senator POYSER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Who made the decision to ban the ‘Four Corners’ programme on the Sydney Town Hall abortion law reform debate addressed by Dr Germain Greer and Dr Colin Clark? On what grounds was the decision made? Can the Minister explain why, notwithstanding the television ban, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is programming edited highlights of the same debate in ‘Fact and Opinion’ tonight on radio on its first network?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unaware that any programme on ‘Four Corners’ was banned and, therefore, am unable to respond to the honourable senator’s question; nor am 1 able to give him any grounds for the ban if there was such a ban. I would stress, as I think all honourable senators know, that the programming of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a matter for the Commission itself, subject to certain statutory exceptions to which no reference has been made. It has been the accepted wish, I think, of the entire Parliament that the programming of the ABC should be conducted independently of political control. I will refer the question to the Postmaster-General. If he feels that there is anything to add to what I have said I am sure he will provide that material.

page 776

QUESTION

SENATE VISITORS GALLERY: DRESS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to you, Mr President. I am anxious to clear my mind with regard to what is considered appropriate dress for visitors to your gallery in this chamber. I ask this question following the refusal to permit a South Australian lady to sit in the Speaker’s Gallery in the House of Representatives during the last week of sitting although she was attired in a well tailored slacksuit. Will you give the Senate your ruling for the guidance of honourable senators? What is the responsibility of honourable senators with regard to advice to their guests, who wish to avail themselves of the hospitality of your gallery, concerning the mode of dress?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator’s question is an involved one. Firstly I content myself at this juncture by saying that I cannot be responsible or held in any degree liable, to make any comment upon the standards that are applied in another place. Secondly I would like to say that he is a bold man who makes comments on ladies’ dress. Thirdly, in regard to the standards of dress that are required for visitors in the galleries of the Senate, I shall take into consideration the questions as to what is suitable, attire for ladies, having disposed of the question of suitable attire for gentlemen by referring it to the House Committee to see whether it can draw up a sumptuary law for senators’ friends when they attend the gallery.

page 776

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEART FOUNDATION

Senator WILLESEE:

– Has the Minister for Health seen the criticism by the President of the National Heart Foundation of the Commonwealth Government’s reluctance to contribute to the Foundation’s research programme? Is it a fact that during the. 11 years of the Foundation’s existence the Government has contributed only $10,000, which represents about 1 per cent of the research funds expended by the Foundation?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I think the matter to which the honourable senator refers is a report of a statement made by Mr Joyce. That was the report I saw. I think that on many occasions the Government has acknowledged the. fine work carried out by the National Heart Foundation. As far as financial support for this work is concerned, I should mention that the Commonwealth makes a substantial and continuing indirect contribution to the Foundation through income tax concessions in respect of donations to the Foundation. The National Health and Medical Research Council’s functions include the making of recommendations for Commonwealth expenditure on grants for medical research. The, Council’s awareness of the need for research in the cardiovascular field is well illustrated by the fact that it recommended grants totalling approximately $230,000 for this purpose during 1971 alone. Apart from indirect assistance by way of taxation concessions for donations and the National Health and Medical Research Council grants to individual groups or group researchers in the cardio-vascular field, the Government made a special direct grant of $50,000 to the. National Heart Foundation in 1969. I therefore feel entitled to say that the Government has demonstrated its support of efforts to reduce the toll of cardio-vascular disease and that that support will continue.

page 776

QUESTION

GENERAL PRACTITIONER’S FEES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Health. What were the assurances that the Senate was advised of on 7th May last year by the then Minister for Health, and given by the Australian Medical Association, that were to mean stability in the main general practitioner service fees for the next 2 years? Were the assurances faulty or was there a breach of agreement that now necessitates setting up arbitration to examine New South Wales doctors’ fees before the expiration of the 2-year period that was covered by the assurances given?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Reference is made to something that happened before my period of responsibility as Minister for Health. In any event, I feel that some of the questions posed by Senator Cavanagh could impinge upon the fact that a judge has been appointed to look at the question of common fees. I do not think it would be appropriate for me in the short time that he is to deal with this matter - I expect that he will have dealt with it and report to the Government by the end of April-

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is not a judicial proceeding.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONMr President, am I giving the answer or asking the question?

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are not giving me an answer. That is my case.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I have given the honourable senator all he is going to get.

page 777

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL CANCER CONFERENCE

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Has the Minister for Health studied the remarks made by Dr Malcolm Lane Brown, a clinical research fellow at the Harvard Medical School who is attending the International Cancer Conference, that many sun barrier lotions are completely useless? What action does your Department take with or without State government co-operation to check the quality of sun barrier lotions on sale at present?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONMy attention has been drawn to the article referred to by Senator Mulvihill. Sun barrier lotions are intended, as we all know, to protect persons from sunburn and are not known to possess prophylactic properties against skin cancer. The manufacture of sun barrier lotions takes place in the various States. As far as I am aware there is no manufacture of these products in the Commonwealth Territories - that would be in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. As the control of the manufacture of sun lotions comes within the jurisdiction of the States, the Commonwealth is not in a position, if it chose to do so, to take action to control the quality of such preparations. I do not want my answer to be interpreted to mean that this matter has been examined in that sense by the Commonwealth. The point I am making is that this matter does not come within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth; it is within the jurisdiction of the States.

page 777

QUESTION

VETERINARY VACCINES

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Could the Minister inform the Senate whether there has recently been a reduction of 30 per cent in the retail prices of veterinary vaccines supplied by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories? If so, are such reductions possible because of dramatically improved techniques or are the laboratories retailing at a loss to be met by the taxpayers? If there are no obvious reasons for such a reduction, can the Minister give an assurance that farmers have not previously been grossly overcharged for such products?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONHere again I need to get a detailed comment from my Department. It would be unfair, in view of the tenor of the question, to give an answer until I get the full facts.

page 777

QUESTION

HOSPITALS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that a person treated for an injury in a hospital operating theatre but not admitted to hospital overnight receives no medical benefit for this treatment? If this is so, would not this be a positive inducement to over-hospitalisation in an effort to provide health insurance benefits for the patients? Will the Minister have a look at the situation and see whether anything can be done to remove this anomaly?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI think this matter was raised by Senator Douglas McClelland during the last series of sittings. The implication has been made that health insurance benefits are not given in certain circumstances to people receiving treatment as outpatients. I would like to give a detailed reply to this question because it does not lend itself to a simple answer at question time. I certainly shall obtain from my Department a considered, detailed reply to the honourable senator’s question.

page 777

QUESTION

MEDICAL RESEARCH

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question also is directed to the Minister for Health and it concerns something which I mentioned towards the end of last year. Is the Minister aware that many top medical research men are still leaving this country apparently because of lack of finance made available by the Commonwealth for medical research? Will the Government give favourable consideration to making more money available for this field of endeavour?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– This question was posed to me not so long ago. 1 then made the point that it is true that in the medical profession young doctors in particular go overseas to take higher degrees, notably the FRCS, which is one of the most significant qualifications. It is equally true that some go overseas in order to participate in fields of deeper research and many of them bring back to Australia the benefits of the higher education and research in their disciplines to use in the best interests of this country.

I do not think that in a reply one can be as categorical as the question suggests. To attempt to do so one would need to deal with individual cases. Many great Australian physicians and surgeons have gone overseas and become world famous. It is equally true that men who have received their tertiary education and gained university degrees in Australia, have gone overseas, acquired extra knowledge, come back here and given this knowledge in the interests of the nation with great distinction. I would wish to be more precise about the matter. I have just been handed a document from the Department of Health referring to the National Health and Medical Research Council, which states:

In the 71st Session, the Council completed its major grant making programme for 1971. Grants from the Medical Research Endowment Fund totalling $2,2*1,883 were recommended for the support of 253 medical research projects ($1,946,681), SO Medical and Dental Postgraduate Research Scholarships ($297,925); and 5 Public Health Travelling Fellowships ($71,277).

page 778

QUESTION

NEWS BROADCASTS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Having regard to the problems experienced by farmers in South Australia in hearing news broadcasts during the recent operation of daylight saving, will the Postmaster-General give consideration to leaving the actual time of news broadcasts and farmers’ sessions broadcast on regional stations in South Australia unchanged if daylight saving is introduced in South Australia next summer, to fit in with the working patterns of the farming community and so enable farmers to hear their broadcasts which otherwise are too early?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– If it be the fact that next year the daylight saving experiment of recent years is to be repeated, I am quite sure there will be lessons learnt in the area of news broadcasts. As I have said earlier, this is a matter essentially for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I will convey the honourable senator’s suggestion to the PostmasterGeneral and he will take it up, I am sure, with the Commission.

page 778

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE COVER

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Health: Is it a fact that a dependent student above 16 years of age in receipt of a Commonwealth Teachers Training Scholarship of approximately $16 a week is not covered by his parents’ health insurance at the family rate, nor is he covered by the subsidised health insurance scheme? Does this mean that such a person must fully cover himself out of his Commonwealth Scholarship allowance? If so, does the Minister propose any action to overcome this situation?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI would need to get the facts. I think they would come through my Department. I will certainly get the facts and make them available.

page 778

QUESTION

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Will the Minister examine the possibility of altering the starting time of the 8.30 a.m. lectures at the Canberra College of Advanced Education as this present starting time doubtless contributes to traffic delays caused to students at the intersection of Belconnen Way and Haydon Drive, due to heavy citybound traffic on Belconnen Way? These delays could contribute to traffic accidents in the vicinity of the college because of haste by students after escape from Belconnen Way. Is the Minister aware that 2 separate accidents involving young women students occurred this morning when a 17-year old motor cyclist received fatal injuries after colliding with a truck near the college gates and a 19-year old pedestrian received severe injuries when hit by a car near the main college building? Will the Minister make representations to the Department of the Interior with a view to installing traffic lights or a vehicle overpass at the Belconnen Way-Haydon Drive intersection, and more adequate facilities, such as a pedestrian overpass, at the college itself?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I had no knowledge of the accidents to which the honourable senator has referred until he mentioned them. I very much regret them. I visualise the entrance to the college to which he refers and readily agree that it is a matter proper to refer to the Minister for consultation with the Minister for the Interior. The road there may be worthy of special consideration. I also note his suggestion as to the starting time of the college. I think in Victoria some process of staggering times of different work forces is being initiated so as to reduce the traffic load on streets. I am sure that the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for the Interior, whose concern this matter is, will give serious consideration to the question raised by the honourable senator.

page 779

QUESTION

BUTTER BLENDS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the Department of Primary Industry is giving encouragement to a scheme to manufacture a blend of butter-oil and a vegetable oil? Is this encouragement being given in spite of the fact that such manufacture is against State law, that the vegetable oil is totally imported and that the greatest harm can be expected to be done to the Australian dairy industry? Will the Minister consider making an urgent and comprehensive statement to the Senate regarding the facts of this matter?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I know that the honourable senator’s interest in the matter of vegetable oil and butter has been consistent. He has pursued inquiries and his activity in this regard has been indefatigable. I understand the matter to which he refers and the implications involved in it. I do not know of any manufacturing process which is being investigated or which is contemplated or even being underwritten, but I shall certainly find out for the honourable senator. 1 shall put to the responsible Minister the consequences of what the honourable senator has suggested and obtain an answer for him.

page 779

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services recall that twice in the recent past I have directed a question to him in this chamber in an endeavour to secure an interpretation of sections of the social services legislation, the benefits of which are currently denied to persons in certain walks of life? Since the question relates to a quite simple matter of interpretation which must be readily available, what is the reason for the inordinate delay in providing me with an answer?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to answer the honourable senator’s question, but I shall pursue the matter, and find out for him.

page 779

QUESTION

PROFITEERING

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question this time is not a loaded gun but a Nader explosion. It is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer who will recall that on previous occasions I have asked questions concerning manufacturers who have used the change to the metric measure system to increase profits. Is the Minister aware that F. H. Faulding and Co. Ltd produces a product known as Barrier Cream which until recently retailed at $1.45 for a jar of 16 oz or 454 grams? Is he aware also that in recent times the size of the jar was reduced, the product retailing at the same price for a jar containing only 400 grams, that is 54 grams less? For the Minister’s information I mention that there has been a further increase in price and that the new metric measure jar is now selling at $1.60. What action does the Government propose to take to prevent unjust profiteering in the changeover to the metric system?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I recall that on one occasion Senator Keeffe brought some cordials into this establishment when asking a question on metric measurements. At that time I was under a great temptation to have a sip before sending the cordials to the Treasurer’s office, but I assure him that I sent the cordials and the question to the Treasurer. The honourable senator has mentioned another product, the price of which has varied coincidentally with a change to the metric system, and he has suggested motives for this coincidential change. I shall refer the matter to the Treasurer. I am unable to make any worthwhile contribution about the matter at the moment.

page 780

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NEWS AND INFORMATION BUREAU

Senator YOUNG:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Is it a fact that the Australian News and Information Bureau, which does such an excellent job in promoting Australia overseas through its publicity and public relations, has representatives in every State except South Australia? Can the Minister say whether consideration is being given to the appointment of representatives of the News and Information Bureau in South Australia? If this is so, will he use every endeavour to expedite this matter and give his support to the appointment of such officers in South Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am familiar with the work of the ANIB overseas and I have been a great admirer of what the Bureau has done in promoting the Australian image and providing information on Australia in other countries. I think that the Bureau has done first class work and also a lot for this country. I do not know what the representation is in the individual States but I certainly agree that South Australia has many charms to sell overseas. Accordingly, 1 support the proposition.

page 780

QUESTION

OFFICIAL VISITS TO CHINA

Senator McMANUS:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted that following official visits by them to Communist China the following Heads of State were removed from office by their countries: U Nu of Burma, Voroshilov of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Nkrumah of Ghana, Sukarno of Indonesia, Amin of Uganda, Sihanouk of

Cambodia and Yahya Khan of Pakistan? In these circumstances will the Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, reconsider his expressed wish to visit Peking?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am sure that the Prime Minister’s reaction will be not to be afraid of the dragon.

page 780

QUESTION

MEDICAL COSTS

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister for Health whether the Government, as told to the Senate on 5th May last year, by a process of discussion and persuasion saved medical patients additional costs. Was there a saving in medical fees, these being reduced from S35m a year to $10m a year because of an agreement to last 2 years which was finally reached between the Australian Medical Association and the Government? Will the Government be represented before the inquiry on medical fees, which is not a judicial tribunal which prohibits discussion, and will the Government use discussion and persuasion to prevent increases in fees, thus reducing the amount saved by medical patients last year because of the action of the previous Minister for Health?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I can make, this contribution: The first meeting of what Senator Cavanagh has chosen to call an inquiry was conducted in Sydney last Friday. As I understand the position, the Commonwealth sought leave to appear. That answers the first part of the honourable senator’s question. As to the rest of the question, I could not presume to say in advance what points of view will be put to the inquiry before they are put before the judge.

page 780

QUESTION

POLICE

Senator JESSOP:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral received a letter from the Australian Federation of Police Associations and Unions? Is the Attorney-General aware of the motion which was passed ‘by the Federal Council of that organisation during the latter part of last year which reads:

That this conference expresses alarm at the growing tendency of certain sections of the community who resort to actions of organised violence and lawlessness at demonstrations in the streets and other places throughout Australia and that this motion be brought to the attention of all members of Parliament throughout Australia.

Is the Minister also aware that the Police Department of South Australia has experienced difficulty in maintaining its cadet training programme, and that recruiting difficulties persist in spite of the efforts of the various police associations to improve wages and conditions of members of the police force? Will the Attorney-General give sympathetic consideration to the requests, which I believe are reasonable, for assistance to overcome the difficulties particularly by making direct and substantial grants to the States for the improvement and maintenance of efficient police forces in Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am aware of the motion which was passed by the Federation of Police Associations. I have received a letter from that body. From the text of the letter I assume that all members of Parliament have received copies of it. 1 assure the honourable senator and the Senate that I share with the Federation the alarm which it has expressed in its resolution. I certainly feel that it is the obligation of all persons to assist the police wherever they can. That is why I have made efforts to assert the need for members of Parliament, particularly, to indicate the advantage and the virtue of maintaining the rule of law and assisting those who have a job to do in enforcing the. law. I shall certainly give sympathetic consideration to the Federation’s letter. I have acknowledged it and given an assurance that I shall write again because I think that one must make every effort to ensure that the concern which it has expressed is spread as widely as is possible. Whether the problems with which it is concerned are to be met simply by the provision of financial assistance is not a matter upon which I can give any final answer, I believe that the important thing is to assure the police forces that they have the support of the community and, above all, that the leaders of the community - that is, members of Parliament and others - indicate to the police forces their support of them.

page 781

CHEMISTS

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI wish to add some information to the answer I gave to a question that Senator Murphy asked me earlier. It was a question in relation to non-pharmaceutical benefit items and to proposed Press state ment about increases. 1 said that I was not aware of any information on the matter being given to my Department. That is confirmed. The Pharmacy Guild in no way has conferred with my Department or officially advised my Department of these proposed increases. Of course, it has no obligation to do so; but in fact it has not done so.

page 781

QUESTION

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the progress of the business of the Senate, can he give any indication of what the Government’s intentions are in respect of future sittings., particularly the sittings or non-sittings next week?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The programme provides for the Senate to sit on only Tuesday and Wednesday on next week because Thursday is Easter Eve. As the second chamber, we rely upon Bills coming by way of message from the other place. As I look a.t the business paper at the present time, I believe that we will be able to encompass the Bills that have come to us by tomorrow evening and therefore we will be waiting for Bills to come for debate next week. If that proved to be the position, I would feel disposed to move tomorrow that the Senate should not sit on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Even when a message comes and a Bill is introduced and the second reading speech is made, it is an unwritten law that, except in cases of extreme urgency such as at the end of session, the debate can be stood over until the next day in order to give members of the Opposition and the Democratic Labor Party and the Independents the right to have a look at the Bill before we proceed with the second reading debate.

So, if that is the position, I will move tomorrow that we should not sit on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. On the other hand, if a message comes to us very early tomorrow, we in f reduce the Bill and the Opposition moves that the debate be adjourned, in normal circumstances that Bill could be dealt with on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week and we would sit then. The situation will be clarified by lunchtime tomorrow; but I am giving the Senate the benefit of my thoughts because

I know all honourable senators have commitments in their States and it is nice and proper that they should know what is contemplated. What happens will depend upon the messages coming from the other place.

Senator Gair:

– What about the following week?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

We will not sit the following week.

page 782

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. What criteria would be used by the Government in selecting members of any wool authority body established to control a wool acquisition scheme? Is it true that some wool grower organisations are seeking a grower dominated board to control the authority and that some sections of the industry wish to elect the board on political rather than commercial qualifications? In creating such a powerful body would the Government insist that the Board be composed of top marketing men rather than politicians and activists from among the ranks of wool growers? Also in selecting members of an authority what limitations would the Government place upon people who are directors of or who have major associations with large wool broking firms?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– These appointments are properly matters for recommendation by the responsible Minister and, in due course, for consideration and approval or otherwise by the Government of such recommendation. Drawing upon my experience, it seems to me that the general practice is for these organisations to have, as far as possible, a fairly broad representation of people who are growers and people who are involved with the marketing side, with some Government representation to ensure that the public interest is carefully safeguarded. I cannot go further than that. I cannot commit the Government to the future position or the present position. I am quite sure that the question which the honourable senator asked will be taken into account.

page 782

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Has the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral heard a report of a statement attributed to the United States SurgeonGeneral when appearing before the United States Senate Communications Subcom.mittee in Washington in which he called for immediate action to restrict violence in television programmes because of its effect on some children? He said that enough data was available now on the effects of television to justify government action. Because Australia imports annually from the United States drama programmes valued at millions of dollars, many of which have violence as their central theme, will the Australian Government heed the warning given by the American SurgeonGeneral and suggest to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and to the commercial television stations that they should produce and exhibit more programmes of an Australian character which depict, principally for the benefit of our younger generation, something of our country’s history and heritage?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have not seen the particular report to which the honourable senator referred, but I express the personal view that much of what appears on television seems to accentuate violence. One wonders whether this has an effect on young and impressionable minds. I do not think it is altogether accurate to say that the violence which is depicted on television is in imported films only because I think there is a fair amount of violence in the locally produced television shows. I think the control and the standard of the programmes are matters essentially for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think that the honourable senator’s question and his comments connected with it can be referred to the PostmasterGeneral. I am sure that he will direct them to the appropriate bodies.

page 782

QUESTION

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– In desperation I ask a further question of the Minister for Health. As the Senate has had no opportunity to debate the subject of medical fees and as matters dealing with the subject are listed on the notice paper - one such matter having been placed on the notice paper on 7th May 1971 - will the Minister make arrangements for an early discussion on Government Business order of the day No. 4 and General Business order of the day No. 18? It seems to me that that opportunity could present itself next week in view of the Minister’s reply about the sittings of the Senate.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI shall deal with the last part of the honourable senator’s question first. Am 1 to understand that Senator Cavanagh does not approve of the proposed arrangement that I mentioned in my answer to Senator Murphy?

Senator Cavanagh:

-I approve of dealing with the business on the notice paper.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I wantedto be perfectly clearI have had discussions with lenders about next week. If it is not the intention of the Opposition to accept my proposal let its members be frank about that. Let us know. I put it right on the line. Honourable senators cannot have it both ways in this world, least of all when they are dealing with me in the Senate. However, the forms of the Senate are there for honourable senators to use. As Minister for Health, I would not be in a position to respond to item No. 4 while the matter is, as 1 see it, sub judice.

page 783

QUESTION

FILM ADVERTISING

(Question No. 1795)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Did a film company involved in cigarette advertising enter any Northern Territory reservation to enact buffalo hunting;if so, (a) what was the film company, and for which cigarette company was it operating, and (b) what fee was imposed upon the film company for the facilities provided.
  2. If such a film was produced on private property in the Northern Territory, what safeguards were imposed in order to avoid cruelty to the buffaloes.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Under the provisions of the Wildlife Conservation and Control Ordinance persons entering wildlife sanctuaries in the Northern Territory must have a permit issued by the Chief Inspector of Wildlife. Buffaloes are partly pro tected animals under the Wildlife Conservation and Control Ordinance and, as such, can only be taken or killed under a permit issued by the Chief Inspector of Wildlife.

No permits have been issued by the Chief Inspector to any film company to enter wildlife sanctuaries, nor did he issue permits to kill or to take buffaloes for the purpose, of filming.

page 783

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1796)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Has any specific instruction been given to

Australian migration officers in European countries explaining in detail that many nontradesmen occupations with close relativity to tradesmen’s rates depend largely on seniority in the industry concerned.

  1. Hasthis information been conveyed to the officers responsible for interviewing prospective migrants in Vienna.
  2. Are the interviewing officers in Vienna Aus tralia based.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Workers in general in Australian industry are classified occupationally according to their capacity to perform the work involved in the particular job which is subject to a minimum wage rate prescribed by an award.

When counselling prospective migrants overseas the rates of pay quoted are the minimum award rate for a normal week’s work. Details of any pay additional to the minimum, which may be based upon seniority, are not made available since they, are not relevantto the normal conditions of employment applying to a migrant on his arrival in Australia.

  1. Yes, in accordance with the answer to Question1.
  2. Yes.

page 783

QUESTION

BUFFALOES

(Question No. 1802)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What are the terms and conditions under which the Mount Bundey property in the Northern Territory operates.
  2. Is it used exclusively for buffalo herds.
  3. What company is operating the venture.
  4. Has the culling-out of buffaloes from various Northern Territory wildlife reservations stopped.
  5. Will it be possible for buffaloes to be driven to the Mount Bundey property from wildlife reservations in the future.
  6. Do Northern Territory wildlife officers supervise the severing of buffalo horn tips in order to avoid mishaps which might maim the animals.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The Mount Bundey property in the Northern Territory is held under Pastoral Lease No. 561, granted in 1959 subject to the following terms and conditions:

Term - 50 years

Conditions -

  1. maintain existing improvements

    1. erect 5 miles of fencing in each of the first 5 years from the commencement of the lease
    2. erect drafting yards within 2 years
    3. construct a new dip or spray within 2 years
    4. on completion of improvements maintain them in satisfactory condition for balance of the lease term
    5. stock lease with a minimum of 4 head per square mile.
    1. The buffalo domestication at Mount Bundey is only ancillary to a considerable cattle operation.
    2. The present lessee of Pastoral Lease No. 561 is W. R. Grace Australia Pry Ltd.
    3. Yes.
    4. It is not possible to drive wild buffaloes. Buffaloes for domestication purposes are trapped and transported by truck to the domestication yards. Heavy timber cover and extensive swamps would make trapping extremely difficult within the wildlife sanctuary near the property.
    5. No.

page 784

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1803)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What decisions emerged from the January meeting of the Italo-Australian Commission, which discussed aspects of Italian migration to Australia.
  2. Was any consideration given to the existence of Australian money-lending agencies which appear to charge grossly inflated interest rates to migrants who borrow money to bring their dependants to Australia.
  3. Who were the Australian representatives at the Commission sessions.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Being a consultative body the Joint Commission does not make decisions. However, the meeting which commenced on 20th January 1972, considered the following subjects - information about Australia furnished to candidates for emigration; assistance given upon arrival to facilitate the settling in of migrants; the availability of adequate accommodation; and English-language instruction.
  2. Meetings of the Joint Commission are not public. However, the agreed statement by the Commission following conclusion of its January meeting made no reference to this subject.
  3. Ambassador, Counsellor (Immigration) and another Embassy official.

page 784

QUESTION

SCIENCE POLICY BRANCH

(Question No. 1811)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

What is the establishment of the Science Policy Branch ofthe Department of Education and Science, and what functions does the Branch perform.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The Science Policy Branch of the Department of Education and Science, which has a total establishment of 20, comprises two Sections, the Scientific Information and External Relations Section and the Planning and Special Projects Section. The Branch is concerned with matters relating to the national civil scientific research and development effort and to the general development of science in Australia, and with Australian participation in the science activities of international bodies such as the OECD.

The Branch gathers and analyses information on the level and structure of the national effort in all fields of science. For example, it is responsible for the planning and conduct of Project SCORE which is a survey of Australian expenditure on scientific research and development.

The Branch serves ‘ as Australian co-ordinating agency for co-operative science programme with the United States under the United States/Australia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Cooperation.

page 784

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1831)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many non-Europeans have been accepted for migration, to Australia, and from which countries, in each of the last 20 years?
  2. How many non-Europeans have received: (a) visitors’ visas; and (b) students’ visas, and from which countries, in each of the last 20 years?
  3. What ls the estimated number of nonEuropeans resident in Australia
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Detailed statistics are not available of the number of persons of non-European descent actually accepted for migration, i.e., issued visas in the various countries in each of the last 20 years. The following reply is based on the number of persons not of European descent actually admitted to Australia, i.e., admitted on arrival with resident status.

Until the second half of 1961 statistics were not maintained of the number of non-Europeans admitted during given periods. During the period 1st July 1961 to 31st December 1965, statistics were maintained under four broad nationality headings only. Available statistics covering the entry of non-European people for residence during the period 1st July 1961 to 31st December 1965 are: lt is’ not possible to provide details of the countries of former residence for the period 1 January 1966 to 30 June 1970 as statistics of country of former residence were not maintained. Detailed statistics of the nationalities of persons of non-European descent admitted during the calendar years .1966 to 30 September 1971

Detailed statistics of country of former residence of persons of non-European descent admitted for residence during the period 1 July 1970 to 30 September 1971 are: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Detailed statistics have not been compiled of persons of non-European descent issued short term visitors or student visas in the various countries in the last 20 years. Statistics of arrivals are available from 1966 based on nationality but not on last country of residence. These are as follows: {: .page-start } page 787 {:#debate-45} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-45-0} #### PMG PROPERTY (Question No. 1838) {: #subdebate-45-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the Postmaster-General's Department own land in Bridge Street, West Tamworth, which is leased or rented to a motor car sales company; if so, how long has the Department owned the land, to whom is it leased, and what arc the terms of the lease. 1. Does the Department conduct the business of the West Tamworth Post Office in leased premises in the same street; if so, how long has the Department been the lessee, who is the lessor, and what are the terms of the lease. 2. By how much has the business of the Post Office at West Tamworth increased since the original lease was taken out for the premises at 170- 174 Bridge Street, West Tamworth. {: #subdebate-45-0-s1 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
LP -- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. Since 12th May 1949. Clifton Pty Ltd. Weekly tenancy at rental of $28.00 per week. 1. Yes. Since 1st February 1946. The Estate of the Late Verdun Edward Lowe. For 3 years expiring on 30th September 1972, at rental of $936.00 per annum. 2. The increase in business over the 25-year period has not been sufficient to justify elevating the office above Grade 2 status which was allotted to it in 1945-46, although it has been reviewed each 3 years since then. {: .page-start } page 788 {:#debate-46} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-46-0} #### CYCLONE DAMAGE (Question No. 1871) {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: >What is the total estimated cost to the PostmasterGeneral's Department for repairs to buildings, equipment and installations in Townsville damaged by the recent cyclone. {: #subdebate-46-0-s1 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
LP -- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >$750,000. {: .page-start } page 788 {:#debate-47} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-47-0} #### TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT (Question No. 1903) {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: >Will the Postmaster-General supply details of the percentage use of long distance telephone equipment between Melbourne and Sydney during the following hours: (a) 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., (b) 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., (c) 8 p.m. to 10pm., (d) 10p.m. to midnight and (e) after midnight. {: #subdebate-47-0-s1 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
LP -- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The typical percentage occupancy of MelbourneSydney long distance telephone channels during the hours specified is as follows: > >4 p.m.-6 pm. - 40 per cent > >6 p.m.-8 p.m. - 18 per cent > >8 p.m.-10 p.m. - 21 per cent > >10 p.m.-midnight - 5 per cent > >Midnight-6 a.m. - less than 1 per cent > >Due to traffic load variations, the average channel occupancy varies fairly widely, from week to week. To place the figures given in perspective, it should be explained that sufficient telephone equipment is provided to carry the peak traffic loads at the busiest hours of the day. On the Melbourne-Sydney route the busiest period occurs in the mornings, when average occupancies vary between 80 per cent and 90 per cent. During periods of shorter duration, occupancies of up to 100 per cent occur. {: .page-start } page 788 {:#debate-48} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-48-0} #### CHIFLEY SQUARE: PARKING AREA (Question No. 1907) {: #subdebate-48-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When does the Department of the Interior intend to demolishthe Club Chambers building in Sydney to enable the Chifley Square parking area to be extended. 1. Is the Minister aware of any arrangement with the Wentworth Hotel which enables it to use space inthe Phillip Square parking area for its guests, particularly during weekends, at the expense of Sydney motorist.s {: #subdebate-48-0-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
LP -- The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. While the Club Chambers building site in Sydney forms part of the total Commonwealth Centre site there are no firm plans at present for the demolition of the Club Chambers building either to extend the Phillip Street (Chifley Square) parking area or for other building purposes. 1. There is no arrangement with the Wentworth Hotel management for the use of the Phillip Street parking area for its guests at any time. {: .page-start } page 788 {:#debate-49} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-49-0} #### ROAD SAFETY (Question No. 1916) {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: >Did a recent conference of Commonwealth and State Transport Ministers recommend the adoption of safety design rules for the construction and the use of passenger car tyres; if so, (a) is the Minister aware that some Commonwealth cars are fitted with recapped tyres which have a tendency to peel off, and (b) will the Minister ensure that all Commonwealth vehicles are checked for tyre safety and fitted with tyres which match their performances, so giving a lead to the rest of the community. {: #subdebate-49-0-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
LP -- The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >At the 36th meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, Ministers endorsed 2 safety design rules relating to tyres. The rules are: > >Australian design rule 23 for new pneumatic passenger car lyres which is to specifystan- dards on strength, construction and a standard pressure/ load relationship for tyres of particular size designations to facilitate the choice of tyres for passenger cars and derivatives manufactured after 1st January 1974. > >Australian design rule 24 for tyre selection which is to specify requirements for tyre selection appropriate to vehicle load capacity, rim size and safety characteristics to be fitted to all passenger cars, derivatives and multi-purpose passenger cars using passenger car tyres, and manufactured on or after 1st January 1973. Some of the Department of the Interior vehicles which operate only in Canberra are fitted with recapped tyres but it is very rare for the caps to peel off. For some years Department of the Interior vehicles have been fitted with tyres which match their performance. {: .page-start } page 789 {:#debate-50} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-50-0} #### ROOT ROT (Question No. 1934) {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: asked the Minis ter representingthe Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In view of 'the answer given to Senate Question No. 1714 that the spread of root rot due to Phytophthora cinnamoni has reached the Australian Capital Territory is the Minister able to confirm if this disease has spread beyond Eucalypt forest and is affecting trees within the suburbs of Canberra; if so could trees in Dampier Crescent. Forrest be affected. 1. Has this disease caused affected trees in streets to lose their leaves and branches to die; if so, does the Minister regard the disease as an immediate threat to Canberra's environment. 2. What action, if any, is being taken to save the trees in, the streets of Canberra that are threatened by this disease. {: #subdebate-50-0-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
LP -- The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. It has been known for several years that Phytophthora cinnamoni has been present in soils of the Australian Capital Territory both within the city and in the natural forests. It has probably been present without positive identification for many years earlier but only becomes evident when plants are subjected to physiological stress through poor drainage of wet conditions and alternative drought. The most significant damage which has been identified with Phytophthora by Parks and Gardens Branch of the Department of the Interior has occurredin the Botanic Gardens and Commonwealth Gardens but numerous positive identification tests have resulted from samples taken after deaths of trees and shrubs both in public parks and private gardens. However in all cases the advent of the disease as occurred in badly drained sites m heavy clay soils. The trees in Dampier Crescent have been examined and are free from presence of Phytophthora. They have been severely affected by Lerps during the past summer but this is not likely to have any lasting effect. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Dropping of leaves is not a symptom of the disease; rather does the plant die from lack of ability to absorb water following the death of the root system after infection from the soil-borne fungus. The tree or plant is likely to die as a whole and retain the dead leaves. Occasionally visible damage may start with the death of a major branch if it arises near the base of the plant. Because of the sporadic effect of incidence of the disease and its association only with poor drainage it is not regarded as likely to provide a major threat to Canberra's environment. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The incidence on street trees in Canberra is negligible. Where positive identification is obtained after the death of a tree it is not customary to plant another tree in the same position but to replace the tree clear of the infected site making sure that good drainage is provided. A post graduate research student of the ANU is currently undertaking investigation of the occurrence and control of Phytophthora cinnamoni in the Botanic Gardens and Black Mountain on behalf of the Department of the Interior. Prevention of the spread of the disease is being minimised by exercising extreme nursery hygiene care in growing plants and sterilising any infected area where shrubs or trees must be replanted. The most important prevention measure however is to ensure that the site is correctly drained when planting shrubs or trees in a new garden or park. {: .page-start } page 789 {:#debate-51} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-51-0} #### DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I proceed with the discovery of formal business. Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 stands in the name of **Senator Cavanagh.** Is the motion formal or not formal? {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- Formal. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- It is formal. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- Does the honourable senator want to have a debate on the motion? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I want to have some discussion on it. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- In that case, it should be not formal. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Then it is not formal. {: .page-start } page 789 {:#debate-52} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-52-0} #### PLACING OF BUSINESS {: #subdebate-52-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I now proceed to the placing of business. Is it desired to postpone or rearrange the business of the Senate? {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- I move: >That order of the day No. 5 take precedence over orders of the day Nos. 3 and '4. The order of the business would therefore be orders of the day No. 1, No. 2 and No. 5. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 790 {:#debate-53} ### DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION BILL 1972 Ministerial Statement 1972 {: #debate-53-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP I ask for leave to make a statement in relation to the debate that occurred on the Death Penalty Abolition Bill on Thursday, 9th March. {: #debate-53-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON: On Thursday evening, 9th March, under General Business, a debate took place on **Senator Murphy's** Bill for the abolition of the death penalty. During the debate a statement was made by **Senator James** McClelland in relation to **Senator Greenwood** which was the basis of objections at the Committee stage and which were, in my view, properly ruled out of order by the Chairman of Committees. This was done then because the objection was not taken at the time the words were used. I did not hear **Senator James** McClelland's remarks because I was absent at that time in Cabinet. On returning to the Senate I was informed of what **Senator James** McClelland was reported to have said in relation to **Senator Greenwood.** I was present in the Senate at the Committee stage later when **Senator James** McClelland sought and obtained leave of the Committee to make a statement. He said: >I refer to some remarks that I made earlier in the debate. I admit that in the heat of the debate I used language in excessive fervour. As I recall what 1 said, I accused **Senator Greenwood** of applauding the murder of thousands of people in Vietnam. I am prepared to withdraw the word applauded' and substitute the words 'took no exception to'. After **Senator Greenwood** had spoken in response to the statement that **Senator James** McClelland made I rose and made the following statement: 1 indicate to the Committee, and through the Committee to the Senate, that I intend to make a serious examination of the incident which occurred tonight. I indicate that I reserve my position as Leader of the Government in the Senate to move a substantive motion in relation to **Senator James** McClelland on our reassembly after this recess. I now desire to inform the Senate that in accordance with my statement I have taken the opportunity in the intervening period to read carefully the full Hansard record of the debate that took place on the Dealth Penalty Abolition Bill. I have read the statement which was originally made by **Senator James** McClelland which is recorded at page 656 of the daily Hansard and all the continuing debate until the matter was disposed of. I want to make it clear to the Senate that in my view the remarks made by **Senator James** McClelland referring to **Senator Greenwood** were offensive and distasteful. Such remarks should never be made by any honourable senator about another honourable senator. In fact, they were in breach of standing order 418. Because of the ruling given by the Chairman of Committees for me to move a substantive motion, it might leave an inference of disagreement with the ruling from the Chair were I to move such a motion. I hasten to indicate that it would not be my intention to leave that inference. Nevertheless, I believe with strong conviction that the imputations expressed by **Senator James** McClelland were offensive and contrary to the propriety of Senate debate. Whilst I do not propose to move a substantive motion, I believe that **Senator James** McClelland has an obligation to consider immediately withdrawing the imputations he expressed in that debate. {: #debate-53-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales -- I seek leave to make a statement on this matter. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- The Senate is a place in which harsh statements are very often made. There is probably a good deal less abuse in this chamber than in most other legislative chambers in this country. In my view, there is far more abuse here than there ought to be. I would like to see steps taken by the chamber, particularly by the officers who preside here from time to time, to see that irrelevant matter by way of abuse is not used in the chamber and that unnecessary reflections are not cast. On this occasion the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** raises the issue that one of the members of my party cast reflections on another honourable senator. May I say in relation to that, two things. Firstly, that the statement was withdrawn by **Senator James** McClelland; the other is that, there have been a great deal of offensive and distasteful remarks made by members of the Government, including one Minister in particular. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- Not by me. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The Leader of the Opposition will be heard in silence. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- I did not say they were made by **Senator Greenwood.** I said they were made by one Minister in particular and were directed at the members of the Opposition. If one were to go through the record of the last several weeks - I think it is unnecesary for any of us to do so - one would find ample evidence of offensive and distasteful remarks directed at the Opposition from the Government side, including from the ministerial benches. If something can be done to stop this practice growing J hope it will be done. We have heard what the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said in relation to this matter. We all agree that the level of debate ought to be raised. But I point out that on this occasion the statement that was made by **Senator James** McClelland was, in fact, withdrawn. On behalf of the Opposition 1 say that we hope that prompt and effective steps will be taken by everyone, including the presiding officers and all of those who have responsibility - I think that applies to everyone - in an endeavour to see that this place is conducted for the purposes for which it is here. I suppose there should be a philosophy of live and let live and that this calls for an atmosphere of tolerance on both sides. The Opposition does not think, and may I say for myself that I do not think, that any person should be singled out, especially in a case where the statement which was originally made was withdrawn. That is the attitude of the Opposition. **Mr President,** I think that probably the Leader of the Government in the Senate holds the same view as I hold, that the level of debate ought to be raised. We say that we are prepared to do this on our side and we ask the Government to put its own house in order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I have listened to what the Leader of the Government has had to say; I have listened to what the Leader of the Opposition has had to say. I think the honour of the Senate could be best served if the matter was allowed to lapse when I resume my seat. But the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the context of the conduct of the debate and the onus and responsibility that sit fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Presiding Officer are ones that I understand. With the co-operation of honourable senators the forms that all of them desire to be maintained in the Senate shall be maintained. {: .page-start } page 791 {:#debate-54} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT {: #debate-54-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I move: {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- I must confess that because of the pressure I was under when I said 'formal' and **Senator Cavanagh** said 'not formal', I had in my mind that we were discussing whether or not we should deal with this matter today. I spoke not on the matter of substance but on the question of whether it should be stood over to another day. I realise that you have just moved into the Chair, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** and accordingly I suggest that you seek advice from the Clerk in relation to the circumstances. I want to stand the matter over for reasons that I shall give. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)** - It has always been proper in the case of misunderstanding or confusion to go back to the beginning. Therefore we will proceed from the point where we call on the business of the Senate. {: .page-start } page 791 {:#debate-55} ### BUSINESS OF THE SENATE {: #debate-55-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP (4.27) - I move: >That order of the day, notice of motion No. 1, be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. 1 will give my reasons for proposing the motion, **Senator Cavanagh** can respond and we can then decide what we shall do. The reason why I do not want to deal with **Senator Cavanagh's** motion today is that it seeks to refer to the Standing Committee on Social Environment certain petitions that have been presented to the Senate. Many of these petitions have been presented in the last few days. **Senator Cavanagh** has presented some yesterday and six or seven were presented today. I have been informed by Government senators that they wish to present petitions. In fact,I have in my own office a petition on the same matter and I am having it processed for the purpose of being presented by one of my own members. Government senators and I take the view that having regard to the nature of things it would not be appropriate today for **Senator Cavanagh,** if he intends to seek to go into the substance of this matter - and no doubt this would be a matter for the Chair to determine-- to move this motion. But if **Senator Cavanagh** merely wants to refer this matter to the Committee I could understand and perhaps live with that. But if he intends to argue the substance I shall ask that it be stood over today. In any event, my own senators want to present petitions. Indeed, they would need to have regard to the matter of substance that the honourable senator would want to put in debating this matter. This is the normal procedure. On the other hand, if **Senator Cavanagh** merely wants to refer this matter to the Committee I think we could carry the motion on the voices. {: #debate-55-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I agree that we should let the voices determine whether we are prepared to refer this matter to the Committee. {: #debate-55-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- **Mr Acting Deputy President,** I move: That the debate be now adjourned. The intention is to resume the debate at a later hour this day. There may be some modification which may be in the interests of the Senate. I believe what I have moved will achieve the same result as what the Leader of the Government put forward. But I would like to make some modification. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - This is the debate on **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson's motion for the placement of business? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Yes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The question is: That the debate be now adjourned. I think the Ayes have it. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- May that be treated as covering the subject matter of **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson's proposal so that we do not go on immediately with notice of motion No. 1 but that would be taken across with the motion and we would deal with it later? {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- Yes, that is my understanding. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- That is what we intend. {: .page-start } page 792 {:#debate-56} ### PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1972 {:#subdebate-56-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 9 March (vide page 61 1), on motion by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson: That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-56-0-s0 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia -- This Bill amends section 50 of the Public Service Act in relation to promotion appeals within the Public Service. At present, based on the Bailey Appeal Report of 1944 which has applied evevr since, appeals are heard by a promotions appeal committee which consists of a chairman, a member of the relevant department and a member of the associated union. Appeals by officers up to a certain grade in the Public Service are determined within the States. Appeals above that grade are referred to the Public Service Board for decision. What this Bill does is to place, in between the Public Service Board and State appeal bodies, another body. The duty of that body will be, where the provisional appointees are from one State and appellants are from other States, to consider the reports of State promotion appeal committees and in Canberra make the final decision. It may be necessary for members of the body to travel from State to State to take further evidence or to get the provisional appointee or the appellants before it. The creation of this body is probably a natural extension, but it is a wonder, when one looks back over the whole history of the Bailey appeals system, that the necessity for such a body has not arisen before. The Opposition thinks that this appears to be a sensible move and does not offer any objection to it. {: #subdebate-56-0-s1 .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN:
Victoria -- 1 support the Bill, which is a short procedural piece of legislation. The Bill is important as it deals with the personnel and promotion of members of the Commonwealth Public Service. The Bill amends section 50 of the Public Service Act 1922- 1968. There has always been in existence in the Commonwealth Public Service a system of appeals in which the right of a person appointed to a position to hold that position may be challenged by somebody who thinks that his qualifications are better or that he has a better entitlement to the job. This system has never occasioned very great difficulty in cases where the appellant and respondent are both resident in the one State. But the position with which the Bill attempts to deal is that of disposing of arguments arising where the provisional promotee is in one State and the challenger is in another. The Bill proposes to set up a committee to deal with such a situation. This body is to be constituted under the Public Service Act as a result of recommendations from the Joint Council, an employer-employee body. It is to have an independent chairman, one person nominated by the Permanent Head of the department to which the person is appointed and another person from the relevant staff association. In practice this new committee virtually will stand in between the Public Service Board and a State promotions appeal committee. The result will be that the committee so set up will virtually determine the appeal. The committee will then make a recommendation to the Public Service Board. The Government has introduced this proposal as a result of recommendations from the Joint Council. This action is some indication of the care which the Government exercises in respect of the proper marshalling and proper administration of the Commonwealth Public Service. A great deal of nonsense is spoken and written about public servants, but it is my belief that Australia is extremely well served by a dedicated band of public servants. It is necessary and desirable that their proper promotions and transfers be handled in an expeditious and just manner. If 1 may digress for a moment, the Commonwealth's concern is in sharp contradistinction to the views of the Australian Labor Party on the Public Service. In Adelaide last week it was proposed by the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party that a ceiling be placed on the salaries of persons in the upper levels of the Public Service. Honourable senators do not need to be magicians to realise that the telephones ran hot, telegrams ran hot and appeals were made to **Mr Hawke** and others in high positions. Finally, a telegram was sent from Canberra to Adelaide by the Public Service association here. That telegram stated: >Public servants in Canberra greatly disturbed at reports of Federal Executive's wage freeze on upper Commonwealth salaries. We urge you to prevail on Federal Executives to exercise commonsense if your electoral chances are not to be destroyed. > >Signed Gordon Taylor When that telegram hit the deck panic prevailed and the proposal was pushed under the rug. I think, however, that we should contrast the care which the Government has shown in respect of the Public Service and the proposed control and worsening of Public Service conditions which may reasonably be expected to result from Labor administration. I support the Bill. {: #subdebate-56-0-s2 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- It was not my intention to enter this debate until I heard **Senator Hannan's** speech. In a few short words **Senator Willesee** indicated on behalf of the Opposition that he supported this Bill, which relates specifically to promotion appeals in the Commonwealth Public Service. During the course of his remarks **Senator Hannan** referred to an incident which allegedly took place at a meeting of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party held in Adelaide last week, concerning as I understand it some suggested proposition that was put forward about Commonwealth Public Service salaries. Whatever was put forward or whatever was proposed, I remind the Senate that nothing in effect was carried. If my friend, **Senator Hannan,** wishes to bring into debate the question of salaries and conditions of Commonwealth public servants, I point out to the Government that for some time the Opposition has been pressing for an increase in the annual leave granted to Common wealth public servants. This, I think, has remained as it is today, namely 3 weeks annual leave, since the Commonwealth Public Service was established in 1902. Be that as it may, I do not think that this is a Bill which allows us to open up for discussion as much as we would like to raise the downgrading of conditions and salary structures that has occurred in the Commonwealth Public Service after 22 years of administration by this Government. This Bill relates to promotion appeals in the Commonwealth Public Service. We on this side of the Senate completely support the proposition. As **Senator Willesee** *has* said, the Government in this legislation now suggests a practical arrangement. We cannot see why this proposition should not have been introduced some considerable time ago. 1 wish to raise one matter that concerns a number of individual Commonwealth public servants, namely, appeals. I refer to the tendency - apparently a growing tendency - on the part of the Commonwealth Public Service Board to appoint people to positions in an acting capacity. While a person is occupying a more senior position in an acting capacity there can be no appeal against him. It has been suggested to me by various officers of the Commonwealth Public Service that in order to eliminate a number of appeals the Commonwealth Public Service Board is increasing its tendency to promote people in an acting capacity, thus protecting them from any appeal. This enables persons in an acting capacity to occupy a position for 6 months, 12 months or 2 years, giving them the benefit of having occupied that position in an acting capacity with the subsequent result that when that officer is permanently appointed to that position the very fact that he has- occupied it in an acting capacity for some time stands in his favour in the event of any appeal being taken against him. 1 suggest to the Government that, if that is to be the position - 1 do not doubt that it is because a number of Commonwealth public servants has spoken to me about it - there should be a time limit on the period for which a public servant can be appointed in an acting capacity, be it 3 months, 4 months or 6 months, so that a decision will then be made by the Public Service Board or the department, whichever is involved, as to whether that officer is to be permanently appointed to that position with the result that an appeal by any other person against that appointment can be expedited and processed. As **Senator Willesee** has said, the Opposition supports the proposals embodied in this legislation. We believe that it is long overdue and that it will considerably assist to harmonise employer-employee relations in the Commonwealth Public Service. {: #subdebate-56-0-s3 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP (4.42) - I thank the Senate for the passage of this legislation. The remarks of **Senator Willesee** and **Senator Douglas** McClelland make it obvious that the Opposition supports this legislation. **Senator Douglas** McClelland has referred to the question of people acting in positions. I respond to his remarks because 1 have been informed that if an acting appointment to a position extends beyond one month that appointment is appealable after that period. That is really the point with which **Senator Douglas** McClelland was seeking to deal. My understanding of the position is that if an acting appointment extends beyond a month the right of appeal exists. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- 1 would suggest that the Public Service be circularised to that effect. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON: It is apparent from what **Senator Douglas** McClelland has said that some members of the Commonwealth Public Service are not aware of their rights. The various professional officers associations in the Commonwealth Public Service should pick up from this debate the fact that the right of appeal exists after an acting position has been held for one month. Knowing their activities, 1 am sure they will note this point. This is the information with which I have been provided by the parliamentary advisers. I thank the Senate for the passage of the second reading of this Bill. Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. {:#subdebate-56-1} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) proposed: >That the Bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-56-1-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania -- I take this opportunity to refute a statement made earlier by **Senator Hannan** and to remind him that one should not buy into a matter on which one has a limited knowledge. I want to place on record that **Senator Hannan's** statement that certain motions in respect of restricting the incomes of Commonwealth public servants were moved or considered by the federal executive of the Australian Labor Party is simply not correct. No such motion was moved, considered or carried. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 795 {:#debate-57} ### LOAN (AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD) BILL 1972 {:#subdebate-57-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 9 March (vide page 612), on motion by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-57-0-s0 .speaker-KB9} ##### Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia -- The long title of the Bill states: >To Authorise the Borrowing of Moneys by the Commonwealth and the Lending of those Moneys to the Australian Wheat Board. That really is the whole matter that is before us in debating this Bill. It is almost unnecessary to add to the wording of the longtitle because the Bill is purely a machinery measure to meet a situation which will arise in 9 days time. However, I should like to make a few remarks on the Bill, not for the purpose of canvassing other matters in regard toquotas and so on that were brought forward in the debate on the Bill in another place but to bring before the Senate points which were made by the Minister for Health **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** in his second reading speech. The Australian Wheat Board borrowed from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia $364m in order to meet the commitments of the 1970-71 wheat pool. This amount was needed to cover the first payments for wheat in that pool, the intention being that this amount would be recouped from sales throughout the year. When the Reserve Bank makes money available for transactions of this kind it must be repaid within 12 months. I think this is fairly general knowledge. At the beginning of my remarks I made the point that the period of 12 months ends in 9 days time on 31st March, which makes the passing of this Bill a fairly urgent matter. I propose to mention the situation relating to our wheat stocks obtained from the 1970-71 harvest. At the end of the previous season we had a carry-over of 265 million bushels, which is a not inconsiderable amount. The carryover was a little larger than we would like to see at the end of a season, but if we were to make sales up to our normal expectation it would not have been a really considerable amount. Unfortunately sales to the People's Republic of China on which we have been dependent for some years did not eventuate. China bought its wheat from Canada and we were left in the unfortunate position of having a large part of what we looked on as foreseeable sales taken from us. Fortunately a market for Australian wheat became available in the Arab states which, although they were not prepared to take as much wheat as we would have exported to China, bought sufficient to bring our total exports to 254 million bushels, leaving us with 125 million bushels which so far we have not been able to sell - although that does not mean that we will not be able to get rid of it before the end of the season. Because of this situation receipts by the Australian Wheat Board from sales of wheat will be about $95m short of the amount that we have to repay to the Reserve Bank. The only point at issue, and one about which 1 am not unduly worried, is that the Government is asking for $1 50m to allow some latitude in the amount which may be required to repay the loan outstanding with the Reserve Bank. It seems to me rather peculiar that 9 days before the repayment of the loan falls due we are not sure whether the amount to be repaid will be $95m or less, or as much as $150m. However, of the amount made available by this Bill only as much as is required will be used. I assume (hat about $100m will be required. Interest on the loan will be charged at Si per cent, which is a fairly satisfactory rate, although I would like to see a lower rate. But in view of current interest rates, *5i* per cent is not unduly excessive. I think I have covered all the points that need to be mentioned. The arrangement proposed by the Bill is not opposed by the Opposition. We feel that this follows on from the guarantee that was given by the Government under the wheat pool arrangements when $1.10 a bushel was guaranteed as a first payment for wheat. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill and will give it a speedy passage. {: #subdebate-57-0-s1 .speaker-KQV} ##### Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975 -- 1 propose to take a couple of minutes to add my support to the Bill. As has been explained, the $364m borrowed by the Australian Wheat Board from the Reserve Bank of Australia has to be repaid by the end of March as the law provides that credit can be given in transactions of this kind for not more than 12 months. The Board has been unable to dispose of all wheat from the 1970-71 crop and some that has been disposed of has been sold on credit, payment not having been made yet. The Government expects to spend $95m of the amount to be provided under the Bill but it has asked for Si 50m in case of emergencies. **Senator Wilkinson** mentioned that we had lost all wheat sales to the People's Republic of China, but I remind the Senate that China bought some of our 1970-71 crop. Figures which are available to me reveal that the United Kingdom was the biggest purchaser of Australian wheat, having bought wheat to the value of about $8lm; that the People's Republic of China bought wheat to the value of $57m; that the United Arab Republic, which has taken some of the wheat which formerly we would have expected to sell to the People's Republic of China, bought wheat to the value of $56m; that Japan bought Australian wheat to the value of $40m, in round figures; and that Iraq purchased our wheat to the value of $22m. Malaysia bought flour. Along with Singapore, Malaysia is now a whole grain buyer and it purchased $15m worth. Chile bought a considerable quantity of wheat as did other countries. This Bill is carrying out the principle of organised marketing of our primary products. It is purely a machinery measure. I believe that in view of the smaller crop of wheat produced during the year and the smaller amount held in store, quotas should be looked at and possibly lifted. If the markets in other countries improve we could conveivably face a situation where we would not have any carryover. That would be a very good position but we have to have some wheat kept in reserve in Australia. That is about all I can say in relation to the Bill. It should have a speedy passage through the Senate as well as the support of everybody because, as has been pointed out, it is purely a machinery measure. It is designed to guarantee the finances of the Australian Wheat Board. {: #subdebate-57-0-s2 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE:
Victoria -- The Australian Democratic Labor Party has no objection to the Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill and will support it. It is merely a machinery matter. Guarantees have been entered into and we should take over this liability and provide money so that the bank's repayment can be made at the specified period. One matter which puzzles me just a little - I have no doubt there, is a logical explanation - is whether the interest rate has been established because it is the interest rate which has been charged by the bank and we are merely meeting the commitment to the bank and then carrying on the loan. In general, the interest rate is to be the same as it was 12 months ago although in recent months, the Government reduced the bond rate of interest. That would have led one to believe that there would have been a general reduction in the rate of interest on all loans. While recognising (hat this rate is still well below the normal rate charged on money borrowed at the present time, it would appear to the casual observer that the rate should have gone down on this loan as it has on everything else. Even a reduction of onequarter or one-half of one per cent is quite considerable on a $90m loan. I have no doubt that there is an explanation why this rate has been stabilised at the same interest rate which was being paid 12 months ago and that the Minister for Health **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson),** who in this chamber represents the Treasurer **(Mr Snedden),** will give us the answer when he responds to the second reading debate. The other matter with which I want to deal briefly is the reference to the potential markets which are supposed to exist in Mainland China. I hope that the. wheat industry, the Australian Wheat Board and those who are sympathetic and trying to do something for the primary producers of this country, will not run away with the idea that the simple solution is to have one mammoth purchaser which is purchasing mainly for its own convenience and certainly not in the interests of Australian wheat producers. It would be foolish to believe that because certain changes are taking place in the international field there will naturally be a reversion to the former situation and we will sell more wheat to Mainland China, or even a reversion to the time when we made sales to Mainland China out of a few Australian crops. I think that that situation is most unlikely to arise. Actually, when we sold wheat to Mainland China we sold it under completely different world marketing circumstances. At that time the United States of America which had huge wheat surpluses- refused to sell to Mainland China. Because America was not in the market to sell to Mainland China one of the most virile competitors, as far as Australian wheat sales were concerned, was removed. This enhanced our prospects of meeting the emergency situation which forced Mainland China to buy wheat from us, and we cashed in. One of the greatest mistakes Australian producers could possibly make at this time is to think that because of a realignment of international feeling towards Mainland China there will naturally be a burst of buying of Australian primary products, whether it be wheat or anything else. I suggest that anybody who doubts what I say should study the figures of the imbalance of international trade which we have had in recent years with Mainland China compared to the very favourable trade balance which we have enjoyed with Taiwan. Certainly Taiwan is a much smaller country in terms of population but in terms of international trade Taiwan trades much more, freely with the rest of the world than does Mainland China, which does not intend' to trade with any country if it can possibly avoid doing so. Obviously it is the intention of Mainland China to be self-supporting as far as possible and not to buy internationally any more than it is forced to. Indeed, whether it could meet the commitment of international buying on a very high scale at this time seems to be very doubtful to economic investigators. I sound that warning because I feel that it is much better for Australia to seek the broader markets of the world and to sell smaller quantities to a greater number of countries, than to become committed to supplying huge quantities to a particularly shaky market which could possibly exist in any primary production trading with Mainland China. When I say that, I am not suggesting that our Party claims that there should be no trade at all with any particular country. We have always sounded this warning note. We sounded it when, for several years, the purchase of wheat by Mainland China was inordinately high and when the wheat acreage of this country was expanded out of all proportion to meet that market. We believe, as we warned, that the seeds were sown which led to the ultimate collapse of the market and to some of the problems which flowed to the wheat industry. This matter may not be mentioned specifically in the Bill but it has been mentioned during the course of the debate. My party supports the Bill. We would like the Minister to give us any explanation which may exist as to why the interest rates remain unchanged from what they were 12 months ago. {: #subdebate-57-0-s3 .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG:
South Australia -- I am very pleased to hear that all honourable senators support this Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill. All honourable senators have dealt with the need for this loan of up to $150m which will assist the Australian Wheat Board to meet the commitments on its borrowings from the Reserve Bank of Australia. This is not the first time that this has happened. It also happened during the 1968-1969 and 1969- 1970 seasons because receipts for the sale of wheat were slow in those years and the Wheat Board was not able to meet the commitments on its borrowings. It is very interesting to look at the overall situation in the Australian wheat industry, particularly with regard to the exports of wheat over the last few years. In the year 1968 Australia exported some 205.5 million bushels of wheat; in 1969 some 243 million bushels, and in 1970 some 359 million bushels. In the year 1971 exports amounted to 394 million bushels. That was one of the greatest years on record for sales. The reason 1 mention those figures is because wheat sales to China have been mentioned today. For a long time China did play an important part in the disposal of the Australian wheat crop. In fact, it took up to one third of our wheat exports. It was a very important market, but many people said that we were inclined to put too many of our eggs in the one basket. There has been a lot of comment about why we lost those China sales. Some relate it to politics; many relate it to other reasons. I think that we have to be logical in our approach to the reason why China has reduced her purchases. We al! know that there has been what has been termed a green revolution. There has been an explosion in the production of rice and in the new types of wheat which are being grown in various countries. Today China is aiming for self-sufficiency but she is not yet self-sufficient. Granted, she is still buying wheat from other countries, but nevertheless her reliance upon outside production today is greatly reduced when compared with what it was just a few years ago. The important factor which I want to mention is that whereas before we were exporting one-third of our exports to China, this year without any China sales we have had the greatest sales of wheat on record, sales which have amounted to some 394 million bushels. That is a fantastic amount. I believe that the Australian Wheat Board is to be commended for going out and finding new markets. It is interesting to look at a list of the major purchasers of Australian wheat. In 1970-71 Egypt was the biggest buyer. She took 61 million bushels. The United Kingdom came second, with 46 million bushels. Japan took 38 million bushels, Iran 23 million bushels, Iraq 17 million bushels, South Korea 11 million bushels, Malaysia 11 million bushels, Chile 74 million bushels and Peru *6i* million bushels. That shows that the Wheat Board has spread its markets significantly. This is most encouraging to the industry. It is something on which we must commend the Board. At the same time we can look at the situation that existed a few years ago when we had a great problem. We had an explosion of wheat production in Australia, as did most of the other major wheat producing countries. At the end of December 1969 we had a carryover of 266 million bushels. I refer to this because **Senator Wilkinson** made a very valid reference to it. At 30th November 1970 we had a carryover of 265 million bushels. At 30th November 1971 the carryover was 125 million bushels. It is estimated that at 30th November this year we could have a carryover of the order of only 80 million bushels. That is an extremely good situation in which to be. I believe that this is significant when we relate it to the situation when the panic buttons were being pressed by some people with regard to the loss of the China sales. Despite the loss of that big market, we have managed to find other markets and have been able to reduce our carryover from 266 million bushels in 1969 to an estimate as low as 80 million bushels in 1972. At the same time, since quotas were introduced the quota has increased from 357 million bushels in 1969-70, 319 million bushels in 1970-71 to 407 million bushels in 1972-73 on the basis of the plantings in the current year for the coming harvest. All of this gives a great deal of encouragement to the Australian industry. It also shows very significantly the effective marketing operations of the Australian Wheat Board. So, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to support this Bill, the purpose of which is to enable the Commonwealth to meet its commitment under the guarantee to the Board to enable it. in turn, to meet its commitment to the Reserve Bank of Australia. {: #subdebate-57-0-s4 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- My remarks will be very brief; but, as the matter of our relationships with China has been related to the subject of wheat, I feel that I should say a few words on this very important matter. It has been freely said in our community, particularly in farming circles, that we will be able to sell large quantities of wheat to Communist China provided we take action which some people call 'recognition' and for which others use the nicer phrase of 'normalising relations'. I point out that it is illusory to think that wc will get back to the situation in the early 1960s when we performed wonders by increasing our wheat acreages and then found ourselves with a tremendous problem in disposing of the wheat that was being grown. In those days we were able to sell huge quantities of wheat to Communist China because one of our biggest potential competitors was not in the field. In those days the United States had huge surpluses, was restricting production and on ideological grounds was refusing to sell wheat to Communist China. Therefore we were in the position that probably our biggest potential competitor was out of the way. 1 can remember statements appearing in the Press in the middle of 1960s to the effect that in the United States there were certain pressures to get rid of its wheat surplus by throwing wheat on the market and making it available to Communist China, if necessary. 1 read in the Press that, as one would e.xpect, strong representations were made by **Sir John** Mc Ewen to the United States Government not to do that on the ground that if it did that it would gravely interfere with the sales which the Australian Government felt had to be made in view of the huge increase in our wheat acreages. We have to face the situation that if we recognise Communist China the United States is about to do the same and in those circumstances is a potential competitor. In those circumstances I hope that the Australian farmer, whatever he thinks about Communist China, will not fall for the joke that we only have to perform the 3 ceremonial kow-tows in Peking and China will write out a cheque for millions of dollars for our wheat. I believe that there is now a much healthier situation in this country as regards sales of our wheat. We have spread our sales. We have established markets all over the world. 1 am glad that the Australian Wheat Board has shown that that can be clone. Whilst the position is not perfect by any means, it must have improved because 1 am now receiving from wheat farmers in Victoria representations to the effect that things on the wheat front are so good now that they think quotas should be abolished. If that is the case, it looks as though they think things are not too bad. But, whatever the situation is, just as in the past I strongly criticised the Government because it devoted so much attention to the Chinese market, now I praise the Wheat Board - after all, the Government says, when it suits it, that the Wheat Board is an independent body - and say that the Board is on the right track in trying to sell wheat all over the world. I approve entirely what **Senator Young** said on that point. {: #subdebate-57-0-s5 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP (5.13) - in reply - This is really a machinery Bill for which there is formal approval from all sides of the Senate. With the indulgence of the Chair, honourable senators have made some references which perhaps do not have a direct relationship to the Bill. **Senator Young,** who sits behind me, dealt with the argument, if it was an argument - 1 do not think it was intended to be an argument; it was just a general observation - that we in Australia have been able, through the Australian Wheat Board, to spread the sales of our wheat to many countries. This is a good situation in which to be, whether one is talking about wheat or any other commodity. If a person is in business and has only one or two clients he is in a much more critical position than if he has many clients. I think that is axiomatic. In the field we are discussing - in fact, in any business or industry - the order book is the critical thing. A business is always in a happy situation if its order book is spread over a very wide range. But that does not mean that, when other circumstances arise, when one can find another client or when things may not be going too well on the face value of sales, one does not have regard to big clients, too. It is nice to have big clients as well as little clients. I feel that the political implications which have been transposed into the debate are ones which could have been debated at a different level. I think **Senator Young** was able to demonstrate that there has been a significant and a dramatic fall in the carryover of our wheat surplus since 1970. As **Senator McManus** said, the wheat industry is expressing the point of view that quotas should be abolished. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: asked about the interest rate. I have some information on that. The reason why there was no change in the rate of interest relative to the 1971 loan, notwithstanding the recent reduction in interest rates, lies in the fact that the interest rates applicable to borrowings by the Board were not increased last time interest rates were increased. In any case, the *Si* per cent proposed is well below that which the Board obtains on credit sales. It was because of those credit sales that it was necessary for the extra i per cent to be added. The bank charges 5 per cent for loans up to 12 months. The 5i per cent charged to the Board reflects the Board's inability to repay its borrowings by 31st March and is due in the main to sales on extended credit for which the Board charges its customers well over the Si per cent that it pays to the Commonwealth. That is a simple and understandable explanation of the question that was raised during the debate. I thank the Senate for the speedy passage of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 800 {:#debate-58} ### STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE REPORT {:#subdebate-58-0} #### I In Committee {:#subdebate-58-1} #### Item 4 (Time Limits) {: #subdebate-58-1-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP (5.19) - The Committee of the Whole has been dealing with the report of the Standing Orders Committee for a considerable time. The report, by its nature, is an internal matter. It deals with our proceedings and our management. The report was presented in August 1971. In the light of what has happened since 1971, the volume of work that has been done by the Senate and by the Committee of the Whole since 1971, one needs to pause a little to recollect the previous position. As I recall it, the Committee put aside the items dealing with areas of disputation to enable it to continue to deal with those standing orders which we might agree should be varied. As the deliberation was in a completely nonparty climate, the Committee felt that if it could agree to a variation of certain Standing Orders it could well be that those variations could be incorporated into the Standing Orders and the Senate would have the benefit of the use of the new Standing Orders pending the resolution of the other matters. I think **Senator Murphy** will recall that that is what the Committee did. I think it was having difficulty with standing order 64. {: #subdebate-58-1-s1 .speaker-KQN} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- The Committee was dealing with item 4 of the report which dealt with standing order 64. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON: -- I propose to stand aside consideration of that item. I move: >That further consideration of item 4 relating to proposed amendments to standing order 64 be postponed. That would enable the Committee to put aside consideration of that item. The Committee is in difficulty about the item. Question resolved in the affirmative. Item S (Manner of asking questions on notice Standing Orders 98 to 103). **Senator Sir KENNETH** ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (5.22) - Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee read: {: type="1" start="13"} 0. Under present practice, when Questions arc being broadcast or are to be re-broadcast, Senators read their Questions on Notice in full, unless by agreement they are incorporated in Hansard. On the other hand, when the proceedings are not being broadcast, a **Senator wishing** to read a Question on Notice must in accordance with the present practice ask leave of the Senate. As leave of the Senate is never refused, it is considered time-wasting to continue the practice of asking for leave and it is recommended that a **Senator be** allowed to read a Question on Notice if he so wishes. 1. However, Senators should continue to indicate to the Clerk at the Table those Questions on Notice which they specifically wish to have answered orally rather than be incorporated in Hansard. The strong recommendation is made that, as far as possible, Questions on Notice and replies be incorporated in Hansard and that an oral Question and reply be requested only when it is considered specially desirable. The object of the recommendation is to eliminate the need for seeking leave to ask a question on notice. The Senate has always given leave. There has never been a refusal to give leave. Previously there was a reason for seeking leave. I think the Senate has gone through that stage and into a new stage. I move: >That the recommendations contained in paragraph 13 and 14 be agreed to. {: #subdebate-58-1-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- That course seems to be desirable. It cannot be suggested thatthe rights of any honourable senator are being cut down. This will merely omit the practice of asking for leave. All honourable senators agree that the invariable result in the past has been that the Senate has granted leave. Question resolved in the affirmative. Item 6 (Procedure in Committee of the Whole on Bills which the Senate may not amend - Standing Order 253) **Senator Sir KENNETH** ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (5.26) - . The report of the Standing Orders Committee states: {: type="1" start="15"} 0. Standing Order 2S3 provides that, in the proceedings on Bills which the Senate may not amend, the Chairman shall (unless otherwise ordered) call on each clause oritem, and ask if any **Senator has** any request to move thereon. If there be no requests, the Chairman declares the clause or item passed. 1. It will be noted that each clause or item is not put definitely to the vote. If a question were put, for example - That the vote be agreed to - and that question were resolved in the negative, the Senate would have amended a Bill which it cannot under the Constitution amend. l7. While recognising the constitutional considerations implicit in the provisions of Standing Order 253, the Committee considers that the procedure could be improved, particularly having inmind the situation which arises when the closure is applied. It is recognised that any alteration to the present procedure will require an amendment of the Standing Orders. 2. After careful consideration, the Committee recommends that that part of Standing Order 253 which reads: "The proceedings in Committee shall be as follows: The Chairman shall (unless otherwise ordered) call on each clause or item, and ask if any **Senator has** any request to move thereon. If no motion for a request is moved, or moved and negatived, the Chairman shall declare the clause or item passed. If motions for requests are moved and passed, the Chairman shall declare the clause or item passed, subject to the requests being complied with'. be left out and the following inserted in its place: The proceedings in Committee shall be as follows: The Chairman shall (unless otherwise ordered) call on each clause or item, and the Question shall be put by the Chairman on each clause or item - "That the clause or item be now passed without requests.". If motions for requests arc moved and passed, the Chairman shall put a further Question - "That the clause or item be now passed, subject to the requests being complied with.". In these proceedings Standing Order 265 shall not apply.'. {: type="1" start="19"} 0. Attention is drawn to the use of the word now' in the Question - 'That the clause or item be now passed without requests'. Should the Question be negatived, the clause or item would not be negatived or the Bill amended. It would only have been determined that the clause or item be not now' passed without requests and that it is desired that the debate continue. As Standing Order 265 does not apply to these proceedings, the Chair could then again propose the Question to the Committee. It is some time since we dealt with this matter but I think we all recall that we ran into some heavy weather. I recall that once we got into a disputation with the Chair about this question of a Bill which cannot be amended. It was because of this that the Standing Orders Committee chose to look at the problem involved and to try to find some formula by which it could be solved. It is worth recalling that the members of the Committee are myself, **Senator Wright, Senator Murphy,** the Leader of the Opposition, the **President, Senator Cavanagh, Senator Wilkinson** and **Senator Withers.** It is obvious that we put a lot of time into considering this question in an effort to find a formula which would overcome the difficulties which have confronted us in the past in the Committee of the Whole. Therefore I move: >That the amendment to Standing Order 253 contained in paragraph 18 be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Item 7 (Presentation of Committee reports during the adjournment of the Senate - Standing Order 315). **Senator Sir KENNETH** ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (5.30)- The Standing Orders Committee reported on this matter as follows: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Consideration has been given to a proposal that, during a period of adjournment, a committee be authorised to send its report to the President of the Senate, who in that event should be authorised to print and circulate the report. 1. In 1969 the Senate Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir was authorised to send its report to the President of the Senate, who was empowered to give directions for its printing and circulation; and, in such event, the President was required to lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. It was not necessary to use this procedure and the Committee subsequently made ils report to the Senate. 2. The Standing Orders Committee understands that, in the existing state of the law, there may be doubt whether publication in such circumstances would be absolutely privileged. The matter is being further examined. The Standing Orders Committee did not come to a conclusion in respect of this matter. Its members ran into an area about which there were varying views. I propose to move only that we take note of paragraphs 20 and 22 of the Standing Orders Committee report and let is be known that we are looking into this matter. It may be that some honourable senator may wish to enter into debate here and that the views expressed will help members of the Committee to clarify their minds when the Committee meets again. I would be delighted to get some reaction to this matter because the Committee will be considering it again. I move: {: #subdebate-58-1-s3 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales -- I agree with the course proposed by the Minister for Health **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson).** {: #subdebate-58-1-s4 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE:
South Australia -- I wish to speak briefly to this particular aspect of the Standing Orders Committee report. Following the growth of the Senate committee system consideration of this matter is most important. Many of the matters referred to standing committees, particularly, and to a lesser extent some of those referred to select committees require, because of the public interest in them which caused the Senate to refer them to committees, that the reports of the committees be made available for public information at the earliest possible date. There are *2* periods of the year during which a committee may miss out by only a few days in presenting its report to the Senate and may have to wait several months before (he report can be presented. That is not in the best interests of the Senate, of the Senate committee system or of the general public. One must bear in mind that a committee may be able to finalise its report during a parliamentary session but then have to wait a period of time for it to be printed and thus find that it cannot be tabled for several months because the Parliament has gone into recess. If there is a doubt about whether privilege attaches to a report, it seems to me that this is a matter which could be overcome either by legislation or by clarification of certain aspects of the Standing Orders. Whichever may be the feasible course, I urge that the Standing Orders Committee give full consideration at the earliest possible time to recommending the appropriate steps so that such reports may be presented during the period that the Senate is in recess. In this way the committee system can be given the utmost opportunity to be fully effective in the interests not only of the Senate but also of the Australian public. {: #subdebate-58-1-s5 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I would like to mention a matter during the consideration of this item. I am relying on a very poor memory, because what happened took place a long time ago. The matter arose out of a question asked by **Senator Marriott** in the Senate chamber. The Committee was in agreement that there should be power to publish this document. But then the question was raised of whether some law would affect privilege, whether privilege would exist or whether the publication could be libellous, defamatory or anything else by the President making a publication that was not a presentation of the House. If this question, which is essentially a legal one, can be resolved I think the whole position of this clause is itself resolved. It is only a question on the basis of law as to what are the powers involved. {: #subdebate-58-1-s6 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE:
Tasmania -- I would be most interested if it is possible for the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** to indicate to us any of the advice which caused the Standing Orders Committee to express the doubt it has expressed in paragraph 22 of item 7. If this could not be done, I ask in the light of what **Senator Cavanagh** has said, whether the matter could be stood over rather than received. If what **Senator Cavanagh** says is correct - that is, that it was the general view of the Committee that this was desirable - then the remedy would seem to be relatively simple. I would be in favour of getting on with effecting the remedy at the earliest possible time. **Senator Sir KENNETH** ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (5.37) - I hold the same view as **Senator Cavanagh** holds to a degree. I would need to read the transcript of the evidence again to bring out all the points that were raised. Some suggestion of doubt as to the procedure was raised, I recall also the question being raised that when a committee is appointed it has an obligation to report to the Senate. Those 2 points came into the matter. It was a question of whether business of the Senate was being conducted out of session and whether the report could therefore be sent to the President to be published, before it had been presented to the Senate, with it containing all the imprimatur of being a Senate document per se. There were 2 ingredients in that element. Firstly, there was the element of whether the document must first come to the Senate because the Senate is the master of the committee. Secondly, there was the element of publishing the report before it was placed before the Senate and it not having the protection of a document of the Senate once it was put down. Those are the types of elements associated with the question. That is why the Committee made the suggestion it did. J would not like it to be thought - I know he did not mean this - that what **Senator Wright** said could contain the connotation that the Committee was just going to put the matter aside, lt was going to come back to it. lt intended to take note of it. The idea it had was to obtain, the reaction of honourable senators in the Committee of the Whole and perhaps obtain some additional angles in relation to it for when we next deal with it. That is why I have suggested we take note of paragraphs 20 and 22 of item 7. Question resolved in the affirmative. Item 8 (Rights of witnesses - Standing Order 390). **Senator Sir KENNETH** ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (5.40) - in regard to standing order 390, the Standing Orders Committee considered the suggestion that it was advantageous to have formulated a code of rules relating to the fundamental rights of witnesses. This has become, very critical. This is what the Committee laid down. In the light of what has transpired subsequently in relation to the rights of witnesses, we were almost pathetic in our looking at the situation. In regard to the rights of witnesses, dealt with in item 8, the Committee states: {: type="1" start="23"} 0. The Committee considered a suggestion that it would be advantageous to have formulated a code of rules relating to the fundamental rights of witnesses appearing before standing and select committees of the Senate, including provision in such code for protective procedures where individual interests might be under inquiry. The types of matter suggested for codifying included the questions of notice of allegation, interval of time before questioning, representation by counsel, the right to question adverse witnesses, and the grounds of privilege excusing witnesses from being required to answer questions. 1. In considering this matter, it was noted that the Senate has already referred a cognate matter to the Privileges Committee, with a view to establishing the rights, responsibilities, obligations and protection of senators, members of the Press and others in relation to Committee proceedings. 2. To assist in the formulation of rules, the Standing Orders Committee recommends to the Senate that the scope of the reference to the Privileges Committee be enlarged to include a consideration of the general question of provision for protective procedures where individual interests are under inquiry. I move: As we have developed our committee system and the references to be dealt with, we have gone into fields which have required the calling of witnesses from commerce and industry. The question of the rights of people and the procedures that should be adopted is a matter which has grown with the growth of the. concept of the committee system in the Senate. As I say, the Committee has very properly brought its mind to the matter and feels that it has to be dealt with and resolved. I might add that it has been a matter of some Press comment. I have read, as 1 am sure other honourable senators have read, even leading articles in relation to this question. It has to be dealt with. Here again, a situation exists in which we will be seeking some reaction from the Committee of the Whole because my motion at this point of time is merely that the recommendations in paragraph 25 be agreed to. The Committee states: {: type="1" start="25"} 0. To assist in the formulation of rules, the Standing Orders Committee recommends to tha Senate that the scope of the reference to the Privileges Committee be enlarged to include a consideration of the general question of provision for protective procedures where individual interests are under inquiry. All it does really is to pass the matter to a more legalised committee, the Privileges Committee, for it to express an opinion on it. I would be delighted if we could get some reaction from the Committee of the Whole on this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 5.44 to 8 p.m. **Senator Sir KENNETH** ANDERSON (New South Wales - 'Minister for Health) - by leave - I wonder whether I could intercede to suggest that we report progress so that we can clarify the situation in regard to the motion moved by **Senator Cavanagh** this afternoon. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 804 {:#debate-59} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-59-0} #### BUSINESS OF THE SENATE **Senator MURPHY** (New South Wales- Leader of the Opposition) - by leave - Earlier in the day I asked that the matter raised by **Senator Cavanagh** in effect be held over for a little while so that I might be able to put some proposal to the Senate to have the matters sent in a slightly different form to the committee or to the 2 committees concerned. It has not been possible to reach agreement on this in the time available to us. Therefore I suggest that the course which **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson originally suggested be proceeded with. I reserve my right to come forward in the next day or so with the proposal which might involve some rechannelling and changing of the proposals on this important matter of the effect on the general community of Post Office changes and what otherwise ought to be done. This was the purpose for which I sought the postponement. Not having been able to achieve this, we on this side accede to what **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson proposed, that is, that the motion be put as a formal motion without debate. {: #subdebate-59-0-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP -- by leave - I would like to comment on and not oppose what was suggested. I simply would like to say in fairness to **Senator Cavanagh** and **Senator Murphy** that I have not rejected necessarily what they are proposing as an alternative. I felt that we do not have the appropriate time to give to this matter. Therefore I suggest that the question be put on **Senator Cavanagh's** notice of motion, which is to refer petitions to the Standing Committee on Social Environment. I would not oppose this course of action. {: #subdebate-59-0-s1 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- by leave - I think it is understood now that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber do not wish to continue the postponement. Perhaps the original question could be put. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. {: .page-start } page 804 {:#debate-60} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT Consideration resumed (vide page 791) on motion by **Senator Cavanagh:** >That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the following matter - The Petitions presented to the Senate on 21st March 1972 relating to the Postmaster-General's Department. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 804 {:#debate-61} ### BUSINESS OF THE SENATE {: #debate-61-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP (8.5) - I have 2 messages from the House of Representatives and I suggest that they should now be considered. No doubt the debate on them will be adjourned and then we may resume the consideration of the report of the Standing Orders Committee.. {: .page-start } page 804 {:#debate-62} ### STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) BILL 1972 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-62-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-62-0-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP 8.6) - I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. On 9th December 1971, the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** announced additional measures of special assistance to government and independent schools. As far as independent schools were concerned, the Commonwealth had decided to increase the rates of per capita grants from the commencement of the 1972 school year, from $35 to $50 per annum for each pupil receiving primary education, and from $50 to $68 per annum for each pupil receiving secondary education. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the principal Act - States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969 - to implement the Government's undertaking to independent schools. The proposed amendment restricts the application of the rates specified in the principal Act to the 1970 and 1971 school years, and makes provision for the payment of the new rates from January 1972. The independent schools, as the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement to the House of Representatives on 9th December, have been facing increasing difficulties in their efforts to remain viable. Not only have teachers' salaries increased generally thoughout Australia in recent years, but there have been a number of awards requiring independent schools to increase their teachers' salaries to full parity with the operative rates in government schools over a short period. This latter development has had the effect of placing upon independent schools a proportionately greater burden of cost increases than that placed upon government schools. There is a limit to the extent to which independent schools can charge higher fees, and for boarding schools in particular there are further problems resulting from the current situation of rural industries. Our policy objective for the independent schools is that, relying on their own efforts and with assistance from governments, they should be able to continue to provide an adequate standard of education for that proportion of the school population which has in the past attended independent schools. The Government sees the maintenance of a viable alternative system of schools, with assurances of continuing financial support, as essential to the health and vigour of Australian education generally. Where capital funds are made available to independent schools, the Commonwealth has established objective standards against which the entitlement of an individual school can be judged. This is clearly necessary where capital funds are involved. When the question of recurrent expenditure in independent schools is considered, a different set of circumstances applies. The method which the Government has chosen for the provision of recurrent aid to independent schools has been, and remains, the per capita grant, without any kind of means test. This method of assistance is the preferred policy of the National Council for Independent Schools, the Federal Catholic Schools Committee, and the Australian Parents Council; it is also the policy of most of our State governments. Those who argue for a means test to be applied to assistance with recurrent expenditure in independent schools have not been able to establish principles or critieria which can clearly be applied with equity and justice to the range of independent schools and to their students and parents. Various possible methods have been suggested, such as basing payments on pupil/teacher ratios, on the level of fees charged, or on academic standards at particular schools; but these methods would be difficult to put into practice objectively, and without running the risk of encouraging schools to maintain standards at , a lower level than would otherwise be the case to attract grants. The present measure is intended to assist the independent schools with their immediate problems arising from increasing running costs. The Government recognises the need for further attention to be given to measures which the Commonwealth and the States might take to assist the indepen-dent schools on a longer term basis. They need assurances of continuity of support if they are to maintain their existing services and to expand these as the school-going population grows. The Government will continue to keep these questions under close review, as part of its policy of improving education in all schools. It will also maintain close liaison with the States on progress in the construction of government schools with the $20m in capital grants to be made available in the period up to 30th June 1973 and on future needs in this area. At these increased rates, the total Commonwealth payments of per capita grants to independent schools in each State, for the 1972 school year, will be: Separate legislation has been introduced by my colleague the Treasurer **(Mr Snedden)** to deal with the additional capital grants for government schools announced by the Prime Minister in December last. I comment this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Wheeldon)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 806 {:#debate-63} ### STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1972 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-63-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-63-0-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP -- (8.11) - I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payments of grants totalling $6.66m to the States in 1971-72 for the purpose of financing capital expenditure on government primary and secondary schools. The Bill also authorises the borrowing of funds to finance these grants and the payment of grants for the same purpose in the first 6 months of 1972-73. On 9th December 1971 the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** announced in the House of Representatives that increases would be made in the rate of Commonwealth assistance to independent schools, and that grants totalling $20m would be paid to the States in the period up to 30th June 1973 for the purpose of financing capital expenditure on government primary and secondary schools. A Bill to authorise the increased payments to independent schools has been introduced into the Senate by me. The Prime Minister explained in his statement that the Government had decided to make the grants to the States for capital expenditure on government schools in recognition of the needs expressed by the States for additional expenditure in this area. As he also explained, it is proposed that the grants be paid as additions to the interest-free capital grants which the Commonwealth is now making to the States annually as part of their works and housing programmes. The capital grants forming part of the 1971-72 works and housing programmes approved at the June 1971 meeting of the Loan Council were authorised in the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1971 passed in the last sittings. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend that Act so as to authorise that part of the additional grants of $20m for expenditure on government schools which is to be paid this year, namely $6.66m, or one-third of the total amount of $20m. I turn now to discuss some of the specific provisions of the Bill. In clause 3 which, in conjunction with the third column in the table which forms the schedule to the Bill, authorises the payments of grants totalling S6.66m to the States in 1971- 72, the grant to each State is stated to be for the purpose of financial assistance in connection with expenditure of a capital nature on primary schools and secondary schools conducted by that State'. The intention of this statement is to identify these particular grants as being separate from the general purpose capital assistance grants made available to the States under the principal Act. While the Commonwealth has not thought to attach any legally binding conditions to the present grants, the Prime Minister has made it clear in his statement to the House and in letters to the Premiers, that the Commonwealth expects that the States will continue with at least their planned levels of capital expenditure in primary and secondary schools, and that these grants will therefore result in additions to the levels of expenditure in this area. The Prime Minister also stated that the Commonwealth would prefer the grants to be used for purposes other than science laboratories and libraries in secondary schools since the Commonwealth is providing special direct assistance for those purposes. The States have accepted the grants on these terms and are developing their capital works programmes for schools accordingly. Clause 4 of the Bill increases, by the amount of $6.66m, the amount which the Treasurer may borrow for the purpose of financing the capital grants. It is the Government's intention to apply the proceeds of any loan moneys that may be available for the purpose of this expenditure. To the extent that these grants cannot be financed from borrowings, section 6 of the existing Act provides for payment to be made from Consolidated Revenue Fund. Section 7 of the principal Act, in conjunction with the Schedule, authorises the Treasurer to make advances in the first 6 months of 1972-73 up to a maximum of half the grants payable to each State in the current financial year. The purpose of that provision is to enable advances to be made to the States in 1972-73 pending the passage of comparable legislation in that year. The Commonwealth's undertaking to pay portion of the States' works and housing programmes to them as grants has continuing effect, and this section ensures that advances can be made to the States on a regular basis from the beginning of 1972-73. Clause 5 of the present Bill gives the Treasurer similar authority in respect of the additional grants for expenditure on government schools. Under this clause, the Treasurer may authorise grants for this purpose in the first 6 months of 1972;73 up to maximum for each State equal to the grants payable in 1971-72, that is, a total amount for all states of $6. 66m. This is because the grants payable this year are approximately half those which will be payable next year, that is, $1 3.34m. The payment of the full amount of $13. 34m for next year will be authorised under a Bill to be introduced in the Budget sittings to authorise the capital grants for 1972-73 following the approval of borrowing programmes for that year at the June 1972 meeting of the Loan Council. I should explain at this juncture that the States will continue to benefit from these grants in years subsequent to 1972-73 because they will be amalgamated into the basic capital grants for the purpose of determining the proportion of the, works and housing programme that is paid to the States as grants rather than loans, thus reducing the States' debt charges correspondingly. At the Premiers' Conference and Loan Council meeting on 14th February the works and housing programme for 1971-72 was increased by $32m, including an increase in the capital grants of $9. 3m. These additional grants will be authorised in a further Bill to be introduced shortly. The States are free to disburse these additional programmes as they decide themselves, although some of them have already announced that they will allocate part of the increase to expenditure on government schools. The Government believes that the grants authorised by this Bill represent a significant contribution by the Commonwealth in the field of education. They have been welcomed as such by the States. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Wheeldon)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 807 {:#debate-64} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-64-0} #### STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE REPORT In Committee Consideration resumed (vide page S04). Item 8 (Rights of witnesses - Standing Order 390). {: #subdebate-64-0-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- I agree with the observations of the Standing Orders Committee on this matter. Paragraph 25 of the report states: . . the Standing Orders Committee recommends to the Senate that the scope of the reference to the Privileges Committee be enlarged to include a consideration of the general question of provision for protective procedures where individual interests are under inquiry. The question of the right of witnesses arises in a practical way because of the great expansion of committee work of the Senate. Until recent times the Senate was not operating largely by way of committees. There was an occasional committee. Probably, on average, a new committee was established once every 5 or 7 years. The committees which operated in that way performed very well and submitted extremely important reports. I have looked at a number of those reports and I have studied the way in which the recommendations contained in them were carried out. Contrary to what is often said, many recommendations of such committees were carried out. One committee in particular was the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety. Most of its recommendations were implemented. We have experienced a tremendous increase - indeed, an explosion - in the operation of select committees and standing committees of the Senate, and we on this side of the chamber are responsible for many of these committees. But along with the responsibility comes a duty to deal with the inevitable consequences of having these committees. After the system of standing committees was set up, I proposed in the Senate, I think on 29th September 1970, that there be an amendment to the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders in relation to privileges then provided, and still do, that there should be set up a Committee of Privileges, to consist of 7. senators, to be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to inquire into and report upon complaints of breach of privilege which may be referred to it by the Senate. Honourable senators will appreciate that the Committee of Privileges dealt only with complaints of breaches of privilege. It was intended that the Committee of Privileges deal only with a situation in which somebody said that there had been a breach or that somebody had done the wrong thing. It seems to me that this is not quite enough. It is necessary that there be laid down - and the Privileges Committee seems to be an appropriate body - a set of standards, of rules and guidelines, so that everyone involved in the operations of committees and in the proceedings of the Senate will know where they stand. People - senators and others - would be guided by those rules, and the staff, witnesses and others involved would know what were their rights, obligations, immunities and protections. I moved, therefore, that standing order 33a. be amended to include: and also to inquire into and report upon matters concerning rights, responsibilities, obligations and protection of senators, and, rr; relation to proceedings of the Senate, of members of the public, which may be referred to it by the Senate. In this way the Privileges Committee would be a body which at least could look into matters without any occasion of complaint of breach and it would be able to say that this is the way in which some matter should be conducted, these are the rights, these are the responsibilities and these are the protections. The Government then wanted to consider that matter, so nothing more was done about it until 29th April 1971 when, on the motion of the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** it was referred to the Standing Orders Committee. Along with that was the reference also of a matter which I had suggested, namely, an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges into what were, the rights, responsibilities and so on in connection with the publication of papers or documents by such committees. Then on 1 9th May 1971 the Senate, on the motion of the Leader of the Government, referred back to the Committee of Privileges a particular matter which had arisen in this place and which amounted to some complaint or inquiry in connection with privilege, together with the same, matter to which I had earlier referred. The purpose of that reference was to have ascertained the rights, responsibilities, obligations and protection of senators, members of the Press and others in relation to committee proceedings. It is obvious that something ought to be done about these matters. We on this side of the chamber anticipated the difficulties that might arise and we thought that a committee should be empowered to consider the questions from time to time, irrespective of any breach of privilege. These are important questions because they affect the conduct of affairs of the Senate and the conduct not only of senators but also of all other persons who might be involved. The same problem arises with other legislative chambers. We proposed that certain simple principles be laid down so that when committees were considering matters they would have a charter which had been set by the Senate, and they could keep to the terms of that charter. It was proposed that insofar as witnesses were brought either willingly or unwillingly, before committees to assist the committees, they be treated fairly as citizens and that proper procedures be, used to bring them before the committees. In practice persons are brought before the committees by request, but there is available also the summons procedure to bring them before a committee. But when they are before these committees they should be treated fairly. The committees should see to it that the questions directed to the citizens who are before them are put in a manner which is compatible with the standards of fairness which exist in the community. Some of these standards appear in legislation which is common throughout English speaking communities. We suggest that questions should not be put in a way which introduce irrelevant considerations or which are needlessly offensive either in their substance or in their form. Perhaps the Standing Orders of the Senate also could be amended to ensure that those principles are adopted. In my opinion the Standing Orders should be amended at some stage to ensure that, except so far as the public interest requires it, the privacy of persons coming before a committee shall not be invaded by the committee. It is clear that in some cases a person's privacy would need to be invaded. If a committee is charged with investigating matters which have come into the public domain it could well be necessary for questions to be asked or material to be brought forward which otherwise would be regarded as an invasion of privacy. Fairly strict limits should be placed upon the use of that power and, so far as possible, committees should act in such a way that there is no unnecessary invasion of privacy. There should be a standing order to ensure that that is the situation. There may be practical ways of dealing with this aspect. We already have the custom that persons may ask to have their evidence heard in private by a committee. I think that in some cases that is obviously necessary. It may be that because of the nature of the reasons for the person seeking privacy the application may need to be heard in private. No doubt these are ways which will be looked at. When we are framing the Standing Orders I think the guiding rule should be that publicity ought well to be given to affairs which are public affairs, otherwise the privacy of the individual ought to be maintained. Private affairs ought to remain private, and public matters probably ought to be given much more publicity than they receive now. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- How would the honourable senator define the distinction between public and private in those circumstances? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- One of the criteria for that distinction is to be found in the very decision by the Senate to set up a committee. If a committee is charged to inquire into and report upon some matter then it starts to enter into the public domain. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- That is the point I was finding hard to follow. If that applies, does it not mean that so long as it is relevant it is public, on your definition? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- No, it does not because there may be matters which are ordinarily considered as private while, on some technical stretching, they may be considered to be within the scope of the committee's inquiries. I think that if the committee's inquiries can be conducted fairly without stretching into all the details of private affairs, then one should not go into them. If it is necessary to do that in order to carry out the reference by the Senate, then let that be done. One would think that a committee would act on the basis that it would be cautious before entering into the private domain. I shall give an example. Take the reference which was made by this Senate regarding a project which, as I understand it, probably will not be carried out. That is why I shall refer fairly freely to it. It is the reference in relation to the Clutha project. It is my understanding that the project is being abandoned and that, therefore, the committee will not proceed with the matter. I should imagine that in that case the committee would probably have had to make a fairly exhaustive investigation into that project to find out exactly what was happening, and go into all sorts of details which it would not do if it were concerned with some more general topic of investigation. If there were an inquiry by a standing committee or a special committee into some allegation which might involve, say, some malpractice such as a suggestion of corruption - I am not speaking of a charge against an individual at the moment but of an inquiry into some area - it would be clear that the committee would investigate fairly closely into that area. Where it was a more general topic one would think that there would be less inclination and probably less warrant for entering into affairs which were private. One cannot lay down any definite standards which will apply to every circumstance. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- I am sorry, 1 rather thought that is what the honourable senator was doing. That is why I- {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- No, I am not suggesting that. I am saying that there must be a balance. The nature of the reference and the problem with which the committee is faced at the time will determine how far one will go into the domain which would ordinarily be considered private. I think that a committee should do that only where it is clear to the committee that it is in the public interest and necessary or at least desirable that it do so in order to carry out the committee's function. {: #subdebate-64-0-s1 .speaker-JTT} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- I rise only for the purpose of allowing **Senator Murphy** to continue his remarks. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- I am happy to intrude to make the comment that we are dealing with item 8, the rights of witnesses, standing order 390. For my own part I observe that I was once a member of the Standing Orders Committee but it was prior to the time when it did this extremely useful work. Members of the Committee are **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson, **Senator Cavanagh,** the **President, Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack, **Senator Murphy** himself, **Senator Wilkinson, Senator Withers** and **Senator Wright.** That is a very balanced group of honourable senators who have had some long term interest in the problems of the Senate and its Standing Orders. 1 listened with some attention to **Senator Murphy** because I have felt for some time - apart altogether from this discussion - that one of the great obligations on the Senate in its new manifestation of increasing committee work is not only to elicit facts which should be brought to light but also to have proper regard to the protection of those who come before, committees. Many people appear with a genuine desire to help. From time to time one has been concerned that some of these people have been unfairly represented, not by the Senate but by those people who reported upon the proceedings. This discussion is extremely valuable and I would be happy for **Senator Murphy** to continue. {: #subdebate-64-0-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales -- I am indebted to the Committee and to Senators O'Byrne and Cotton. It seems to me that in the inquiries conducted by the Senate one may discern 2 different kinds. One of those is the inquiry directed to the individual. The clearest case of that is where there is a complaint against a person, for example, that he has committed some contempt of the Senate. That is in the nature of a charge. It is fairly clear that some person or persons is under charge or complaint. It may not be precisely framed but the committee would be asked to look into this matter and it would do so. If the committee found that there was some basis of complaint, it formulates some precise charge against the person, and brings that person before it and proceeds to deal with the complaint. In that case it seems to me that the. proceedings of the committee should be assimilated as far as possible to the traditional procedures of a court of justice. If a person is under charge he should be given the protections which he would be given in a court. They would not necessarily be the precise kind which occur in any particular court because courts vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from country to country. But he is entitled to the traditional protections - he is entitled to be heard and he is entitled to representation - of counsel if he wants it. If he is unable to afford counsel, counsel should be provided for him. Perhaps counsel ought to be provided for him in any case. He should be heard. He should be able to take privilege against incrimination. I think that he ought to be afforded all the traditional protections which have been evolved in this community to surround a person who is on trial. Those protections should apply whether the matter arises in any court of the land or in this Senate acting in its incidental judicial proceeding. We know that notwithstanding the separation of powers in this community we have incidental administration and judicial powers. The second category of inquiry by a committee is one which is not directed towards any particular individual, or the determination of, let me call it, guilt or the establishment of facts in relation to a particular individual as a result of something in the nature of a complaint, but rather is the sort of inquiry with which we are familiar, namely, an inquiry into some matter that might be the subject of legislation or in general the subject of supervision of the administration. These may be wide ranging inquiries. It is true that in the course of such inquiries allegations of wrongdoing, criminality and so forth may be made, but they are really incidental. Let me depart from my theme to give an example. In New South Wales there was a royal commission - not a parliamentary inquiry - into the liquor industry. Day after day evidence was given of apparent breaches of the law. The royal commission went into those - and rightly so - because the real inquiry was into what was happening. The particular breaches did not matter so much. The purpose of the inquiry was not to show that persons were committing crimes in order that they might be prosecuted. But, whether aimed or not, it was successful in showing that there were widespread breaches of the law such as to give rise to the suggestion that the law required amendment. It may be that in many of the inquiries the Senate conducts there will be incidental, and perhaps fairly persistent, revelations of various kinds of wrongdoing. They arc not the object of the inquiry. The Senate is not setting out to obtain evidence that may be used against persons. That may be incidental. It may be more important to show that the state of the law is not good enough and that there should be changes. In that area a different approach should be taken. It may be necessary for the facts to be elicited from witnesses. That ought to be done in circumstances of courtesy to them and by inquiring into their private affairs as little as is possible and as is consistent with the carrying out of the charter that has been given by the Senate; but, if it is necessary in the public interest and in the carrying out of that charter, not hesitating to elicit the facts. Perhaps it ought to be done in circumstances in which the witnesses are not exposed to further proceedings. One would think that their answers certainly should not be admissible elsewhere. That, as I understand it, is the position. Thought might well be given to immunities for such persons in order that they may give their evidence without hesitation. It is not only the witnesses who come before the Senate committees who are involved. I believe that proper steps ought to be taken to see that no reflections are made upon persons, whether they are witnesses or not, except insofar as it is necessary in the public interest and is involved in the carrying out of the committee's functions. I think we can devise procedures that will ensure that any person who is reflected upon is given an opportunity to answer. I am satisfied that, as far as possible in the absence of more specific standing orders, the committees have endeavoured to do that. They have endeavoured to act fairly, responsibly and properly. It would be the will of the Senate that they should do so. I am sure that the Senate, would have reacted very strongly if it had thought that the committees were acting improperly in any way. We expect a high standard from the committees of the Senate. But that high standard ought not to depend upon the persons on the committees. It is not sufficient that the standards should have to be evolved by the members, or in particular the chairmen, of committees. lt is time, and over time, that we laid down standards, and those standards ought to be in our own orders. I do not believe that there should be legislation dealing with these matters, unless that is unavoidable. If there is legislation it means that the construction of that legislation will be for persons outside of these chambers. It would be much better for us to put in our Standing Orders the guidelines, protections, immunities and responsibilities of senators and all other persons in relation to the proceedings of the Senate and its committees, and to adapt those to our own experience. I am sure that senators on all sides of the chamber want to see that the committees are conducted fairly and that they discharge their high responsibilities with a due regard to the rights of not only the persons who give evidence before them but also the persons who are affected by them. Therefore I suggest, along with **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson, that this item of the Standing Orders Committee report be adopted. As was suggested on an earlier occasion, perhaps there could be some widening of the reference that has been given to the Privileges Committee. {: #subdebate-64-0-s3 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -- This extremely valuable report comes before the Committee for further examination, certain sections of it having been discussed and adopted already. Item 8, with which we are now dealing, is extremely important and will have increasing importance as the committee system develops and as the committees themselves proliferate. Therefore it is extremely important that, if it is necessary to lay down guidelines, a formula or a code, it should be done as soon as possible and with the greatest precision - if with precision is considered the desirable way in which these rights should be determined. When there is an over-presentation in detail of a code of rights there is always the possibility of interpretation destroying the rights which are not stated explicitly. Perhaps part of the strength of the British constitutional system has lain in the vagueness of the constitution and the indefinite and unspecified rights which, in a crisis, in some way can be discovered and implemented. Therefore, whilst I agree with **Senator Murphy** that some guidelines are necessary, I would not be anxious to have them denned too clearly or delineated too specifically because if they were there might be a process of exclusion by an over-strenuous or over-severe interpretation. It is regrettable that we are again considering this report, which came from the Standing Orders Committee in August 1971, while there remains on the notice paper the following motion in my name: >With a view to the Standing Orders Committee being as representative as possible of the composition of the Senate at any time, the Senate resolves that: > >Standing Order 33 be amended by leaving out the words 'seven Senators' and inserting *in* lieu thereof Mie words 'such other Senators as may be appointed by the Senate'; and > > **Senator Gair** be appointed a member of the Standing Orders Committee. If the Senate is to embark upon a delineation of its rights and privileges in relation to the conduct of its business, it is most appropriate, even highly important, that the Standing Orders Committee be as rep resentative as possible, and it is quite unreal that the Standing Orders Committee should not have as one of its members a representative of a significant party in the Senate. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- That has been recommended in item 1 and adopted. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- No. That does not specify that **Senator Gair** should be appointed to the Committee. It merely says that there should be an additional senator on the Committee. After all, the Standing Orders designate that the Opposition and the Government shall be represented on the Standing Orders Committee. We are asking specifically that **Senator Gair,** representing the Democratic Labor Party, be appointed to the Committee. It is not merely a question of increasing the number of members by one; it is a question of increasing the number by a specified one with reference to a particular party. I understand there has been an objection to that proposal. To me it is quite unreal and quite beyond understanding that the Standing Orders Committee would be affected by the intervention of anybody or by the disposition of any honourable senator. The Committee should be as embracing and as representative as possible. The DLP has 5 senators out of a total complement of 60. It represents a substantial portion of the national electorate. It speaks for a substantial portion of the Australian people. It plays its part in discussions on the deliberations of the Committee. Therefore I think that it should be represented honestly, fairly and adequately on the Committee. I commend the motion standing in my name and I hope that it is resolved by the Senate as soon as possible. I leave it at that, but I do rely on the good judgment and the proper disposition of honourable senators to see that the position is rectified as soon as possible. If the Standing Orders Committee is to embark upon a delineation of its powers and a reconsideration of the Standing Orders, we should ensure that the body which carries out that function will be as representative as possible. I was very interested in **Senator Murphy's** observation, with which I agree, that the Privileges Committee in its deliberations should assimilate itself with the procedures of a judicial tribunal. That is a proposition with which I agree. We are dealing with very precious things, with the rights and liberties of people. A body which is not a judicial body by creation but which is operating judicially should, when it is so acting, as far as possible assimilate its procedures to those of a judicial tribunal. That is the proposition I, advanced in the Senate last year when I attempted to have revoked the punishment imposed on 2 journalists who had not been given an opportunity, in terms of judicial procedures, to show cause why they should not be punished. On that occasion the rest of the Senate, including honourable senators on my right and **Senator Murphy,** voted against my proposition. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- I do not recall voting on that. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- **Senator Murphy** may not have been here. The argument advanced against my proposition on that occasion was that I was over-precious in trying to discover a resemblance between the procedures of the Senate sitting judicially and a judicial tribunal properly constituted and called by that term. Yet tonight it is suggested that the Privileges Committee should operate along judicial lines as far as possible' That was all I asked for on the previous occasion. I do not know why my proposition was not accepted on that occasion. On the facts presented on that occasion, I do think there was a denial of natural justice. My proposition was denied by those who now put forward exactly the same proposition. On that occasion **Senator Greenwood,** in a very explicit and detailed examination in response to my presentation, pointed out that sometimes the House of Commons operated, as I suggested on that occasion the Senate should, along different lines. I think that if he were to address himself to the proposition tonight, as J am now, possibly he would re-present that proposition. I cannot understand why the Opposition should take this stand now when in a particular case the very sensitive matter of natural justice, in my connotation, was being attacked and assailed. On that occasion I was not supported. If the view now is that the Senate should have proceeded judicially, and that the Committee of the Senate should have proceeded judicially, I do hope that in future guide lines will be laid down so that people in a similar position will get the protection that was denied these individuals on that occasion. I think that these gentlemen are now entitled to be very concerned that apparently they were judged on that occasion on principles different from those now being enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Murphy).** Yet the vote was against my motion and them on that occasion. I wish to make one reference, because it is very relevant, to the protection of witnesses and the privilege generally afforded to those who appear before committees. I refer to standing order 308 in its original form. It stated: >The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate and documents presented to such Committee, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person. That standing order was amended on 7th April 1970. The amended standing order reads: >The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate and documents presented to such Committee, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not, unless authorised by the Senate or the Committee, be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person. I can see the basis for the new form of that standing order. What I am unable to see is this: If, for example, a committee should decide that certain evidence should not be published and if an individual member of that committee, thinking that the matter should be published, refers it to the Senate, by way of appeal as it were, the Senate is asked to sit in judgment on the decision of the committee. On what will the Senate base its judgment? It has not the transcript of the proceedings before the committee, the evidence or anything else. It is asked to make an appellate judgment on a matter in relation to which it is denied the material on which a judgment can be based. Is there any way in which that standing order can be operated? How would the Senate operate in those conditions? If a member of a committee says: 'I think certain evidence given before the committee should be published', the Senate would have to ask: 'What evidence?' The member of the committee would say: T am not allowed to tell, but I am asking the Senate to form an opinion and to say that it should be published'. How could the Senate possibly make a judgment on the matter? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- That is why the standing order was altered. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- It may have been altered but I am sure the honourable senator will see how fatuous it is to attempt to give the Senate the opportunity of making a judgment when it does not have before it the materia] on which to make a judgment. How could the honourable senator, whom I know directs his mind calmly to many matters which involve the process of judicial definition, make a judgment in those circumstances? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- 1 think the facts would be before the Senate. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- How could the facts be before the Senate? It is an offence to publish the material unless directed by the Committee or by the Senate. The committee has said that the material is not to be published. That is the first prohibition. The Senate can override the decision of the committee, but the Senate has no material on which it can consider the matter. Can anybody tell me exactly how that standing order will be operated? When the standing order was to be amended I did intend to move an amendment, but unfortunately I was not in the chamber when the standing order was dealt with. It went through at great speed, almost like lightning, due to other business falling away. I was not able to put my proposition. 1 seek the opportunity to do it now. I would be interested to hear the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** or the Attorney-General **(Senator Greenwood).** They might assist me because my approach to this might be inaccurate. I am unable to see how the Senate, vested with this power, could possibly exercise it. The Senate is asked to overrule a decision of a committee when the evidence on which it could make a decision is denied to it. How is that to be done? Obviously this is another matter which should come before the Standing Orders Committee for review. A further rewrite of standing order 308 is desirable and is called for quite explicitly and quite definitely. I repeat that the DLP is not represented on the Standing Orders Committee. I hope that the Government will give me the opportunity to move the motion standing in my name so that if there is to be a review of the Standing Orders in any way the Senate, in its most representative capacity and representing all parties, should through that Committee be able to give the matter the scrutiny which it deserves and which is called for. {: #subdebate-64-0-s4 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I have a few words to say in reply to what **Senator Byrne** has just said. If my recollection is correct, this recommendation to the Senate was carried unanimously by the Standing Orders Committee. There was no problem and no confusion until the legal fraternity got hold of it this evening. Now we do not know where we are. We are referring the question to the Privileges Committee because, on the argument presented by the Minister for Health **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** in introducing the motion for the adoption of this recommendation, the Standing Orders Committee considered that there was more legal talent among the membership of the Privileges Committee than there was among members of the Standing Orders Committee. We may be doing the wrong thing in sending questions to the legal fraternity if the legal men cannot provide more clarity than they have offered us tonight. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- A decision of the Privileges Committee would have to be unanimous because none of its members is from the Democratic Labor Party. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- A decision would have to be unanimous, as **Senator Little** has said, because the Democratic Labor Party is not represented. That Party is in permanent opposition to anything that the Labor Party puts forward. However, in the absence of a member of the Democratic Labor Party, the decision was unanimous. A serious question about the infringement of the civil rights of any individual who appeared before a committee has never arisen. 1 am mindful of a legal Bill - the Evidence Bill - that came before this chamber. I pointed out in the Committee stage of the debate on that Bill that the legislation was to apply to certain judicial bodies but not to parliamentary committees. There was justification for this. On that occasion there was discussion among the lawyers. Now we have the spectacle of that Bill having been withdrawn and notification given us of the introduction tomorrow of an amended Bill. Obviously all the legal experts who dealt with that Bill do not seem to have come up with a solution to the problem. Let us consider whether there is justification for referring this matter in order to have a thorough examination when a mischief has been done and has been rectified. Despite the fact that we have not had rules governing the calling and conduct of witnesses before a committee, with the possible exception of some rumours about Browne and Fitzpatrick there has never been an accusation that witnesses did not get a fair go. Parliamentary committees exist for 2 reasons. Firstly, there are those committees which search out expert evidence relating to a particular problem in order to determine the truth of a certain question, and secondly, there are committees dealing with matters such as privilege which may accuse someone in their findings, when findings are made. It would be impossible to attain the complete objectives of a committee if it were bound by a set of legal rules such as those used in the courts. In the industrial code and the industrial Acts which apply to many courts, we find words to the effect that the courts shall not be bound by legal formality but shall act equitably and in good conscience in the conduct of their affairs. I have been a member of many parliamentary committees but I shall refer particularly to the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. It would have been impossible for that Committee to have brought down a good report on the incidence of drug abuse unless it had received evidence from law breakers - people who were using drugs - including information about their sources of supply of drugs. Witnesses had confidence in that Committee and that evidence was presented and taken in camera. If the laws of evidence had applied to that Committee and witnesses had been compelled to give evidence, they would have been afraid to present themselves to the Committee. Instead, they would have sought avenues within the terms that we have laid down to evade answering questions that the Committee desired answered. In every State visited by that Committee people came forward voluntarily and told us of their drug habits and where they obtained thensupplies. Those people assisted the Committee in every way they could because they were just as desirous as was the Committee to clean up the abuse. They were the victims. The question is not whether we should refer the subject of evidence to the Privileges Committee; the question is whether we should refer to it the question of the rights of witnesses called before a committee. It would appear from the report of the Standing Orders Committee that it considered that it was responsible for drawing up the Standing Orders, yet it is proposed to send this question to another committee on which there are more legal representatives in the belief that they can do a better job in solving the problem. Whether their report will be adopted will be a question for this Senate to determine when it is presented. Again I would warn honourable senators against compiling too rigid a set of rules which would allow evasion, especially when no question of conviction as a result of the Committee's findings is involved. Even when committees deal with matters which may involve someone being accused, I think there should be special provisions to permit secrecy or the giving of evidence in camera. That would assist the work of such committees and would provide more protection for witnesses than would any rule stating that a witness may or may not answer a question. I believe that if a serious charge is involved a witness should be able to have his counsel present. The only other thing I want to say is that if **Senator Byrne** has a matter on the notice paper that has not been dealt with, it should be dealt with. Ever since I have been a member of this chamber I have been fighting to get the notice paper cleaned up. All matters placed on it should be dealt with even if it means using the time allotted for General Business. The Standing Orders Committee was not unmindful of the claim of the Democratic Labor Party for representation. This Committee of the Whole has adopted item 1 of the Standing Orders Committee's report and when that recommendation comes into effect the number of senators on the Standing Orders Committee will be increased from 7 to 8. At present standing order 33 does not set out how the Standing Orders Committee shall be composed. It merely states how many senators shall be on it. It does not state how many senators shall come from the Government side and how many shall come from the Opposition. It states merely that 7 senators shall be appointed. The Standing Orders Committee considered that the Democratic Labor Party was justified in its claim for representation. But the Committee did not consider that it had authority to say that the Democratic Labor Party representative should be **Senator Gair,** as I think is supposed, or that the representative should be one of the other Democratic Labor Party members, or even one of the independent senators who must be recognised in this Parliament as a minority group. The Labor Party has 3 members on the Committee by arrangement with the Government. It is the understanding of the Committee that senators who do not represent either the Government or the official Opposition will appoint the eighth member. If this recommendation is adopted I do not think there will be any further problem. I turn now to standing order 308 which was altered in April 1970. Possibly standing order 308 has been in the Standing Orders since they were originally adopted. It had been the policy of committees to take evidence in public and to permit some or all of the evidence to be published. This was found to be essential in order to assist the committees in maintaining public interest in the subject matters which they were considering. I think the present Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** was chairman of a committee which first brought up the question that what the committees had been doing could have been a breach of a statute of this Parliament. I believe it was the Printing Act. A recommendation was advanced that to get over this question we the Regulations and Ordinances Committee recommend that it could not let every member of the Committee make a publication when it suited him to do so. But if the Committee desired to make it, or if the Parliament desired to make a publication, they had the authority to do so in conformity with the statute of the Commonwealth Parliament. At the pre sent time, there is a conflict. Standing order 308 would not permit the publication, although it was done. It was done legally under the Printing Act and therefore there was justification. Here we have a standing order which could conflict with an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it was necessary to clarify the position either by changing the section in the Act of Parliament or by changing the Standing Orders. It was felt that the Standing Order should be amended so that there would be justification for publication before presentation. Where that justification occurred in the opinion of the Committee or the Senate, publication could be permitted and be in conformity with the Printing Act. I now turn to the question of how the Senate could make a decision without having the knowledge of the evidence that cannot be presented to it. The committee has the knowledge and can make a decision. If the committee decided against the publication or decided for the publication a member of the committee objecting to the committee's decision could appeal to the Senate and advance the same argument as can be advanced in any debate. He could say that in this question the public interest was involved and therefore it should be published. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- Or not published. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- Or not published, and it would be on the facts presented before the committee to determine the question of publication. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- What would be the facts? What does the honourable senator mean by that? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- Like every question that comes before the Senate, it is a matter of whether it is right to do a thing by legislation or by decision of the Senate or whether it is not right. For instance, a member of the committee may come forward and put up a case that is in the public interest that the evidence of John Brown on his activities on the share market should be made public evidence. He might say that the evidence this man has presented to the committee should be published because the public has an interest in the question. It is then for the Senate to decide whether it will agree to the publication of the evidence, whether it knows what the evidence is or not. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- In the honourable senator's opinion. He may think it is in the public interest, and he moves. The Senate cannot make a judgment on the honourable senator's opinion. Honourable senators have to conform with their own opinion. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- The question may arise that the selling of second grade stockings by Myers at the price of top grade stockings- {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- Or by Bourkes. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- Or by Bourkes. The evidence before the Committee may deal with price maintenance and a member {: .speaker-JTT} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson: -- -Order! The Committee is dealing with the rights of witnesses. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- Yes, I am replying to something that was said. The evidence comes before the committee which deals with this question. A member reports to the Committee of the Whole that the committee refuses to make public the evidence that it has received on falsification or misrepresentation by big stores in Australia. Therefore, he thought that the incidence of misrepresentation by big stores in Australia was so important that the whole evidence on this matter should be made a public document. That is the question the Senate would decide. It would decide whether it thought the issue was important enough to be published. There could be many other instances. If it is insufficient for the Senate to make a decision on that, as **Senator Byrne** says, it would refuse to do so. {: #subdebate-64-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-64-0-s6 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -- I feel that I must comment on the proposition suggested by **Senator Cavanagh.** This is what he is propounding: He says that if a member of the committee feels that evidence, the disclosure of which has been forbidden by a committee, should be published he. comes into the Senate and says: lt is my opinion that the evidence in relation to John Brown given before this committee should in fact be published. I ask the Senate's ratification of my opinion.' The Senate may have a totally different opinion, but it has no evidence on which to form an opinion. Is the Senate then to accept **Senator Cavanagh's** opinion or otherwise? That would be anything but a way in which the body asked to make a decision could possibly operate. Another member of the committee may say that he thinks the evidence should be published or should not be published - expressing an opinion differing from that of **Senator Cavanagh.** Should the Senate endorse his opinion, sight unseen, or endorse **Senator Cavanagh's** opinion, sight unseen? With respect to **Senator Cavanagh,** it is a proposition that is unworthy of the processes he usually brings to the consideration of questions such as this. **Senator Cavanagh** may form his opinion which he brings to the Senate on the evidence he has heard or seen in examination. He may say, 'In my opinion, this evidence should be made public'. The Senate is asked to endorse or not to endorse that opinion in the total absence of the documentation of the evidence on which he formed his opinion. In other words, **Senator Cavanagh** is saying that the Senate can take his opinion or reject it, on his say-so. That would be a totally unacceptable proposition. I am sure that on reflection even **Senator Cavanagh** will not continue to propound it. There is only one way that in justice and fairness the matter can be resolved. It may involve the liberties and rights of citizens of this country. If the Senate is to make a final deliberative decision on a matter that might effect the. liberty or the good name of any person appearing before or party to a proceeding before a committee, it must have the evidence before it so that it can make that deliberative decision. I cannot see in standing . order 308 where that opportunity is provided to the Senate. For the process that **Senator Cavanagh** advances to be the one on which the Senate would rest in such a serious matter is an idea that is totally incomprehensible to me. I am sure it would be totally unacceptable to the Senate or any person who has regard for the ordinary concept of civil individual rights. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- **Senator Brown,** do you wish to speak? {: .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator Brown: -- I will leave the clarification of the remarks of my colleague, **Senator Cavanagh,** to him. **Senator CAVANAGH** (9.18)- I thought I had completed the clarification until it was confused again by **Senator Byrne.** This necessitates my reclarifying the matter at the present time. This involves the question of why we permit publication of something we do not know about. I say that that never happened except because of circumstances in which the Standing Orders conflicted with the law. It cannot be conceived by **Senator Byrne** that the Senate should make a decision on an opinion. Of course, we are doing that every sitting day. I may say, 'In my opinion, the Bill is wrong and it should be amended in clause 6. The Australian Labor Party says it should be amended' - because of one reason or another. A member will come before the Committee of the Whole and will say that in his opinion the evidence is so grave and affects so much the public interest of Australia that it should be published. Then we will decide whether the evidence of companies defrauding, etc., is of such public importance that it should be published. The Senate forms its opinion whether it agrees that it is of such importance that it should be published or whether it does not agree. That is the whole question - whether the evidence is of public importance. That is the whole basis upon which we work in the Senate and it is nothing unusual. I now turn to the question that is related to the recommendation the Committee is bringing down. Again, the recommendation is of some protection to witnesses. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator Milliner: -- It is supported. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- It is supported because it was a unanimous decision. Noone can say that without the rules there has been a grave injustice to witnesses who have appeared before the Committee. I think this speaks well of the conduct of the various committees that have operated. On the committees on which I have served, there were such statements made that could get witnesses into trouble if they were ever made public. They never were. The information was sought. It was freely given. The information was always granted secretly and there was never an occasion when this secrecy or confidence was broken. Therefore I suggest that while a person appearing before a committee should have the right to know what his rights are, we should not have too strict a code of rules that defeats the objects of parliamentary committees in their search for the truth. {: #subdebate-64-0-s7 .speaker-K1R} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- I call **Senator Rae.** {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- **Mr Chairman,** I will defer to **Senator Byrne** lo enable him .to continue the debate. {: #subdebate-64-0-s8 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -- I have only one or two comments. I take **Senator Murphy's** point that the procedures before committees should assimilate some judicial procedures, while not slavishly following them. The senator and I have made the proposition that if judgment is to be passed on a decision of the committee not to publish evidence, it is a very difficult position if the Senate does not have the body of evidence before it in which either to uphold that position or overrule it. **Senator Cavanagh** suggests- {: .speaker-K3W} ##### Senator Cant: -- I rise on a point of order. Are we. discussing standing order 308 which covers the publication of evidence and documents of the committee or are we discussing the rights and privileges of witnesses before the committee? I think that the second proposition is what is before the Chair at present and that the honourable senator is out of order in discussing the matter of the publication of evidence and documents. {: #subdebate-64-0-s9 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The point of order is not upheld. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- Thank you, **Mr Chairman. Senator Cavanagh** then propounds this proposition: If he should be, say, a dissentient on the committee which decided not to publish evidence- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: **- Senator Cant,** you will cease, reflecting upon a judgment of the Chair. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- If **Senator Cavanagh's** proposition is that if he should be a dissentient from the decision of the committee not to publish evidence and he thinks it should be published he then rises in the Senate and says: 'In my opinion this body of evidence should be published'. If opinion evidence is given in a court, no matter how eminent the person is who gives it, it would be an incredible thing if the court were to say that **Dr Bloggs** or **Mr Smith** has given this evidence and he has given this evidence of opinion that 'in my opinion, so and so', and on that the court makes its judgment. But what happens? The opinion which is ventured by **Dr Bloggs** or **Mr Smith** is tested by examination and crossexamination as to the basis on which the opinion rests. Therefore, if **Senator Cvanagh** propounds an opinion here, and the Senate is asked to make a decision, it is not on his opinion - it is on the facts on which he makes one opinion and on which the Senate may well make a totally different opinion. It may make an opinion concurring with his or it may make an opinion completely contrary to that expressed by the honourable senator. I say that the proposition put forward by **Senator Cavanagh** is an incredible one. The proposition of **Senator Murphy,** I think, is a correct assessment - that the procedures should have some similarity with judicial proceedings. Any procedure, that would be totally unacceptable and intolerable in judicial proceedings is not to be followed. It would completely contradict the whole of the procedures of examination and the testing of the credibility and compellability of evidence. I think my proposition is validly made and has not been answered by the honourable senator. {: #subdebate-64-0-s10 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP -- Very briefly I would like to say that **Senator Cavanagh** was kind enough to refer to my interest in standing order 308. I must say that, listening very carefully as I have been endeavouring to do, standing order 390, which is really the subject of discussion, seemed to me to be of very little relation to standing order 308. I have great interest in standing order 308 because when I was chairman of a select committee of this Senate we were distributing evidence given to the committee regularly to interested people because it concerned a matter of great public interest. We were doing this quite regularly as a matter of course. We believed that we were acting quite properly and sensibly under what we regarded as a proper procedure. But on reading standing order 308 it occurred to myself and two or three others that we were really not behaving properly. That is why we suggested to the Standing Orders Committee that very properly this standing order ought to be amended to allow a committee, if it wished to do so, to distribute its evidence as it went along if a matter were of public interest. If a committee did not wish to follow this course, it did not do so. If, on the other hand, there was an argument in the committee, that committee could take the argument, totally or severally, to the full body of the Senate where the matter could be discussed. It seems to me that it is a reasonable proposition that a committee is part of the Senate and the Senate would listen to the discussion of its committee members and adjudicate without itself as a Senate going through the process of taking all the evidence once again, which is quite a ridiculous proposition. What the Senate would do would be to listen to the argument; it would adjudicate; and senators would say: 'In our view, the committee as a whole is correct. We have listened to the case of committee member B as against his 6 colleagues and we do not agree with him'. This was the proper line of procedure. That is how it all came about. There was nothing to be said that was in any way to be regarded as inhibiting the rights of witnesses, or to set aside anybody's powers or not to give anyone a fair trial. There was no consideration of that. It was simply a case of committee procedures being brought up to date, of evidence being handed out as one went along to help people who came before a committee, in order to regularise this with the Senate itself and its own standing orders. Simple issues like this have arisen: A witness would come before the committee, would give a long body of evidence and would want the right to receive the evidence in order to correct it. Under standing order 308 he was not allowed to have it. This was obviously stupid and that was why the standing order was changed. It was nothing more difficult or involved than that. If I may say so, it seems to be a common sense procedure in which one would regularise the general position. But with what are we really dealing? Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee deal with standing order 390. They clearly show that this standing order relates to quite a separate matter. Standing Order 390 states: >All witnesses examined before die Senate, or any Committee thereof, are entitled to the protection of the Senate in respect of anything that may be said by them in their evidence. To bring this to a definitive point of decision, the Standing Orders Committee as a whole recommended to the Senate as a whole that it should adopt this change. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- The Senate adopted it unanimously. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- That is right. The Committee in paragraph 25 said: >To assist in the formulation of rules, the Standing Orders Committee recommends to the Senate that the scope of the reference to the Privileges Committee be enlarged to include a consideration of the general question of provision for protective procedures where individual interests are under inquiry. The matters that have come before us this evening might well be raised perhaps in a separate discussion in such a privileges committee. **Senator Cavanagh** very properly observed, and I myself must say that I concur, that the benefits of the opinions of our legal colleagues are able to be taken very seriously, as they should be. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- They have to be tested. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- They will be tested obviously by senators in that discussion with each other. They will upbraid each other; they will sharpen their wits on each other; and they will hone themselves to a fine point. But they will come back to this Senate and will present a commonsense suggestion on how a body of laymen might well resolve a problem. The Senate is not a judicial court but a parliamentary body. It is a parliamentary body in which we would be seeking to protect people who came along to help a Senate committee in an inquiry. That is what it is all about. We will be greatly helped by the benefit of the knowledge of our legal colleagues, who will meet in a very refined atmosphere and then bring us a solution to the problem of the protection of the witness before a Senate committee. {: #subdebate-64-0-s11 .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
Victoria -- I commend the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** for having brought *the* debate back to the subject matter that is before the Committee at the moment. As I understand it we are dealing with standing order 390. It would seem to me that paragraphs 23 and 24 of the report are simply an expression of the Standing Orders Committee of the subject matters that were exercising the minds of its members. Paragraph 25 of the report contains the recommendation to this Committee, which is: . . (he Standing Orders Committee recommends to the Senate that the scope of the reference to the Privileges Committee be enlarged to include a consideration of the general question of provision for protective procedures where individual interests are under inquiry. I welcome this report and its recommendations. I have been uneasy about evidence that has been presented to the Committee of which I am privileged to be a member, that is, the Legislative Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. I have been uneasy about the evidence presented to that Committee in camera. I have never been thoroughly satisfied that a witness who asked to have his evidence taken in camera could be thoroughly confident that that evidence which is confidential may not become the subject of consideration by the Senate. I was reasonably confident in some respects that the members of the Senate Committee on the first hand would respect that confidence and, secondly, I would anticipate that the Senate would likewise respect the opinion of the Senate Committee that had accepted the evidence given in camera. But no clear indication has been given by anybody at this stage that in fact evidence given in camera may not be subject to some inquiry because it can be said that the recommendations that may emanate from a Senate committee based on evidence given in camera could very well be substantial recommendations in a report to the Senate and the Senate would be entitled to ask why the Senate committee made those recommendations. Obviously we would be sensitive as to the nature of the evidence upon which we were relying to present the report to the Senate. I notice that my Leader, **Senator Murphy,** seems to be questioning the wisdom of what I am saying. But I think that this is a matter that ought to claim the attention of this chamber. I think that there should be a guarantee beyond all doubt of the protection to a witness who gives evidence in camera before a legislative standing committee. If I am misinterpreting the procedures - I do not believe that I am because I am not the only member of this Standing Committee who has registered some concern at our inability to get a clear understanding from a source which would make us all feel easy in our minds that we could proceed in the fashion that we had adopted without jeopardising a witness who had asked that his evidence be treated in confidence - I would welcome some advice on this matter in the course of this debate to clarify it in the event that I have been misled or if I am, at this stage, quite unwittingly misleading honourable senators. {: #subdebate-64-0-s12 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales -- The matter which has been raised by one of the Opposition senators is an extremely important matter and I think that it ought to be dealt with at once. The suggestion is that some clarification ought to be given as to the position of a person who gives evidence in camera - that is, in private - to a committee of the Senate. I would apprehend that the position is quite clear. If a person gives evidence in camera - that is. in private - he has asked for the protection of the Committee in that he be enabled to give that evivdence in private, and that evidence is given in private and will not be made public, certainly not without the consent of the Senate committee. I would be sure that the Senate would ensure that that privacy was maintained. The position would be impossible if a committee of the Senate could not safely say to a witness that evidence given in privacy would remain inviolable. I would think that **Senator Brown** and those others who have felt that there may be some question about the matter should feel content that there is no doubt that the view on all sides of this chamber is that the traditional position would be preserved and that the undertaking to the witness would be protected to the full extent by the Senate. Not only would the evidence not be revealed in this chamber but also the Senate would take all those steps which were within its power to see that that secrecy was not broken elsewhere. If the Senate committee feels that it is necessary and proper for it to extend to a witness the privilage of giving evidence in private, it must as a condition of that undertaking ensure that the evidence stays in private unless for some reason, such as a witness agreeing that this confidential position be broken, the evidence was made public. One can imagine that in some great affair of State involving some national calamity one might feel that something might be revealed. But I cannot imagine a situation where the Senate would permit evidence which had been given in private to be revealed without the consent of the person who had given it. {: #subdebate-64-0-s13 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE:
Tasmania -- I note that the main objective of the discussion is the question of the reference of a number of these matters to the Privileges Committee so that the Privileges Committee may complete the inquiry which it has undertaken for some considerable period. I therefore do not intend to go at any length into a number of the matters that I believe are of most considerable importance, but will refrain and debate them as a member of the Privileges Committee. However, I do think that it is necessary and desirable to refer to a couple of points. The first is in relation to the distinction made by **Senator Murphy** between the penal jurisdiction and the inquisitorial jurisdiction of the Senate committee. There is considerable confusion in the minds of many people, including the authors of some public commentary on the matter of the Senate committee or the parliamentary committee, in their approach to the two. Whether they come to the conclusion that the same protection should apply in either instance to a witness is another question. 1 feel that it is necessary and desirable that they should distinguish between the 2 and realise the different considerations which apply in relation to them. I felt that **Senator Murphy** was drawing attention to an important point of distinction during his earlier speech. The matter which has been more latterly discussed is the' standing order relating to evidence being taken in camera and the possibily of publication of that evidence. I simply wish to remind honourable senators that there may be many reasons for taking evidence in camera. The bald statement that one would expect that that evidence will never be released unless with the consent of the witness or that it will never be released under any circumstances which would exclude one situation which readily comes to mind. That is this: It may be necessary in the interests of the fair trial of a person or the fair trial of some litigation which is to take place between persons that evidence should be taken in camera until the conclusion of those proceedings which are to take place in a court. But it may be also a matter which is particularly relevant to the inquiry of the Senate committee and particularly relevant to the report which the Senate committee will make. It may be that the appropriate way to deal with the matter is to take the evidence in camera and to make quite clear to the witness that the evidence is being taken in camera not permanently but to prevent publication at the time of taking- {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- But, **Senator, that** is a special situation. **Senator Brown** was raising the position where it was absolute in camera. You are saying: 'Look, we will take this evidence privately because of a particular circumstance and it will be revealed later'. That is not what he or I was addressing our minds to. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- I realise that. I am simply referring to that example not by way of criticising what was said by **Senator Murphy** or by **Senator Brown** but simply to indicate that if we leave this discussion on the point that that is all there is to say about it we are excluding a vast number of considerations that can lead to the taking of evidence in camera with no intention that that evidence should be permanently retained by the Senate committee in private and never revealed. I have mentioned but one example of a situation which could give rise to that consideration. It may very well be that there are some other situations of doubt at a specific time. It may be that, for a wide variety of reasons, a Senate committee may decide to accede to a request to hear evidence in camera making it clear, I would hope, to the witness at the time that the committee would be reviewing its decision and reserves the right to publish that evidence at some later time. It may be a matter of very considerable importance to the committee's *report* that it should be free to publish that evidence. I feel that it is important that very special consideration be given to standing order 390 which provides the general protection to which reference is made in the report of the Standing Orders Committee. That general protection is stated in these words: >All Witnesses examined before the Senate, or any Committee thereof, are entitled to the protection of the Senate in respect of anything that may be said by them in their evidence. But the question which immediately arises so far as 1 am concerned is what the Senate does to protect the person if the evidence given has been misused. It can only use its privileges powers to punish the person who has misused the evidence, but it may very well be that by then damage has been done. I am inclined to the view that the Senate could very well give serious consideration to suggesting some greater protection than the protection which is provided by standing order 390. When one makes that suggestion one immediately is likely to receive the answer: Yes, but greater protection is already given by the Bill of Rights of 1688. I agree that the Bill of Rights does provide substantial protection, a very important protection, but one wonders whether there are not some imperfections in standing order 390 and whether there are not some doubts in relation to the Bill of Rights. Not the least of the doubts is the meaning of 'proceedings of Parliament'. One may very well feel that these doubts could be. overcome by a new approach which took into account the need to give adequate protection, clearly, unambiguously and at the time it is needed, not simply by punishing someone afterwards for a breach that they might have committed. That is another matter which one could debate at very considerable length. I simply draw attention to it because it is directly relevant to the standing order which has been reported upon by the Standing Orders Committee. I should like to sum up in general what I see the argument as being. It is an argument between those who would favour codification and those who would favour the common law approach. One of the other things I say, not by way of criticism of **Senator Murphy** or of anything that he or any other honourable senator might have said, but simply because I feel that it is desirable to put this beyond doubt, is that this debate has tended to give the impression, because of the points that have been raised, that there are insufficient rules to protect witnesses and that in fact one might have concluded that there were not very many rules at all. I think an examination of the existing rules in the Standing Orders will show that there are many standing orders which specifically protect witnesses. It is only when one goes through the Standing Orders and lists the ones providing protection that one is able to get a full list. It is an impressive list. I should hate anyone either listening to or reading the debate which has taken place tonight to go away with the impression that Senate committee procedures are inadequate at the moment. It may be that they could be improved and it may be. that a number of things should be done, but to suggest that they are inadequate, or for one to have the impression that they were inadequate, would be mistaking the nature of the debate and the comments made by various speakers. The other aspect which is of very great importance in a consideration of the rights of witnesses before parliamentary committees and particularly Senate committees is the law of the customs of Parliament or the common law. It has been built up on the same principle as the common law which governs much of the law of the people not only of Australia but also of the United Kingdom. Of course we inherited it from the United Kingdom originally, or much of it, and have since built more. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- We have made a few changes in it. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- Yes, we have made a few changes in it, and it may be that we should make more changes in the law in relation to the customs of Parliament. I simply refer to the existence of that law and the fact that one can quite readily ascertain a very great body of law which does apply to committees and to committee hearings, and applies particularly to provide a substantial protection to witnesses who appear before committees. That law is definable, discernible and effective. I should not like to allow the opportunity to pass while speaking here tonight without drawing attention to this protection because a false impression that there is inadequate protection might otherwise be obtained. That we may be able to improve that protection is one thing; that it does exist at the moment and does work is another. I simply leave it on the basis that I applaud the reference to the Privileges Committee for the very full consideration which the subject does deserve with the growth of the Senate committee system. But, please, let there be no misunderstanding. There are rules, both written and unwritten, which do protect witnesses at the moment. Those rules are effective, although they may be in need of greater perfection and greater modernisation or greater ease of application. {: #subdebate-64-0-s14 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- When I look back to the origin of our present committee system I think immediately of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Like **Senator Rae,** I believe that a certain responsibility for the protection of witnesses rests on senators who are members of committees. In referring to the way in which senators behave in relation to witnesses I remind honourable senators of one classic illustration which **Senator Rae** will appreciate. During the proceedings of the Water Pollution Committee, if some of us, myself included, had persisted with certain investigations and made certain inquiries into evidence given by some New South Wales State Government witnesses, particularly in relation to pollution of the Molonglo River, we could have created a very embarrassing situation for those State public servants who were giving evidence on oath. **Senator Rae** knows that we were not playing party politics in conducting that inquiry. At one stage I was insistent about certain evidence being given, but then I came to realise that the committee system was in its infancy and that my insistence could be construed as persecution, so I took the matter no further. However, I am equally concerned, as every honourable senator should be, that we should not, in our efforts to provide protection for witnesses, erect barricades behind which people can hide. There have been remarks about the treatment of witnesses. I have sat on 4 committees and I can honestly say that the courtesy which quite rightly has been extended by senators to witnesses has been far in excess of the courtesy extended to some of us when we have appeared in proceedings before conciliation commissioners. I say that quite sincerely. I suggest that our primary task is to obtain evidence which will provide information. I know that under our federal system there is difficulty at times in getting evidence from representatives of the States who fear sometimes that they will be used more or less as a shuttlecock in relation to past policy decisions. We have all been made aware that when witnesses of this kind appear before us we do not act as though we are throwing them to the lions in some gigantic colosseum. There are some things that we must avoid. I agree with **Senator Rae's** suggestion that witnesses should be given reasonable protection, but anybody who has studied the counterpart of our committee system in the United States would realise that not so long ago senior public servants in the United States were destroyed by the committees before which they appeared. I am thinking particularly of one case before an unfair practices committee in the United States when the question of discrimination because of colour was raised. A senior public servant appearing before the committee was bullied by some members of the congressional committee. We should avoid action of that kind, but at the same time I would hate to see a situation arise in which through our zest for justice, if I may put it that way, we create so many escape hatches that witnesses may not be inclined to give the evidence that is wanted from them. I appreciate that the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange with which **Senator Rae** has been identified has had probably a much more difficult course to chart than other committees, but I believe that each and every honourable senator in this place, keen as he might have been on a particular subject, has conducted himself quite well in the way he has treated witnesses. Question resolved in the affirmative. Item 9 (Televising of public hearings of Committee). Item agreed to. Item 10 (Time limit to speeches during broadcasts - standing order 407 a) {: #subdebate-64-0-s15 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I oppose the adoption of this item. I draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 40 of this report. It is headed 'Reservation' and states: {: type="1" start="4"} 0. On some of the foregoing matters, where there was not unanimity, honourable senators reserved their position. **Senator Cavanagh** requests that it be recorded that he disagrees with paragraphs 10, 30 and 31 relating to time limits. Paragraph 10 is included in item 4 of which we have adjourned consideration. We had gone through some states of debate when this item was before the Committee and a vote was taken in relation to the deletion of a standing order. We reached the stage of debating a motion moved by **Senator Cant.** Item 4 deals with the same matter of time limit, but paragraph 10 proposes that in relation to urgency motions the time be reduced to 10 minutes. It is now proposed to write into the Standing Orders something which has been the practice in relation to the time limit of speeches during broadcasts. I refer the Committee to my contribution in relation to item 4 paragraph 10, when it was debated on 16th September last year. It will be found at page 840 of Hansard. Since coming into the Senate I have always been a back bencher and I am not prepared to take, away any rights or privileges which were contained in Standing Orders at the time I came into this place. I have found that there are insufficient rights for ordinary honourable senators. On no occasion will I be a party to curtailing those rights. I think that each honourable senator has a right under Standing Orders to speak for 60 minutes during a debate. Prior to my entering the Parliament an agreement was reached between the then parties that when the Senate was on the air speeches would be reduced to 30 minutes except in relation to one who introduced a subject or was the first speaker in reply. This is a gentlemen's agreement. During the. 10 years I have been here the only speaker who did not observe that agreement was **Senator Kennelly.** I think he had justifiable grounds. He said that any other honourable senator could say in half an hour what it took him three quarters of an hour to say. Nobody objected to his defiance of that agreement. But if there is an occasion when an honourable senator has some difficulty in expressing himself at least he has an opportunity to defy that agreement. During my period here there was an occasion when I spoke in excess of the half hour. On that occasion there was an agreement with the Government. It was agreed that if the need arose during a debate someone could extend the gentleman's agreement which had been entered into without obtaining an extension of time. This would have been necessary had a time limit been written into the Standing Orders. Therefore honourable senators can see that on occasions it is necessary to breach the agreement. I do not think that we should amend a rule unless we can show there is some mischief which needs rectifying. If there is some abuse which it is desired to rectify, we should tighten the rule. No one can point to an occasion, other than the occasion I have mentioned, when the agreement has been breached. $ think that three quarters or possibly the whole of the membership of the Senate would have come to this place since the agreement: was originally reached. I take it that it was reached at the time when broadcasting facilities were installed in the Parliament. There can be no claim that we are bound by the gentleman's agreement, but everyone has honoured it and therefore there is no necessity to alter the Standing Orders. I raised the question of the purpose of voluntarily reducing the time to half an hour when we are on the air. We are on the air on Wednesdays and the House of Representatives is on the air on the other 2 days when both Houses sit during the week. I was told that the reason for the agreement was that it would permit more honourable senators to speak on the occasion when the public could be listening to the speeches of the Senate. It was for the purpose of allowing more honourable senators from each side to make their views known to the listening public. I think that is a good idea. Recently at the end of the session we have adopted the procedure of sometimes sitting after the House of Representatives has risen. When that occurs the proceedings are broadcast from this place. I do not think that the agreement which was entered into for a particular purpose can be applied on the occasions when this chamber has unlimited broadcasting time. It is not then a question of having more speakers on the air because we are on the air for the length of time we stay here. I presume that on those occasions the agreement entered into will not apply. Therefore we are making a standing order which gives away that time. At present such a standing order should not apply. Under this item honourable senators are reducing rights which could be extended to apply to other occasions. I think the Senate should be very hesitant before it gives away a right which it has at present without proving that there is some justification for doing so. When the Standing Orders were being considered and when this particular item was brought forward for consideration, it was found that during the session prior to that time the average speaking time of an honourable senator was 35 minutes. Although on most occasions honourable senators have the right to speak for an hour, normally they do not speak for that time. Some subjects need a longer period in which to be explained than do others or one enters into a debate or an argument. Because an honourable senator - I may be guilty - finds it more difficult to make himself understood than do others he is justified in taking a greater length of time. But this is a right which we have now. A free vote is to be taken on the matter. There is to be no party discipline or control. I ask every honourable senator to ask himself: 'Should we reduce the rights which we have as honourable senators unless there is something wrong which needs rectification?' History will prove that there is no such wrong. {: #subdebate-64-0-s16 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales -- I shall speak shortly on the matter because I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee along with **Senator Cavanagh.** The honourable senator has raised a question which is perennial: For how long should honourable senators speak? He has referred to the rights of honourable senators. There is no doubt that **Senator Cavanagh** has a great regard for the Senate and the rights of honourable senators but one has to look at these matters in 2 ways. The right of being able to speak without limit has to be balanced against the right to have more speakers and to deal with more topics. For instance, if one were to allow a filibuster - I know **Senator Cavanagh** is not suggesting that - that really amounts to a preservation Of the unlimited right of one person as against the rights of others. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- That is 3 speakers in the one night if they had an hour each? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Very few persons might speak on some occasions. Some problems could arise. They are the problems legislatures face in getting through their business. Let me say this: It has been agreed on all hands that the half-hour rule, which has been a gentlemen's agreement and the effect of which is that a senator shall speak for only half an hour when the Senate is on the air - with some special exceptions - has worked well. It has worked well on Wednesdays, when the Senate has been on the air. If a problem arises, it arises in relation to those days on which the Senate is sitting after the House Of Representatives has risen, in which event the Senate is on the air day after day. If the half-hour agreement has worked well, why should it not be made the rule and why should it be said that we should depart from it? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Because it is unnecessary. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- I do not know that it is. If there is a gentlemen's agreement that when the Senate is on the air half an hour for each senator is sufficient and that has worked well for a number of years, why should not the matter be resolved on the basis that the half-hour rule shall prevail irrespective of whether the House of Representatives is still sitting or has risen? {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- There is not the same reason for the curtailment though, is there? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- There may be matters to be dealt with, but the real point is that there has been no inconvenience. Noone has said that there has been. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I would not say that. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- **Senator Cavanagh** did not suggest earlier that there was any trouble or any inconvenience. Many people think that the proceedings of the Senate are benefiting from the expedition, clarity and brevity with which senators are required to present their views if there is a time limit of half an hour rather than an extended period. I do not think this is a matter on which one can be dogmatic, but experience seems to have shown that when the Senate is on the air the half-hour agreement is satisfactory. The view of the members of the Standing Orders Committee, with the exception of **Senator Cavanagh,** was that it ought to be made a rule so as to dispose of the problem if there were differences of opinion as to what ought to be done on days on which only the Senate is sitting. For that reason I propose to stand by what the Committee determined. {: #subdebate-64-0-s17 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- It must have been because I had insufficient time that I did not make myself clear. As I stated, it takes longer for me to do so. Evidently **Senator Murphy** did not gather from my remarks that inconvenience could be caused and that there could be a lack of quality in debates in this chamber because of the necessity to reduce the length of speeches. On numerous occasions I have heard honourable senators say that they are unable to reply to interjections to which they normally would reply, or say to another honourable senator: 'You are trying to take up my precious time' or to **Mr President: 'Mr President,** I will be quick about completing this argument because my time is limited'. That happens every Wednesday. Undoubtedly there would be more clarity and more expansion of subject matter on the part of the individual senator if he had more time. Therefore inconvenience is caused on occasions. I have experienced it on many occasions. I acknowledge the need, as **Senator Murphy** said, to avoid someone monopolising all the broadcasting time and the need to give a chance to someone else. I agree with that. I observe the agreement although I was not a party to it. It was made before I came into this place. I question whether it is needed on those occasions on which we are on the air day after day. I raise the question whether it should be cut out on those days. What 1 am saying is that since time immemorial the Standing Orders of this chamber have permitted a senator to speak for at least an hour and now there is a desire on the part of someone to make the period shorter. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- The 'someone' is the Standing Orders Committee. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- A majority of members of the Standing Orders Committee. All they can say is: 'Why do we not write the agreement into the rules?' I think they have an obligation to show, before we make a change, where the existing standing order has created some inconvenience to the Senate. Everyone acknowledges that it has worked well. No-one has any complaint about it. But we are being asked to write in a rule that will take away from senators who come here in the future a right that was written in the rules when we came here. This is a restriction of the liberty of the individual. Let me say this to **Senator Murphy,** not in an unkindly way. 'As he usually speaks as the senator introducing a motion or replying to the debate on it, even on those days on which the Senate is on the air he is not restricted by this time limit. If he were, I wonder how, on many of the subjects on which he speaks - the Evidence (Australian Capital Territory) Bill, for instance - he would ever explain himself in that limited time. But that is something with which others have to contend. Evidently others are prepared to contend with it because they have reached agreement on this time limit. I point out that in doing so they are making themselves parties to restricting the rights of individuals who will follow us in this chamber. {: #subdebate-64-0-s18 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP -- I wish to speak only very briefly. We are dealing with a report of the Standing Orders Committee. I think that when we read the list of members of that Committee we will agree that it contains many of the eminent people in the Senate. There are 7 of them on the Committee, and 6 of them agree with this proposition. The other one, very properly, does not agree with it. He brings his disagreement to the whole body of senators, and the whole body of senators should now decide the matter, having heard the arguments on both sides. Question put: That item 10 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Prowse) AYES: 32 NOES: 20 Majority . . . . 12 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Item 11 (Suspension of the Standing Orders to eliminate delay in passage of Bills) Item agreed to. Item 12 (Suspension of Standing Orders - Standing orders 448 and 449) Item agreed to. Motion (by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) agreed to: That the resolutions be reported and that leave be given for further consideration of item 4. Resolution reported; report adopted. {: #subdebate-64-0-s19 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
'Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP (10.16) - I move: The Standing Orders Committee will consider item 4 again. That Committee will report to the Committee of the Whole. I think it is better to adopt that procedure than for the Committee of the Whole to deal with item 4 now. {: #subdebate-64-0-s20 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I do not oppose the motion, but I impress upon the Senate the urgency with which the item should be dealt. The report of the Standing OrdersCommittee was presented in August 1971. Certain Standing Orders have been amended; for instance my speaking time has been limited to half an hour. I think that the Standing Orders should be finalised and put in order. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 828 {:#debate-65} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-65-0} #### Australian Film Industry - Aborigines Motion (by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-65-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I wish to take up a few minutes of the time of the Senate to raise a very serious matter relating to the development of the Australian animation film industry. That industry has been operating for about 38 years by the efforts principally of a **Mr Eric** Porter. That industry, as a result of very hard work on his part and as a result of the efforts and dedication of the men and women who have worked for him during that period, has developed into a very successful industry. After 38 years of hard work it has now reached the stage at which export income is being earned. I am told that there are 2 Australian companies in this field, one known as Eric Porter Productions Pty Ltd and the other known as Air Programmes International which is more commonly referred to as API. In the last 12 months the 2 companies have earned for Australia $1,500,000 in export income. Next year their productions are expected to be worth about $5m in export income. These animation films have been made in Australia. They have had considerable success overseas. One of the companies, namely API, was involved in the making of 117 separate cartoons and animated films of stories about King Arthur. They were shown throughout the whole of the United States of America. There was another film dealing with Charles Dickens' story 'A Christmas Carol' which was sold by one of the Australian companies for screening on the American CBS network, and I am told that that programme had a viewing audience in the United States of some 25 million people. These 2 companies between them have been able to employ in recent times about 300 people - cartoonists, choreographers, dancers, musicians and people of that nature. However, in recent weeks an American animation enterprise has established business in Australia in competition with the 2 Australian companies. The American company, because of its size and the distribution outlets available to it, now is able to offer to the staff of the 2 Australian companies about a 50 per cent increase in salaries if they go to work for the American enterprise. I am told that the American company, known as Hanna and Barbera, a multi-million dollar production company in the United States - a company which produces animated films such as The Flintstones', 'Yogi Bear', The Jetsons' and about 30 other popular television programmes in the United States - now has established business in Australia and employes about 1,500 people. It has its own distribution outlet and, as I have said, it is a multi-million dollar company setting out on production in this country. Certainly I, as a member of the Labor movement, cannot object to any worker going from one business to another for a 50 per cent increase in wages. I certainly do not object to that. But **Mr Porter** assures me that **Mr Hanna** of the American company has told him that, if necessary, the American company can pay double the price that the Australian companies can pay in order to attract workers from the Australian companies. These Australian companies, having nurtured the tree and being about to pick the fruit of their efforts after so many years of hard work, now find that this giant American enterprise can transplant a much larger tree in Australia and virtually reap the pickings of an industry that has been pioneered by a couple of Australian over a period of 38 years of hard work and dedication. An American company of this size can absorb the total work force of the Australian animation companies and put the Australian companies completely out of business overnight. This is not a takeover, a subject about which we hear so much in the Australian Parliament; this is a case of a foreign company coming in and virtually choking the Australian animation film industry. It is a fact, of course, that Australian wage standards are much lower than those of the United States, but I imagine that the profits that will be made by this American company operating in Australia will be returned to Hollywood instead of Australia being able to earn, as it has been able to do over the past 12 months, a healthy export income. If something is not done about this, then I am afraid that a great deal of the money that is being invested by the Australian taxpayers in the Australian Film Development Corporation will be just going down the drain. If the situation that has developed in the animation film industry is allowed to develop in the film industry as a whole, when the Australian film industry eventually becomes viable and healthy, then I can well imagine the same thing happening at that time. I understand that 2 representatives of the 2 Australian companies to which I have referred recently saw the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts **(Mr Howson).** I already have spoken to the Attorney-General **(Senator Greenwood)** about this, both in his capacity as AttorneyGeneral and as Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. I urge the Senate and the Government to give this matter close attention and serious consideration. The Government will have to protect genuine Australian companies which cannot possibly compete on the international market with giant foreign competitors who have all the access in the world to distribution outlets and markets. Frankly, I do not know what the solution is under the present system. Perhaps the Government can impose a very heavy withholding tax on the American company. Perhaps it can assist the Australian companies to find additional overseas markets. Perhaps it can impose an investment tax on overseas competitors of Australian businesses. But surely these people who have worked so hard to develop a very effective Australian animation film industry are entitled to all the protection that the Australian Government can give them. Therefore, in the interests of this nation, and particularly in the interests of the development of an Australian film industry, I urge the Minister to give this matter all the consideration that he can to see whether the Government can come up with a solution to this very pressing problem. {: #subdebate-65-0-s1 .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER:
Queensland -- I do not want to take up a great deal of the time of the Senate this evening. On 9th March this year **Senator Keeffe** mentioned something that had happened to an Aboriginal female in my State of Queensland. He referred to a girl who had been put into gaol allegedly for wearing a mini skirt on a mission station, namely Doomadgee in the north of Queensland. In his address to the Senate, **Senator Keeffe** also made some very strong statements concerning the Queensland Government and its treatment of Aborigines in that State. I was shocked when he made those statements. I was disturbed about some of the allegations he made. Being an Aboriginal and being very concerned about the plight of members of my race, not only in my own State but in the Commonwealth at large, I was very disturbed that such an allegation should be made against my State, its Government, the responsible Minister and the Director of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland. Naturally enough, 1 made my own investigations into this matter. I learned to my dismay that the allegations made by **Senator Keeffe** were unfounded and were a fabrication in many respects. I have before me a Press clipping {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- **Senator, you** are not suggesting that **Senator Keeffe** fabricated anything, are you? {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER: -- After I have spoken about this matter, **Senator Murphy,** perhaps you or **Senator Keeffe** can counter the claims that I make. Until that time you might be kind' enough or decent enough to bear with me and listen to what I have to say. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- **Senator Keeffe** is not in the chamber at present. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER: -- I beg your pardon, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** but am I supposed to wait until **Senator Keeffe** arrives in this chamber? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- No, you are supposed to notify him, as we do in such cases. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER: -- I am making a statement here because I have made investigations into the allegations that were made in this place. I am sick and tired of people using the Aboriginal people for political gain. It is about time that I, as an Aborigine, had something to say concerning the matters that affect members of my race in this country. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- I do not think anyone would doubt that. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER: -- Would the honourable senator be kind enough to listen to me in silence until I have had my say? Then, if he has something to say, maybe he will be able *to* counter the claims I make. I was saying that I made investigations of these matters. I have a Press statement here which contains headlines in big print which read: 'Mystery over claim of mini skirt'. I have found that the person who was mentioned in the Senate on 9th March this year claims that she was not gaoled because she wore a mini skirt on a mission settlement in Queensland, namely the Doomadgee mission. She was told by the Aboriginal people on that settlement that mini skirts or skirts worn so short were regarded by the Aboriginal people in that community as immoral. The indigenous people of this country prior to the coming of the white man were a deeply spiritual and religious people. With the coming of the white man our culture was broken down in many respects. We find that with the coming of the white man the beliefs of Christianity were embraced by many of the Aboriginal people of this nation. At Doomadgee mission the people have embraced the faith of the Brethren. This is a very strict faith. Its adherents do not believe in many of the things that we believe in, such as dancing, going to the movies and other things that they regard as being of this world. The Aboriginal people have embraced this faith. They believe there are many things that should not be used by the mission's community. One of the things that the Aboriginal people themselves complained of was the wearing of mini skirts because they believed that this was immoral. I have the statement of the person concerned. **Senator Keeffe** claimed that she was a girl. I ask you, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** and honourable senators, whether a female of the age of 29 years could be regarded as a girl or as a woman. This woman admits that she was not gaoled but was cautioned by the councillors of the community that to wear a skirt of that length was regarded by the Aboriginal people as being immoral. She was asked to lower the hemline of the skirt, as other members of the female community had done. This woman did not agree with the councillors; so she left the mission station and went to live in Mt Isa. I have here a signed statement of the girl concerned. As a matter of fact, the person that was claimed by **Senator Keeffe** to be the one involved was not the woman responsible for this act. It was another person entirely. Here again, we have an honourable senator in this place making claims when he has not done sufficient research into the matter and is not completely in possession of the facts of the case. The person who was referred to by **Senator Keeffe** was not the woman who was actually told that she should not wear a mini skirt at Doomadgee mission station. **Senator Keeffe** also mentioned other matters. He said that the Aboriginal people of Doomadgee mission station were eating food that contained a lot of weavils and maggots. When I went into this matter and back to the time when the person who complained that this was happening, I found that the person was 14 years of age. When I related this to the age of the person and the time when this incident took place, I found that it happened back in 1955. I would say that in 1955 there were many communities such as this one in Queensland that may have had weevils in the flour and the porridge and whatever else may have been the case because at that time Queensland was under the regime of the Australian Labor Party. It is strange to me that when I look at this matter which occurred in 1955 I find that the mission station referred to was run by the christian and God fearing people. They were church people. At that time they had no support from the Queensland Government. The mission station at Doomadgee was supported by the goodwill of the people of Queensland, those people who went to church every Sunday and put their 2 bob in the collection plate. At that time the Queensland Government did not support the mission station. There were about 4 government settlements in Queensland, namely Cherbourg, Woorabinda, Palm Island and Yarrabah. The Labor Government certainly did not give any financial support to the mission station; it was supported by the goodwill of the God fearing people of Queensland. Let us go back to look at the Labor Party's attitude towards Aborigines in 19SS during its term of office. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I hope the honourable senator would not use the question of Aborigines for political reasons. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER: -- I am talking about the attitude of the Australian Labor Party towards the Aboriginal people in 1955. At that time, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland - a Labor government Minister - referred in one of his statements in Canberra to the Aboriginal people of Queensland as the Queensland niggers. At that time, I as an Aborigine, and as many other Aborigines in Queensland, were referred to as niggers by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator Milliner: -- The Liberals used to belt them with a stirrup iron. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER: -- Yes. I remember living in Queensland when many people referred to Aborigines as niggers. I remember the time in Queensland under that regime when I was working on cattle stations and I had to eat my meals at the woodheap, when cattle station owners treated Aborigines with a stirrup iron. But this was under a Labor government. I find lt quite humorous that various members of the Australian Labor Party say they will do so much for Aborigines. As a matter of fact, I have seen the Labor Party policy in regard to Aborigines in Queensland. But I fail to find in it a statement that was made by a very prominent member of the Australian Labor Party in the other place. I am referring to **Dr Douglas** Everingham, the honourable member for Capricornia. In one of his statements, he gave his way to treat the Aborigines today and to overcome a lot of the problems that we face. I have the statement here. The statement was made by a man who in Queensland is regarded by the Aboriginal people as the knife man. He is called the knife man because he believes the only solution to the Aboriginal problem in Australia is sterilisation. I happen to be an Aborigine. **Dr Everingham** sits in the other place, and his policy for Aborigines in Queensland and for the Aborigines of Australia is that they should all be sterilised. I wonder why he advocates this kind of policy. Perhaps he is a little afraid because today the Aboriginal race has the fastest birth rate of any race of people in the world. I wonder whether the Labor Party is just a little bit afraid that perhaps the Aborigines might one day build up to such a stage that they will be too many in number for the Labor Party to be able to control and use for political purposes, such as they are using today. I feel quite sure in my own mind that I as an Aborigine could well fill all the galleries of this Parliament with young Aborigines and not so young Aborigines if I were inclined to use Aborigines for political purposes as I find the honourable senator from Queensland apparently is doing today. I wonder whether the honourable senator who was making such claims about Aborigines in Queensland remembers a particular case in that State in which he was going to show the Queensland Government, the Director and the administration on Palm Island exactly how to handle Aborigines. He took under his control and into his very very capable guiding hands a young Aboriginal woman who was creating quite a deal of trouble on Palm Island because of her misbehaviour. He said to the administration on Palm Island: 'You people do not know how to handle Aborigines'. He had her exactly 3 days and we have not seen the girl since. We do not know what happened to her. He was not able to help her. I am not creating a stir. I am quoting facts and figures. I live in Queensland and I am very sick and tired of people who would use the indigenous people of this country to further their own political ends. It is time that we started looking at this problem of the indigenous people. It is time that we started to look at our indigenous people as human beings who are entitled to the same opportunities and privileges as any other people in Australia. When we get down to the stage at which we use Aboriginal people for our political gain, I think it is time that we- {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator Milliner: -- Where is your evidence? {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER: -- On 9th March I sat here and listened in silence to a member of the Opposition, because I was shocked and disturbed at some of the allegations he made. But when I went home to my own State and started to investigate these things I found that he was far, far wrong. The honourable senator mentioned the names of people. But these people have denied what he has said in this House. I think it is time that he was shown up for the fake that he is. Thank you, **Mr Deputy President.** {: #subdebate-65-0-s2 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland -- It is indeed a very sad moment for me to have to reply to **Senator Bonner's** wild accusations and statements here this evening. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Rubbish. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Well, **Senator Webster,** we know your general attitudes towards Aborigines. I do not think that you would change them except for political purposes. **Senator Bonner** early in his contribution to this debate said that allegations made by me were unfounded and a fabrication in many respects. He went on to say that he was sick and tired of Aboriginal people being used for political gain. He said it was about time that he as an Aboriginal had something to say about matters that affect members of 'my race and my country'. These motives of **Senator Bonner,** I suppose, are probably reasonably pure, but I would like to know who wrote his notes for him. There are many Aborigines who refer to **Senator Bonner** as the Uncle Tom of his race. This, I think, is a tremendous disgrace, when he is the first member of the Aboriginal community to be elected to a Parliament in this country. I want to say for the benefit of **Senator Bonner** that never on any occasion have I made an allegation that was not founded on fact. I defy him through you, **Mr Deputy President,** to prove otherwise. We have known occasions - and this was not so many years ago and I am sure the honourable senator will remember - when he made public statements that the housing situation of Aborigines in Queensland was quite satisfactory. He made such statements although he knows and I know that Aboriginal people live in hovels or without a roof over their heads. He knows that the general administration on the reserves is carried out as a reign of terror. He knows that there is fear and that when black people come forward to make an accusation statements are made by white people in authority that build up a wall of fear. As a result Aborigines have to repudiate what they have said or they have to go quietly on. I thought it was significant that when **Senator Bonner** came into the Senate the Government Parties decided to sit him next to a Tasmanian. It was symbolic of something. This has been remarked on by many people. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- You have a filthy mind, have you not? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- There is no reflection on the Tasmanian, but it was probably only his ancestors who contributed to the decline of the Aboriginal people in that country. I do not think that the honourable senator from Tasmania is old enough to have been associated with it himself. But let us have a look at some of the things that **Senator Bonner** now says are untrue. Perhaps we might go through 2 or 3 different aspects. We will look at the Queensland department. We will look at the Premier of that State who always becomes very vocal when he is under attack. Also we will look at the Minister who has never been very vocal except in trying to defend himself. Further, we will look at the director who is seldom available to anyone. As **Senator Bonner** would know, there is a number of Aboriginal reserves scattered throughout Queensland. Only a few days ago I received a complaint from Yarrabal where an Aboriginal had been arrested for an alleged misdemeanour. This man had his hands handcuffed behind his back and then was viciously assaulted. If **Senator Bonner** thinks that is the justice to which his people are entitled, I do not. He would know, too, that there has been an arrangement made there allegedly with the consent of the Minister and the director - and this information has come in in the last few days - to allow people who wanted to farm their own small areas of land to do so. He will know that there is a white official on this reserve who is now forbidden. In regard to the allegation of certain things that happened in 1955, I -refer **Senator** Bonner to a letter that was written to the Courier-Mail' only a few days ago and published, as far as I could find out, in toto. It concerned a lass who was a former resident of Doomadgee who backed up all the statements I made here on 9th March. I wonder why it has taken **Senator Bonner** from 9th March to 22nd March to find out that his people or that he himself had been aggrieved. I told **Senator Bonner** when he entered this Parliament that I would not get involved in arguments with him until he settled into this place. I am amazed that he made this malicious, stupid and childish attack tonight, defending the white people and acting on behalf of the white people and not on behalf of his people at all. The honourable senator is defending the white administration of the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland. For an Aboriginal to do that must be about as low as you can get in politics. Let me say that since **Senator Bonner** has been in this House he has made a maiden speech in which he asked for a tariff to be applied to boomerangs. An American in New South Wales is making more boomerangs and more money out of them than is any Aboriginal. I think this is unfortunate. In his first question **Senator Bonner** asked about a storm at Tin Tin. I do not know what that had to do with the Aboriginal problem. On the second occasion, he asked about an Aboriginal problem in the Northern Territory. He had read about it in a newspaper. But he has not said a thing about Queensland. In fact, the only thing that **Senator Bonner** has said about Aboriginals in Queensland was on the occasion when he asked whether some money could be diverted for the Torres Strait Islanders to spear the Crown of Thorns. That is the only time on which he has ever made reference to Aboriginals in Queensland. The honourable senator made a brief reference concerning Aborigines before the rising of the last Parliament It was one of the shortest speeches he has ever made. I think he made one speech on social services. I know for a positive fact that there are Aboriginals who are sending letters to **Senator Bonner** in which they are saying: Stand up and fight for us*. But they are not even getting replies to the letters they have sent to him. These people have not even received acknowledgements. I know that **Senator Bonner** was requested to ask a question because that question has now been referred to me. The question was given to him to ask in this chamber by Aborigines a few days ago. I think that this was about a fortnight ago. **Senator Bonner** has not asked that question yet. I have now been given the question to ask on behalf of Aborigines who want to know what their rights are in this community. I think it is one of the great tragedies of life that a man who has been appointed to this Senate, as is the case with **Senator Bonner,** to defend the rights of his people now demonstrates that the only speech that he can make in respect of Aborigines is one that attacks somebody who is aligned with the Aboriginal cause. The great bulk of the speech delivered by **Senator Bonner** was directed at defending a bunch of white people in the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland who have been kicking Aboriginals to their mental death for so many years that it does not matter. The reference to 1955, as I mentioned a moment ago, is an interesting one. I would suggest to **Senator Bonner** that he should keep up with his reading of newspaper reports because, since that statement was made by the Premier, the Premier has no longer pursued that date; the date was incorrect. **Senator Bonner** spoke about Palm Island. If I was associated with some of the statements that **Senator Bonner** has been making about Palm Island not only would I be ashamed of myself as an Aboriginal but also would I be equally ashamed of myself as a white man. **Senator Bonner** went to Palm Island after the recent cyclone had caused tremendous damage to homes and property there. He came away and said that everything was all right, that the people were comfortable and that they did not need anything. It was some days later before I arrived there. I had assumed that as the responsible Queensland Minister had been there, the Director of the Department had been there and **Senator Bonner** had been there no necessity would arise to look after the interests of the people on Palm Island. I found that their sole fresh fruit supply was 2 green pineapples and 2 dozen green oranges. The Aboriginal children on that settlement had not seen fresh milk for 3 weeks. What did **Senator Bonner** do about this situation? He celebrated at a $300 luncheon with the Mayor of Townsville and the Governor of Queensland. He did that at a time when people were crying out for money to rebuild homes and to provide food and clothing. **Senator Bonner** was one of a small group of elite people who frittered away the money of local taxpayers by wining and dining in the Townsville area in the middle of the cyclone crisis. Some islanders came to see me a month after **Senator Bonner** had been to Palm Island. He had promised to have their roofs repaired. They said: 'We have been waiting for **Senator Bonner.** He promised that tarpaulins would be provided for us the day after his visit'. A month later, they were still waiting for **Senator Bonner.** In fact, he did not do anything in that regard either. Let us look at the matter this way: **Senator Bonner** is in this chamber and he is bound by the policies of the Liberal Party. The general policy of the Liberal Party is not to grant tribal land rights to any Aborigine in this country. The policy is not to grant sufficient cash to see that the conditions of Aborigines are improved; it is not to see that the infant mortality rate is reduced. The infant mortality rate of Aborigines in this country is higher than the infant mortality rate of any other coloured race anywhere in the world. **Senator Bonner,** his Party and his Government ought to be ashamed of that fact. I think that there are a couple of other things that ought to be known about the scene in Queensland. There are unemployed people on Palm Island who cannot receive unemployment benefits. The breadwinners there receive no more than half the basic wage. But **Senator Bonner** thinks that this is sufficient to keep them in comfort. It is a very primitive form of comfort indeed. They would be better off under the tribal system where at least they would have plenty of natural food including fruit and nuts to collect as well as game. Perhaps their state of health would be better. **Senator Bonner** knows and I know of a question that I asked here a few weeks ago concerning the number of homes, occupied by Aborigines and islanders, connected to the septic system on Palm Island. The number was so small that it did not matter. A survey was carried out in this area and white authority decided that a black man needed 24 gallons of water a day but that the daily need of a white man was more than 120 gallons. When septic systems were put in, they were connected to the white house in the same way as the Jardine River water supply was connected to the white houses on the Bamaga settlement. This is just not good enough. It should not be the role of the Opposition to expose matters of this sort. People such as **Senator Bonner** should have enough interest in their own race and enough desire to do something about such a matter that they expose it themselves. But **Senator Bonner** is not prepared to do this. The black people of Queensland, if not of Australia, have given him away as being as they say 'the Uncle Tom of our race'. This argument on Aboriginal rights will go on in this Parliament whilever this Government is in power because it is only the Australian Labor Party which has a reasonable policy and which can implement it in a reasonable way to give to Aborigines the status of human beings. Until 1967, Aborigines were not counted as human beings. Yet the people of this country by an overwhelming majority carried a referendum in that year which gave the Commonwealth Parliament the right if necessary to step into a State on this matter. But what did we see? The former Prime Minister, **Mr Gorton,** made some attempt to remove or to persuade the Queensland Government to remove its discriminatory laws against Aborigines. Immediately after his election, the new Prime Minister, **Mr McMahon,** flew to Brisbane and conversed with **Mr BjelkePetersen,** the Premier of that State. They brought down an agreement that was very similar to the agreement that was reached between Ian Smith of Rhodesia and **Mr Heath,** the Prime Minister of Great Britain. In other words, the agreements reached between these people in their spheres were exactly the same. Their purpose was to keep down the black people. **Senator Bonner** is quite happy with that arrangement. Why he wants to be kept down, I do not know. He is in the national Parliament of this country where he can speak out not only for his people but also for all people. It grieves me very much to have this confrontation with **Senator Bonner.** I wanted to avoid it during the whole, of our respective parliamentary careers. But he has repudiated his race. Somebody on this side of the Senate has to stick up for the Aborigines and I am proud to be able to do that. If I were in **Senator Bonner's** position, I would resign from this Parliament tonight particularly after the allegations that he has made on behalf of the white administration, the hill-billy government, in my State, of Queensland. That is precisely what he has done. He has defended that Government right down to the last bit. When your statement is read in the Press tomorrow, **Senator Bonner,** every black person in Australia will be ashamed of your attitude. They will say: He has repudiated us, the people whom he was going to defend'. I would strongly suggest that before **Senator Bonner** enters into any debate on this subject he should confer with his own people to see what their requirements are because as far as 1 am concerned- {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- What about replying to the charge that **Senator Bonner** made against you. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Oh, I know of your Aboriginal ancestry, **Senator Webster,** but for heavens sake, why don't you get up and defend- {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- What about replying to the charges that he made against you? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- You should defend the rights of these people instead of defending some of the interests which you have defended in this chamber. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- What about replying to the. charge that **Senator Bonner** made against you. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Some people babble on and on. They sound like a broken down- The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke)** - Order! {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- You could not reply to the truth. You would not know it if you saw it. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Would you like to make a speech? {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- I would like you to reply to the charge made against you by **Senator Bonner** and hot go on with all this guff. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- If **Senator Webster** is worried I would suggest that I have made a very good reply to the stupid allegations made by **Senator Bonner.** I conclude on this note: I think that we should never have an argument of this nature again. The responsibility of every well-meaning Australian, black or white, is to raise the status of every Australian, black or white, to the highest possible standard. We must make sure that every family in this country, black or white, has a decent home in which to live. We must make sure that every person in this country, black or white, has a job and a standard of wage that will keep that person and that person's family in comfort. We wish to see a standard of education available to all members of our community regardless of whether they are black or white. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- Why did the Labor Government not do that in Queensland when it was in power? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Send a note across. I cannot understand **Senator Bonner.** He must not babble into the microphone. He will ruin it. Let him send me a note. In Australia we have the highest infant mortality rate of any country in the Western world, the highest of any coloured race anywhere, and if we do not do something about it we will be looked upon as sadists throughout the whole world. In these fields of medicine, education, housing and employment every Australian must set a standard and live to that standard. That standard must not be based on colour or anything else. So far as the Queensland scene is concerned, I shall not rest content until the Premier has gone, the Minis er responsible for the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs has gone, the Director of the Department has gone and the people in the Department who carry out the Director's orders have gone. I appreciate that there are many fine people in that Department, but I want to see all those people whom I have mentioned sacked and disposed of because of the inhuman way they have acted towards the Aborigines who have been herded onto reserves. **Senator Bonner** should remember that about 30,000 people are still living under inhuman legislation which restricts personal liberties and freedom. If the honourable senator is happy with that situation I should like him to know that there are at least 29,000 other Aborigines in Queensland who are not happy with it. He would stand alone in his defence of the Queensland Act. I hope that occasions such as we have witnessed here tonight never arise again and that we have no repetition of this confrontation in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- **Mr Acting Deputy President,** I wish to make a personal explanation. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke)-** Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- Yes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The honourable senator may proceed. **Senator BONNER** (Queensland)- I have been misquoted by **Senator Keeffe** in that he said I represented the Aboriginal community of Queensland. I am shocked to learn that **Senator Keeffe** does not understand that a senator is elected to represent the people of his State, black or white. In the great number of words that **Senator Keeffe** used, although I could not make much sense out of much that he said, he never at any time, during the whole time he was on his feet, gave an explanation why he made such allegations. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I rise to order. **Senator Bonner** has spoken in the debate on the motion for the adjournment. I acknowledge his right to make a personal explanation where he claims to have been misrepresented, but I do not acknowledge his right to have a second go in the debate. I suggest that the honourable senator may refer to any statement by **Senator Keeffe** in which he claims he was misrepresented and that he may make a denial, but under Standing Orders that is as far as he can go. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - **Senator Bonner** must confine himself to a personal explanation at this stage. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER: -- I was misrepresented by **Senator Keeffe** when he claimed that in this Parliament I represent the Aboriginal people of Queensland and the Aboriginal people of Australia. I acknowledge my responsibilities to the Aboriginal people of Queensland and to the Aboriginal people of Australia as a whole, but at the same time I hope that I will never lose sight of the fact that I represent all the people of Queensland. I also hope that I may make a contribution to the well-being of all people in this nation in which we live. {: #subdebate-65-0-s3 .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER:
Queensland -- I am sorry that this matter has been raised in such a way as to indicate to many people that there may be disagreement among the people of Australia on the way in which Aborigines should be regarded. I shall not address myself to the allegations that were made by **Senator Keeffe** or to the way in which **Senator Bonner** refuted those statements. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- You are like **Senator Keeffe.** {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- We hear again from 'The Silence of Dean Maitland'. Time alone will tell what is the actual situation concerning the incidents referred to by **Senator Keeffe** in his statements to the Senate Committee. I say with . all the authority that I can command that if **Senator Keeffe** believed that the information he received was accurate it was his responsibility to make that information known. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- To check it. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- Now the Democratic Labor Party is suggesting that the information should have been checked, but if he knew where the Aboriginal centre was in Queensland the DLP **Senator would** not make that suggestion. I repeat that if **Senator Keeffe** received information which he believed, he was justified in making those accusations to the people concerned. Time alone will tell whether the accusations made by **Senator Keeffe** are correct or whether the account given by the manager of the mission referred to is correct. I leave the matter at that point. The matter to which I object is that **Senator Bonner,** obviously at the behest of several members of the Liberal Parly, has raised this matter as a political issue. It appears to me significant that we were scheduled to adjourn tonight at 11 p.m., but that at 10.15 p.m. the motion for the adjournment was moved. We are entitled to be a little suspicious and to suspect that the adjournment motion was moved to enable **Senator Bonner** to speak in time to catch the morning papers. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- No, **Senator Douglas** McClelland was the first to speak. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- I am fully aware that **Senator Douglas** McClelland spoke first, but what does that prove? {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- The Government moved the adjournment so that **Senator Douglas** McClelland could speak. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- That does not alter the fact that the Senate was scheduled to sit until 11 p.m. and that the motion for the adjournment was moved at about 10.15 p.m. The fact that **Senator Douglas** McClelland spoke does not alter that. We are entitled to believe that there were suspicious circumstances associated with the adjournment motion being moved at that time. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- Why did your Leader agree to the moving of the adjournment at the earlier bour? {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- The Assistant Minister who is not allowed to speak is now entering the debate. He is not allowed even to answer questions, so he should not interject either. A further point is that **Senator Bonner** suggested that we were turning the lives of Aborigines into a political football. I suggest that if **Senator Bonner** was fair he would at least have warned **Senator Keeffe** that he intended to speak along these lines tonight. It is a common courtesy to extend this warning, but **Senator Bonner** is new to the Senate, as I am, and perhaps he can be excused for not realising that it is a matter of common courtesy to give the warning. But do not tell me that other members of the Liberal Party who knew that **Senator Bonner** intended to raise this matter tonight were not aware of their responsibility to advise him that he should warn **Senator Keeffe** of what he intended to say. The AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Greenwood),** in his inimitable cynical manner, grins when . statements of that nature are made. We are becoming so accustomed to this from the Attorney-General. All he is doing is denigrating his position as Attorney-General. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Rubbish. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- They are the facts and they are irrefutable. The point that I object to even more strongly is that **Senator Bonner** should bring **Dr Everingham^** name into this debate tonight. For the information of **Senator Bonner** and all other honourable senators I say that I personally have been on the Woorabinda Mission in Queensland with **Dr Everingham.** He was the first person to raise the fact that there was a higher infant mortality rate on Woorabinda than in Queensland or, indeed, in Australia. Surely the world should not be informed maliciously and falsely that a man of his standing in the community plays Aborigines off as political issues. I refute that statement completely. If **Senator Bonner** were to go to Rockhampton and make that statement, the people of Rockhampton would run him out of town. Those are the objections which I take. I believe it is unfair and wrong that **Senator Bonner** should introduce into the debate something about **Dr Everingham.** I repeat that I know of noone in Queensland who has done more for the Aborigines than has **Dr Everingham.** **Senator Bonner** has referred to the fact that **Dr Everingham** is alleged to have said that the Aborigines should be sterilised. What **Senator Bonner** has failed to make the Senate aware of tonight is that that report appeared in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin' and the next day **Dr Everingham** wrote a letter to the newspaper stating that the statement was completely wrong and that he had been misreported. The other night we heard the Attorney-General complain about what he believed was misreporting by a Melbourne daily newspaper. He was entitled to do that. Surely **Senator Bonner** was entitled to and should have been responsible for making known the fact that **Dr Everingham** denied completely the story which was presented in the first instance in that newspaper. It is wrong to accuse **Senator Keeffe** and **Dr Everingham** of making the Aboriginal situation a political issue. If we are to be accused of that, then I suggest to **Senator Bonner** that he go to his ex-Prime Minister and tell him that he, the ex-Prime Minister, was trying to make the lives of the Aborigines a political issue. It was **Mr Gorton** who said that unless the Queensland Government removed from its statute book some of the discriminatory laws against Aborigines he, as Prime Minister, would be forced to come into the issue and see that those discriminatory provisions were removed. If we are to be accused of making a political issue when we stand up in defence of the Aborigines, then I say that the ex-Prime Minister has also to be accused because what he has said is on record. If anybody in this chamber tonight had done as much to advance the interests of the Aborigines - particularly those of Queensland - as had **Senator Keeffe** and **Dr Everingham,** then the lives of the Aborigines in this Commonwealth would be much better than they are today. {: #subdebate-65-0-s4 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · Victoria · LP -- **Senator Douglas** McClelland rose during the adjournment debate to draw attention to the problem faced by animated movie makers in Australia who were experiencing difficulties as a result of a very large American concern establishing itself in this country. He said that because of size, greater opportunities and a willingness to pay higher wages the American company was imperilling the existence of a pioneer firm in this country which had been in existence for about 30 years. I am sure that everyone would feel a great deal of sympathy for the firm which is threatened in the way in which **Senator Douglas** McClelland outlined. I think that he did not seek to minimise the difficulties in determining what sort of action could or should be taken in these circumstances. I must say that not only does it pose the problems which are involved in establishing a viable film industry in this country but dso it shows some of the problems which are involved when there is an influx of large overseas, highly capitalised concerns into this country. For my part I shall give consideration to the matters which the honourable senator raised. I shall also direct the attention of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts **(Mr Howson),** whom I represent, to the matter to see whether anything can be done on a basis which acknowledges the rights of people to move to better jobs and, at the same time, to avail themselves of opportunities to establish businesses in this country. I feel that the Senate should come back to the point which **Senator Bonner** raised. He referred to what **Senator Keeffe** had said during the adjournment debate in this chamber on 9th March, and, he indicated that as a result of his inquiries he had found that certain statements made by **Senator Keeffe** were incorrect. **Senator Bonner** stated his dismay at that fact because wide publicity was given to the statements made by **Senator Keeffe. Senator Bonner** said - I think he indicated the way in which he believed the truth of what he. was saying - that some people in the Australian Labor Party were using the Aboriginal people for political gain. **Senator Bonner,** because of his race, objected to the way in which these people were being used. That was a natural reaction. It was sustained by statements which required rebuttal, if they could be rebutted, or some acknowledgment as to why the falsities were made in the first place. I regret that **Senator Keeffe** has not chosen to refer in any way to the matters which **Senator Bonner** has raised. I was present in the chamber when **Senator Keeffe** made his initial statements on 9th March. By the time I had risen to speak he had left the chamber. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- He is not here tonight. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- Whether there might be some valid reason for his leaving tonight I do not know. He did not initiate the debate. But on the night on which he initiated the debate he was concerned to make his statement - it appeared to me. to be a prepared statement - and having made it he left the chamber. I think that in itself is some indication mat he was less concerned on mat night to obtain some reaction from the Minister and more concerned to make all the publicity he could out of the issues he had raised. I think it is important for us to look at what **Senator Keeffe** has said and then to refer to what **Senator Bonner** has said. **Senator Keeffe** did not hesitate to make a lot of allegations of a sweeping character wholly condemnatory of the persons whom he suggested should be removed from their position. He referred to a girl who had been punished for allegedly wearing her skirt at a length shorter than that acceptable to the superintendent of the Doomadgee Mission in the Gulf of Carpentaria area. He went on to state: . . the girl was picked up in Mount Isa by the district representive of the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs and was taken to his office for interrogation. As 1 understand the position, the girl is still under the Act. The obvious end result will be that she will be punished by the Department or she will be returned to the Mission for punishment. **Senator Keeffe,** with a flourish, said: >This will happen over my dead body and over the dead bodies of all her friends. This gives a lie to what the Superintendent said in the early stages ... 1 understand that when the alleged offence was committed the girl wrote to the Director and complained about the treatment that had been meted out to her. He mentioned her name at a later stage and said: >Not only has the girl - mentioning her name - > >. been unfairly treated, but there are dozens of others, both boys and girls, who also have been subjected to punishment of a kind which should not be meted out to any human being. That is a statement which, I imagine, could not have been made in the detail in which it was made unless some statement or background was there to sustain it. What **Senator Bonner** said tonight was that that statement was untrue. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Only insofar as the girl was aged 29 years. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- Yes, that the girl who was mentioned - her name is in Hansard and **Senator Bonner** said that he had a statement from her - is not a girl; she is aged 29 years. Also she denies - this has been in the newspapers too- that there has been any punishment of herself or anybody else for wearing a mini skirt of a certain length. All I say is that **Senator Bonner** made the statement that what **Senator Keeffe** had said was untrue and said that he had a statement from this girl. I say that the girl has publicly denied the statement which has been made. Why did not **Senator Keeffe,** when he rose with all his bluster, refer to the allegation which he had made originally and the truth of which **Senator Bonner** had categorically challenged him to assert? He dodged the issue. I venture to say that what he did was to adopt a Goebbels-like technique, namely, that if one can throw in something more and so cover the scene possibly the original statement will be able to be sustained without any regard to what has been said subsequently in denial of it. That, to me, is the point of which we should not lose sight. It is what **Senator Keeffe,** by the way in which he engaged in a host of cheap sneers at **Senator Bonner,** was seeking to do. It is also what **Senator Milliner** sought to do by his reference to other matters. They sought to skate over the crucial issues which were raised, which naturally are of concern to **Senator Bonner** and which ought to be of concern to every honourable senator. Are we to have this chamber used, as we have seen it used not infrequently in the past, as a place in which statements are made which are untrue, in which a lot of epithets are thrown about which cannot be justified and in which, when an issue of fact may be involved, people just dodge seeking to justify their statements when they are challenged and when it is said, for example: There is a statement by the person in which she denies entirely what you said'? Those allegations which **Senator Bonner** made tonight have not been denied by **Senator Keeffe.** He has dodged the issue. I wonder whether he will ever let the Senate know where his information came from, whether he checked his information and whether it is anything more than a fabrication of what he would like to be the story that he would tell rather than She truth of what did occur. Then we have the other allegation that is made. **Senator Keeffe** said on the night of 9th March: >The food served to people on. the mission has improved in recent months. Previously the standard of meals was such that for breakfast they were served boiled wheat complete with weevils and maggots, and the other meals were largely comprised of bread with treacle or dripping, or sweet potatoes and green peas, and sometimes pumpkin and meat was served. That, I am sure, is a statement which is made by a person who has been given information and obviously is delivering himself from notes or a prepared statement. But **Senator Bonner** said that that was an incident that occurred in 19SS. Did **Senator Keeffe** seek to challenge that proposition? {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Yes, he did. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- As I understand it, he did not. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- You could not have been listening. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I listened carefully to **Senator Keeffe.** I know that he referred to something that the Premier of Queensland, **Mr Bjelke-Petersen,** had said with regard to that and that he challenged and denied the truth of what **Mr BjelkePetersen** had said. But I did not understand him to deny that this incident had happened in 19SS. All I say is: If it did not happen in 1955, when did it happen? Is it something that happened recently? **Senator Bonner** has said that this did happen in times past. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- What about the allegations against **Dr Everingham** by **Senator Bonner?** {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- We shall come to that in due course. All I say is that there is a matter for concern in the use of this chamber as **Senator Keeffe** used it. Without giving any notice to the Minister concerned as to the general character of the allegations he was making, he used it as a forum for the publicity that is obtained with respect to allegations the verification of which is not given and, when they are challenged subsequently, he does not choose to indicate whether he is able to sustain them or whether the statement that be made was true. I deplore also the way in which this occasion was used by **Senator Keeffe** to engage in what I would describe as a dastardly personal attack on **Senator Bonner.** lt is not debate simply to hurl abuse at a person who puts up a point of view which one does not like. Yet **Senator Bonner** had to sit here tonight and have it said of him that he was a person who was not speaking on behalf of his own people. We know **Senator Bonner.** We heard him tonight. I say that it is not only hurtful but dastardly to say of him that he was not speaking on behalf of his own people. Naturally he was speaking on behalf of the Aboriginal people in Australia and the people in Queensland whom he represents. He was speaking with feeling because he saw that the people of his own race were being used for political purposes; and all he gets in return is an attack of a character which is basically personal and which suggests that he is not really speaking on behalf of his own people. Was it relevant to suggest, without any indication of facts or material to back it up, that he has never done anything on behalf of the Aboriginal people since he came into the Senate? Is it fair to say that he has never made a reference to them when we know as a fact that that is not true? It is simply the sort of personal attack which gets headlines and is meant to hurt. Presumably it does hurt. But it is sufficient if other people are prepared to stand up and indicate that it is not regarded as the truth by those who have heard it. **Senator Keeffe** asked why **Senator Bonner** left it until 22nd March to raise this matter when he, **Senator Keeffe,** made his statement on 9th March. **Senator Keeffe** well knows that 9th March was the last night on which the Senate sat and that this is the second sitting day since the statement was made. It is not unreasonable to raise the matter at this time. Then there is the point with regard to **Dr Everingham** which was taken by **Senator Milliner.** I do not know why **Senator Milliner** chose to come to the defence of **Dr Everingham.** The reference to him was made in the course of a statement by **Senator Bonner.** I have here a copy of a letter that was published in the 'CourierMail' of 24th February 1969. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- What newspaper was that? {: #subdebate-65-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The 'Courier-Mail'. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- Thank you, **Mr President.** The letter bears as the signature the name: 'D. Everingham, M.B.B.S., Federal Member for Capricornia'. I will read out the relevant parts of the letter. They are as follows: >I agree, however, that the Aboriginal birthrate is excessive. > >This is a problem of cultural deprivation, and all 'Aboriginal' or 'racial' problems are essentially this problem. > >The main stream of society has passed them by and they cannot catch up unaided. > >There are 2 ways to limit excessive birth. > >One is by free sterilising operations which I advocate, but this wilt take slow effect unless also positive education is done with colour films and tv advertisements as powerful as those used to promote patent foods, drugs,, alcohol and smokes, petrol and detergents. **Dr Everingham** wrote another letter in response to the controversy which arose after that letter was published. The 'CourierMail' on 10th March 1969 published another letter which he wrote. The letter reads: >My statement on cultural deprivation has been disembowelled, twisted and mutilated . . . > >Free family planning facilities for those who have large families and cannot decently care for them. > >This includes a trivial operation, not veterinary castration but surgical sterilisation, which does not change sexual feelings or temperament > >In those who cannot be bothered with pills and other conscious family limitation, it is cheap, sure, safe and (if desired) permanent. This I would advocate for anyone, not just for the culturally depressed. > >I have not suggested forcing anyone to have this, but only to make it free to those who ask for it, when it is clearly in the community interest not to have multitudes of problem families. I would think that that statement sets out fairly **Dr Everingham's** position. **Senator Bonner** said nothing more than that **Dr Everingham** had advocated sterilisation. **Senator Milliner** denied that **Dr Everingham** suggested that. The record will bear that out. The only reason why I quoted from the letters was that the statement was made that **Senator Bonner's** allegation was totally false. The record indicates that it was not. I come back to the point that if false statements are made by members of the Australian Labor Party and if those statements can be nailed and proved to be false, I believe that every member on the Government side owes it to the Australian community to nail them when he can. Fortunately on this issue **Senator Bonner** has been able to nail as false some of the statements which have been made. In the light of what the record disclosed about what **Dr Everingham** said, another allegation which was made tonight has been nailed. The Senate should be indebted to **Senator Bonner** for having raised these matters in the way in which he did. The Senate should regret that what he said has not been answered by members of the Opposition who have merely sought to cover up what he said by hurling abuse at him. {: #subdebate-65-0-s6 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I find it necessary to enter into the debate because of what has been said. I agree heartily with the concluding remarks of the Attorney-General **(Senator Greenwood)** that if untruths are told they should be nailed and the people of Australia should know. I think we should go to some trouble to find the whole truth of the matter. I do not think that to rely upon an unretentive memory, as the AttorneyGeneral did, is the answer. I do not think that what **Senator Bonner** said could be construed as nailing alleged lies that **Senator Keeffe** has told. If we analyse **Senator Bonner's** speech - a study of Hansard tomorrow will show this - he supported **Senator Keeffe's** accusation. **Senator Keeffe** was not in the chamber when the motion for the adjournment of the Senate was proposed, which is unusual for him, but we must remember that the motion was proposed three-quarters of an hour before the time it is usually proposed on a Wednesday. It was proposed at a time when the Press Gallery was full. The journalists would have had time to file a report for inclusion in tomorrow morning's papers. **Senator Bonner** walked in the door and was directed to his seat by the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Kenneth Anderson).** If one had a suspicious mind one would think that the proposing of the motion three-quarters of an hour early was for the purpose of enabling the Senator's speech to be included in the papers tomorrow because he has to face the electors in November this year. As **Senator Keeffe** was not in the Senate when **Senator Bonner** commenced speaking I doubt whether he knew that the accusation about the mini-skirted girl was denied by **Senator Bonner.** I doubt that **Senator Keeffe** know that the maggotty food incident was denied by **Senator Bonner.** It is interesting to note that when **Senator Keeffe** walked into the Senate the public gallery was full of Aborigines, half castes or people of some degree of colour. When **Senator Keeffe** left the chamber and when the AttorneyGeneral rose to speak the Aborigines left the gallery. If a member were to ask how this happened, obviously the answer would be that they were supporters of **Senator Keeffe's.** They accept **Senator Keeffe** as a better representative of their race than **Senator Bonner.** I think it is quite possible that **Senator Keeffe** was not in the chamber at the time because he was interviewing these people. He is the man who is representing the Aborigines. I would be remiss in my responsibility if I did not congratulate **Senator Keeffe** on his great defence of coloured Australians, when compared with the attack made on him by one of their race in defence of the white man's treatment of Aborigines in Queensland. **Senator Keeffe,** who may not have known of the denial, stated that the miniskirted woman was sent from the mission station, I think by the inspector, because of her short skirt. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- She was a 29-year old woman. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- **Senator Keeffe** said that she was a girl. That was one of the complaints. **Senator Bonner** denied this. He said that the girl was 29 years of age. Therefore, in his mind, that makes a liar of **Senator Keeffe.** The person reciting the incident could well depend upon the appearance of the female in stating whether she was a girl or a woman. I think it is nattering to say that a female of 29 or 30 is a girl. **Senator Greenwood,** with his legal training, should know that a judge does not exclude the evidence of a witness because of certain discrepancies in that evidence. We admit that if there is a difference between a girl and a woman of 29 there is a possible discrepancy in **Senator Keeffe's** argument, and that is one score for **Senator Bonner.** On this occasion it was a matter of the use of an expression. **Senator Bonner** said that she was sent from the station because of the wrath of her people. That supports the statement that she found it necessary to leave because of the cultural and spiritual background of her people. They did not like to see a girl in a mini skirt. She did leave. Whether she was sent by the administrator or by her people, the girl was driven from that location because she wore a mini skirt. The Senate should be inquiring into the matter to ascertain who is responsible for sending her from the mission. Possibly **Senator Keeffe's** accusation is right. There is no evidence that it was her people who sent her from the mission. I think that in the next day or so this will be denied by those in authority at the mission. The other allegation which **Senator Greenwood** said was proved to be a lie related to maggots in the tucker. **Senator Bonner** did not deny that this happened but he used the occasion to make an attack on **Senator Gair** who may face election at the same time as he does. That matter related to the State Government of 1955. It did so happen that they had maggot ridden food and **Senator Keeffe** says that this is still happening today. The greatest accusation made by **Senator Bonner** was that **Senator Keeffe** would use the Aboriginal people for political gains. **Senator Keeffe** gets a lot of political gains from championing the cause of the Aboriginal people. That is the reason why **Senator Bonner** will not be elected next November. Although he claims to represent the people of Queensland he has stood before the people only on one occasion and at that time he was rejected. He, is here in the Senate as a Government appointment. The people of Queensland have not accepted him. He needs a bodyguard to protect him from his own race in Queensland. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- People coached by people like you - people like you who lean to communism. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- **Mr President,** I object to that remark by **Senator Bonner.** He is accusing a member of this Senate of being a communist. I ask that the remark be withdrawn. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- I rise to a point of order. That is not what **Senator Bonner** said. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The Clerk will take down the words used by **Senator Bonner.** Will you repeat them, **Senator Bonner?** {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- **Mr President,** I said: People like you who lean to communism'. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- I ask that that remark be withdrawn. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Cavanagh,** do you consider the words to be personally offensive? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- No. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- **Mr President,** they are offensive to me. This is an example of what happened just recently when certain words were used and the person concerned did not take offence to them but other persons in this chamber did and they subsequently caused the withdrawal of the remark. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Bonner,** from my long experience in the Senate 1 consider that the words were injudicious and I would be grateful if you would do me the honour of withdrawing them. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- **Mr President,** in view of what you have said I do withdraw the remark. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- Whatever leaning I may have in that direction, **Mr President,** does not necessitate police protection for me. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- What about- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Poyser,** you have had a guernsey and I do not want any more interruptions from you. **Senator Cavanagh** has been here for many years and is perfectly able to make his own contribution without encouragement from you. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- The accusation was made that **Senator Keeffe** uses the Aboriginal people for the purpose of political gain. I said that he does make political gains from championing their cause. What was the purpose of bringing **Dr Everingham** into this debate tonight? An honourable senator stood here tonight and appealed to our sincerity to correct a wrong that allegedly had been caused by **Senator Keeffe.** If the purpose was to correct a wrong, what was the purpose of bringing in the name of **Dr Everingham** who is a well known spokesman for the Labor Party on matters affecting the Aboriginal people. There could be no other purpose than that the accuser wanted to do the very thing about which he was accusing someone else. The whole purpose was to discredit the Labor Party's treatment of Aborigines and to suggest that he was doing more for them and their protection. What a fallacy. What hypocrisy on the part of this man who dares to get up and accuse someone else. Possibly **Senator Keeffe** did not reply to the particular question, but in no uncertain terms he left noone unconvinced that he was championing the cause of the Aborigines in Queensland and the Torres Strait Islands. Possibly they never have had a better champion of their cause. I would say to both **Senator Bonner** and **Senator Keeffe** that as they walk into the Parliamentary Library they will find on the racks on the left hand side copies of the Cairns 'Post'. In a copy of that newspaper they will find a report about the outbreak of hepatitis in a town called Edmonton. Among the causes of that outbreak is the fact that 27 Aborigines are living in 2 rooms. Let us forget about who makes political capital out of this matter. This is a bad case which requires some action to be taken in the interests of these people whom both honourable senators claim to represent. Both of them put up a case tonight. I say to them: 'Get to it, one of you, and do something about the dastardly conditions under which these people are living. The lives of their children are being sacrificed. For God's sake, do something about it and forget about the political gains. You are cheaply trying to use this chamber. Help the people you claim to represent'. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.46 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 March 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720322_senate_27_s51/>.