Senate
16 August 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 47

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I ask: What are the reasons for the Commonwealth Railways delaying the letting of the contract for the supply of 20,000 concrete sleepers for use in the Commonwealth railway track between Port Pirie and Port Augusta? Is the Minister aware that tenders for this contract were called last April? Is he also aware that the recent closure of the concrete sleeper factory at Whyalla through lack of orders has resulted in 20 men losing their employment and that another 20 men have suffered a similar fate in the David Shearers foundry at Mannum? If the letting of this contract is to be further delayed, will the Minister make provision to allow the South Australian Government and the Cement and Concrete Association of Australia to put further submissions before the Department of Shipping and Transport?

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

– Before I came into the Chamber the Department of Shipping and Transport sent me some information which may help the honourable senator, and to the extent that it does I shall give it to him now. If more information is required I will see that it is obtained for him. The managing director of the company that makes the concrete sleepers has written to the Prime Minister who is apparently looking at this matter, as is the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I am informed that a study is being undertaken by the Bureau of Transport Economics of the relative merits of the cost of concrete and timber sleepers but that it is not yet complete. The Minister for Shipping and Transport expects that it will be completed and given to him very shortly. However, pending completion of that evaluation the Minister has taken steps to ensure that no contracts for sleepers for the Commonwealth Railways will be let without his approval. In the circumstances his problem is that he cannot really give consideration to letting the final contract for concrete sleepers until he has the total report. It may be that we will need to get more information for the honourable senator. We will do that if we can.

page 47

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Does the Government plan to heed the recent statements by the New South Wales Governor, Sir Roden Cutler, V.C., when he questioned the need for conscription? Will the Government recognise that Sir Roden was speaking for the great majority of Australians who believe that it is time to scrap the National Service Act and release from prison the young men who have courageously defied it?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– In answer to the honourable senator’s question: Out of respect for the office that Sir Roden Cutler, V.C., holds, I abstain from any comment whatsoever in a political forum.

page 47

QUESTION

RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask him whether the Government condones the making of a retail price maintenance agreement between private business houses and government-owned trading instrumentalities. I also ask: When is the making of a retail price maintenance agreement in the public interest?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– The Government’s policy with regard to resale price maintenance has been made explicitly clear by the amendments which were made to the Trade Practices Act in early 1971. Those amendments were passed by this chamber, as I understand it, with enthusiastic endorsement. The proposals make the practice of resale price maintenance unlawful. Means are provided by which persons who are subjected to this unlawful practice can obtain injunction from the court or, in appropriate cases, can obtain damages. That is the policy of the Government with regard to this matter, and it is clear. If the honourable senator has a particular question, I suggest that he provide me with the details and I will give him the best answer I can. I am sure he will appreciate that the somewhat hypothetical situation which he gives to me te not easy to answer without having more detail added to it.

page 48

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question, likewise, is directed to the Attorney-General. ls it a fact that members of the Commonwealth Police Force kept the home of an Australian Labor Party Federal Executive member, Mr Bill Hartley, in Ryans Road, Eltham, under surveillance on the night of 3rd-4th June? is it a fact that police manning one of the 2 cars involved subsequently chased a car occupied by 2 guests, Mr and Mrs Eric McLean, for approximately 5 miles after their departure from the party? Is it a fact that Commonwealth Police apprehended Mr and Mrs McLean some 5 miles from Eltham and subsequently searched their motor vehicle? If the answers to the above question’s are in the affirmative, what was the purpose of the surveillance? Is the Attorney-General able to state further whether there is any good reason why Mr Hartley or any of his friends or associates are under surveillance by the Commonwealth Police?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I will examine the records that are available to me and if what I say is inaccurate or inadequate I shall provide the additional material to the honourable senator. But my recollection is that at about the date which he mentioned the Commonwealth Police did keep, I believe, Mr Hartley’s house in Eltham under surveillance. There was a general surveillance of persons going to and coming from his house. The purpose of the surveillance was to ascertain whether persons who were wanted by the Commonwealth Police under warrants for their arrest which had been issued by the court were in fact, as the Commonwealth Police had been informed was to be the case, at Mr Hartley’s house that evening. 1 am unable to say and the Commonwealth Police are unable to say whether in fact any of these persons wanted by the Commonwealth Police did attend at Mr Hartley’s house that night; but, in the event, no apprehensions were made. I think it is a notorious fact that there are some sections of the Australian Labor Party who have publicly proclaimed their willingness to shelter and to give support to people who are wanted by the police. When there are people in that category, they must expect that the police, in the discharge of their duties, will do all that is lawful and reasonable in order to apprehend those people.

page 48

QUESTION

EXPORT OF KANGAROO PRODUCTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that Americans are buying professional kangaroo shooters’ licences in Australia? Is it also a fact that salted kangaroo skins are being exported in quantity direct to the United States of America and that this practice has resulted in economic hardship to Australian tanneries and to the Australian souvenir industry? Is it a fact also that the United States has prohibited the killing of most of its furred animals and that the most plentiful source of supply of fur in the world today is the kangaroo? Will the Minister investigate these claims, more particularly as the only government revenue received from the United States trading in skins is the shooter’s licence fee? Will the Minister also confer with his colleague, the Minister for Immigration, to examine closely applications for entry to Australia from overseas people applying for professional shooters’ licences to ensure that they have no connection with organised criminal activity in the United States of America?

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

– I think the honourable senator will agree with me when I say that the kangaroo is one of the most popular of Australian native animals. Songs have been dedicated to the kangaroo and symbols have been devised to represent it. Perhaps it is the best loved of our animals. Whilst I am aware that some millions of pounds of kangaroo meat are exported, I am not aware that the facts are as the honourable senator has stated them. However, I will seek information for him from the Minister for Primary Industry, and I shall also make inquiries through the Minister for Immigration on his behalf.

page 48

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. In view of the serious position in which many fishermen have been placed following the ban on the sale of the bulk of shark flesh, will the Minister say whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has investigated the permanently potential catches of fish from eastern Australian waters according to species, the mercury content of these fish, and the likely damage, if any, to the Australian fishing industry by the establishment of the envisaged fishmeal industry on the east coast of Tasmania?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Generally I can say that the CSIRO has made assessments of the availability of fish, and that in relation to what is proposed by the east coast industry figures have been given. I am not equipped with those figures now, but I shall take the opportunity of today’s adjournment to ensure that the honourable senator receives an accurate answer.

page 49

QUESTION

MIRAGE AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Air whether a total of 13 Mirage aircraft have been lost, including four this year, plus another severely damaged. Have a considerable number of these losses been caused by or related to engine malfunction? Further, as a result of these losses, is it a fact that the Royal Australian Air Force has carried out certain re-evaluations of the replacement of the Mirage with a single engine aircraft? When is the Minister likely to report to the Senate on these matters including the recent accidents to Mirage aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator’s question has covered a very wide field, but I will endeavour to answer as much of it as I can. It is a fact that since 1964 there have been 13 crashes of Mirage aircraft. It is a fact also that in recent months there have been 4 crashes, 2 of which are still the subjects of courts of inquiry and thus I cannot yet give the reasons for them. One accident was caused by a compressor blowing up, but so far as the accident investigation section of the Department of Air can ascertain at present this was not related to the other accidents. However, technicians of the Department of Supply and of my own Department are conducting a study to determine whether an inter-relationship can be established or to find some other clue to the cause of these accidents. An air staff requirement has been put out for replacement of the Mirage, but although a number of proposals have been submitted a final decision has not been made and will not be made in the very near future.

page 49

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact that the People’s Republic of China has conducted at least 14 atmospheric nuclear tests? Is it also a fact that the Australian Government repeatedly has made it clear within the United Nations and in other world forums that it opposes all forms of atmospheric and underground nuclear testing? Is there any evidence of any public protests by the Australian Labor Party against any of the Chinese nuclear tests?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The fact is as stated by Senator Carrick. So far as we know China has carried out 14 nuclear tests. It is a fact that the Australian Government has made known repeatedly, in the forums to which the honourable senator refers, its opposition to atmospheric tests. I am not aware - and I would be obliged to any member of the Opposition who could provide me with such an instance - of any instance when any representative of the Australian Labor Party has voiced opposition to the Chinese nuclear tests in marked contrast with the noise that was made about the French nuclear tests.

page 49

QUESTION

DRAFT RESISTERS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. For some time I have noticed repeated statements on behalf of the Australian Labor Party that the Attorney-General and the Government are not trying to catch draft dodgers, and today I have heard a complaint from a representative of the Australian Labor Party that the AttorneyGeneral is showing too much zeal in trying to catch draft dodgers. I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Can he inform me about these representations from the Australian Labor Party? Does the ALP want draft dodgers caught, does it not want them caught, or has it not made up its mind?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I point out to Senator McManus that under standing order 99 rhetorical questions are not to be asked. It is a line ball whether that is a rhetorical question, and I shall let it go in this instance.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I may be of assistance to you, Mr President, and to Senator McManus in saying that I did not understand his question to be at all rhetorical. I sense that Senator McManus, along with a tremendous number of people in this community, has great difficulty in making up his mind where the Australian Labor Party stands on this issue as well as on a number of other issues. One could say that if the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Whitlam, was a free agent he would certainly like to see Mr Barry Johnston surrender to police and he publicly said so before the last Executive meeting of the Australian Labor Party. But he is not a free agent, because within 2 days the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party flatly contradicted what Mr Whitlam had earlier publicly said. There is a segment of the Labor Party in Victoria so well known to all of us which not only regards persons who are wanted by the police as persons who should be regarded as paragons of virtue but also above all should be protected. It also believes that the efforts of the police to apprehend these people should be denigrated in every possible way. I can say only that Senator McManus, like myself and a lot of others, must come to the conclusion that whatever the Labor Party might say about respect for lawful processes the conduct of many of its spokesmen indicates that its practice does not accord with precept.

page 50

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Senator Cavanagh having addressed a question to Senator Wright)

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I direct the attention of honourable senators to standing order 417 which reads:

No Senator shall use the name of His Majesty or of His representative in this Commonwealth disrespectfully in debate, nor for the purpose of influencing the Senate in its deliberations. I rule Senator Cavanagh’s question out of order.

page 50

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– What has the

Minister for Works done in response to a demand from the New South Wales Minister for Housing that the Commonwealth accept full responsibility for rehousing 170 people facing eviction from the site of a $50m office block which will be built for Commonwealth purposes at Woolloomooloo in Sydney?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I addressed a letter on that subject to the honourable senator yesterday. If he has not received it I shall see that a copy is furnished to him this afternoon.

page 50

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service been drawn to this morning’s Press statement from Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas Daly, former Chief of the Australian General Staff, on the abolition of national service? If so, does the Minister concur with Sir Thomas’ statement that such abolition would cause the disbandment of five of our 9 battalions, involving 4,000 officers and non-commissioned officers, and reduce the strength of the Citizen Military Forces by 10,000 men? Is the Minister aware that Sir Thomas also said that without national service the kind of Army Australia needs is not a possibility? As the Australian Labor Party is pledged to abolish national service, is this policy tantamount to destroying the Australian Army?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Time has not permitted me to refresh my memory from the newspaper report of the General’s statement, but I did have the advantage of seeing the television presentation, including that part of his statement referred to by the honourable senator. The statement was to the effect attributed to him by Senator Hannan. It is clearly a statement of a responsible person and it shows that there would be substantial damage to the defence effort if national service were abolished. I think that the extent of damage which Opposition policy would do to the defence of the country is a matter which should be taken into consideration.

page 50

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of you, Mr President, for the purpose of bringing my question which you disallowed into conformity with standing order 417. Referring to the statement that it would be improper to comment on the remarks of the holder of the office of Governor of the State, I ask you, with respect, what word in my question is disrespectful to the holder of that office or what word is seeking to influence the Senate’s deliberations. I ask that question so that I can delete the offending word and make my question conform to standing order 417.

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Cavanagh, I took up the matter of standing order 417 because it began to appear that a question asked earlier contravened that standing order. I regarded the matter as then bordering on the area of an offence against standing order 417. I realised that I probably discomposed you or left you with the feeling that I had treated you unfairly. So, as soon as the matter was disposed of, I looked towards you again and called you in case you wished to ask the question again in a way that would offend neither me nor standing order 417.

page 51

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. It follows a reply given to Senator O’Byrne. When the Minister made the statement that it would be improper to comment upon the statement referred to by Senator O’Byrne because of the high office which the author of the statement held, did the Minister mean that it was improper to comment on a statement of the holder of such a high office or was his statement intended as a condemnation of the Minister for the Army who was critical of a statement made by the holder of the high office in another State?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I would like to content myself with the answer, , no, and leave the honourable senator to travel through the contortions of his question to see to which part ‘no’ applies. But out of respect for the perseverance of the honourable senator on a matter in which I know he is quite disinterestedly interested, I say that I made no comment upon the reference which Senator Byrne made to Sir Roden Cutler, V.C.

Senator Byrne:

– O’Byrne.

Senator WRIGHT:

– What I did say was said most carefully and, I repeat accurately out of respect for the office which Sir Roden Cutler, V.C, holds: I abstain from any comment whatever upon it in a political forum.

page 51

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Did the AttorneyGeneral announce on 20th July that he was studying a departmental review of the role, functions and performance of the Commonwealth Police? If so, will he table that report?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– It is a fact that on approximately the date about which the honourable senator inquires I made a statement that I had received a departmental report on the role and functions of the Commonwealth Police. It is a departmental report to me. I do not propose to table it.

page 51

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service aware that under an Australian Labor Party government Western Australia has the highest rate of unemployment in Australia? Is the Minister further aware that the Western Australian Premier, Mr Tonkin, has complained that the Commonwealth Government should give the State some special assistance to cope with this state of affairs, especially in the metropolitan areas? Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth Government has made available to Western Australia special assistance for the relief of unemployment, especially in the metropolitan area, and that these amounts are included in the financial provisions for the States contained in the Budget? Does the Minister not agree that the Premier’s comments simply reveal the bankruptcy of Labor Party policies on unemployment?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Wherever one finds a Labor government one finds government by union bosses. That is probably the chief explanation for the dire state of unemployment in Western Australia, coupled with the fact that wherever Labor starts administration one finds a withering and contraction of confidence and, consequently, a reduction in employment. It is most unfortunate that Mr Tonkin allowed himself to yield to electioneering impulses.

Senator Willesee:

– I rise on a point of order. I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply, and I have been very patient. The standing order that has been referred today states that a senator is expressly forbidden from referring to people in another place or in other parliaments. I listened very quietly to Senator Greenwood. He very clearly contravened standing order 418 when dealing with Mr Whitlam. I let that go. I was hoping that this reply would not be a continuance of such contravention. The question was highly rhetorical. It did not seek the type of information that should be given in this Parliament. I doubted whether the question was in order. Because of the way in which Senator Wright is replying to it, I have no doubt that he is not performing his ministerial duties when he is giving evidence on the subject of unemployment. He has said quite extreme things about the Western Australian Government. Now he is going into personalities regarding Mr Tonkin. I suggest that his reply is clearly out of order and clearly not in the spirit of seeking, during question time, information on this Government’s role.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I inform honourable senators that Senator Wright has toiled and laboured in the courts and the Parliament for many years and that he is the best judge of his own words. If he now resumes his answer to the question I have no doubt that he will pay due deference to the matters that Senator Willesee has raised.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Only to show the futility of the honourable senator’s attempt to see into my mind, I was about to tell him that one of the political facts that he should know is that in June the Commonwealth Government gave extra revenue assistance to all States - in addition to their quota assistance which is laid down by formula - amounting to no less than $112m. In addition to Western Australia’s share of that formula amount it received a special grant for this year of $3. 5m. If that grant were not enough, it received a special allocation, in addition to its quota allocation, for works and housing of $9m and a very generous sum for specific metropolitan unemployment relief. If these facts are not known by Senator Willesee or Mr Tonkin, I believe the Senate and the public have a right to know them. -

page 52

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Government intend to continue with the inquiry into income tax? If so, when does the Minister expect to be able to announce the names of the other members of the committee of inquiry to be chaired by Mr Justice Asprey?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I will refer the question to the Treasurer. The fact that the chairman’s name has been announced is a clear indication of the Government’s intention. I know nothing of any variation from the Government’s decision, which has been taken already, to have an inquiry.

page 52

QUESTION

SENATE: QUESTION

Senator BYRNE:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Works. In doing so I appeal to the Minister’s concern for precision and accuracy, which is traditional in this chamber. During his reply to my colleague Senator O’Byrne who asked a question about His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales, Sir Roden Cutler, the Minister inadvertently indicated that the question had been asked by myself. Will the Minister be good enough to indicate that it was not I who asked the question?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– If the purpose of the honourable senator’s question as I understood it, although imperfectly heard, is to make clear that the question in which the name of Sir Roden Cutler. V.C.. was mentioned emanated from Senator Justin O’Byrne of Tasmania, let me affirm that it did and that it did not emanate from Senator Condon Byrne of Queensland. I think that anybody who reflected upon the performance of either senator would naturally put it into its right channel.

page 52

QUESTION

DEPORTATION OF REFUGEES

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories seen a report in this morning’s Australian’ newspaper of a statement attributed to the Indonesion Army commander in West Irian that the Australian Government will assist in the celebration of Indonesia’s Proclamation Day by deporting to West Irian 8 West Irianese refugees at present in Papua New Guinea? Can he comment on the accuracy of this report? Can he assure the Senate that no such deportation of refugees is planned by the Australian Government?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has not yet received a record of the statement attributed to the general but as the honourable senator would know, the statement does not represent the policy of the Government of Australia or of the Papua New Guinea Ministry. We have no intention of deporting to Indonesia people who have been granted permission to reside in Papua New Guinea on grounds that they fear persecution in Indonesia. About 500 such people are living in Papua New Guinea. However, in accordance with policies that have been followed for some years, 8 persons who had applied for permissive residence in Papua New Guinea are to be returned to Indonesia today. I emphasise that these applications have been considered and rejected by the Administrator’s Executive Council in Papua New Guinea and that the decision to return these persons is the decision of that Council and not of the Australian Government.

page 53

QUESTION

INCREASED AIR CHARGES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation take urgent steps to ensure that Tasmania is exempted from the proposed increased charges to the airlines in order that the present serious position arising from freight costs of all kinds to Tasmania is not accentuated and the State’s whole economy further jeopardised, especially since, in respect of proposed increased shipping freights and air charges, the responsibility is principally in the hands of this Government?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It would be extremely unlikely that anybody could do anything to help Tasmania in this regard. This is a general impost across the system of revenue raising in civil aviation. It is based upon the proposition that the business as such should be a payable business and that those who use the service should pay for it. The landing charge increase proposed represents a minute fraction of air fares which are imposed upon the Australian people.

page 53

QUESTION

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General say why the amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act that were passed in the last session of the Parliament have not yet been presented for royal assent? Can he say when the new controls on cigarette advertising on radio and television will begin? What influence, if any, has been brought to bear on the Government by cigarette and tobacco companies to defer the introduction of this legislation?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to answer the question why this legislation has not been presented for royal assent. In so responding, I accept the fact that it has not been presented as the honourable senator asserted. If I decline to respond to the other questions which the honourable senator has asked it is because, firstly, they are not within my particular knowledge, not being within my own ministerial responsibility, and, secondly, because I recall that yesterday the Minister for Health who is responsible for the substance of what the honourable senator asked replied to a question which I think gave much of the information he is now seeking.

page 53

QUESTION

ACETIC ACID

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply by referring to Question No. 2141 concerning the export of acetic acid from Australia. Is the Minister aware that acetic acid is one of the components of a highly dangerous and completely addictive drug? Will the Minister take steps to have acetic acid reclassified for export purposes and will he also indicate whether the Government is prepared to trace acetic acid exported from this country and, if necessary, prohibit its export?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I would have to take that matter up with the Minister for Supply. I shall do so and obtain information for the honourable senator.

page 54

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a series of questions to the Leader of the Government in the Senate because I think that he probably has the longest service in this place of any Minister. Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Defence in 1951 said that national service greatly handicaps the development of a more effective army because of the excessive demands it makes on manpower and money? Does the Minister recall that in the House of Representatives Budget debate on 20th August 1964 and also at the 49th Congress of the Returned Services League Dr Forbes, as Minister for the Army, said that the Government was opposed to universal national service because it was against the unanimous advice of the Government’s military advisers? Why then is the Government embarrassed by the statement made by His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales, Sir Roden Cutler, V.C., who said that a modern army-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I know that the honourable senator is a comparatively junior senator in this place, but he knows the rules of the game. I ask him to get on to the question without these elaborate propaganda statements which have been wadded into the question. He is not alone or singular in asking questions in this way.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I wanted only to make the point that Sir Roden Cutler-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator is allowed to give enough evidence to indicate the nature of his question, but he is not allowed to pad out the question. If he would like to begin his question again and pose it in a proper form I shall allow it; otherwise I shall have to exclude it.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Has not the Minister for the Army made a similar criticism of the universal training system? In view of the criticisms that have been made, has the Government given further consideration to universal national service training?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator prefaced his question by saying that I was the senior Minister in terms of time in this place and then he asked whether I could recall a statement made here in 1951. Do I look so old? I was not here in 1951. At that time I was a member of another Parliament, and at about that time the honourable senator and I were in local government together, probably as opposite members. The honourable senator then asked whether I could recall a statement made by Dr Forbes in 1964. I regret that my memory is not so retentive that I am able to recall the precise statement to which he refers. Coming now to matters of substance, the Government’s definite policy is that we should have a capability for the defence of Australia. It will always be the policy of this Government to have that capability. While we have this policy and there is a need for national service training we will continue to have national service training. Without meaning any offence to the honourable senator, the simple fact is that the defence of a country demands that people be properly trained so that if they are required to defend their country they do so with all the skills, experience and knowledge gained from training, and that they’ do not go into battle as though their hands were tied behind their backs.

page 54

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES LEGISLATION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the AttorneyGeneral tell the Senate when the longpromised legislation to deal with restrictive practices and monopolies will be introduced into the Parliament?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am happy to remind Senator Murphy that on . 24th May the Government made a statement which detailed what it had in mind for legislation to deal with strengthened . control of restrictive trade practices. That statement was made for the purpose , of enabling those who were interested in the subject to study it and to make representations. Shortly after the statement was made, it was indicated that it was the Government’s intention to introduce the legislation into the Parliament in the current session and, if the Parliament approved, to have the legislation passed in this session. That was the Government’s intention and, as I understand it, it is an intention which will be able to be effectuated. The’ problem at the moment is to have the Bill, which necessarily is a complex measure, drafted.

page 55

QUESTION

SHIP BUILDING

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is the Minister aware that the ship building industry is claiming that unless the Government’s policy on ship building is drastically altered it will destroy, first, Australia’s capacity to build large ships and eventually the entire ship building industry? Is the Minister also aware that Evans Deakin, Brisbane, was low bidder on a tanker in December 1971 and a competitive bidder on a tanker in March 1972 in which overseas owners Caltex and Shell were involved? Is the Minister also aware that Caltex and Shell withheld the orders due to uncanny anticipation of radical changes to the Government’s ship building policy and are now likely to call tenders overseas? Will the Minister assure the Senate that he will do all in his power to prevent any run down in the ship building industry and protect the jobs of thousands of Australians?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am aware of none of these things. I cannot confirm or deny any of the assertions made, proper or improper. What I do know from listening to Senate estimates debates relating to the Department of Shipping and Transport is that a very substantial sum of money is made available by the Australian Government to support Australian ship building. The Government has done everything it can to further that process. Some of the problems, of course, come out of the cost structure of the Australian industry which is not helped by recurrent industrial problems. So I suggest that if the honourable senator has a concern about this he might direct his attention to some of these areas. For my part I will find out what I can for him in regard to the balance of his question.

page 55

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service and it follows the Minister’s reply to a question concerning unemployment in Western Australia. Can the Minister explain why the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government has been unable in the 20 or so years it has been in control of the Australian economy to secure a policy of full employment to which allegedly it is wed or to prevent the current trend towards increasing unemployment? I also ask: Even in view of the latest Budget, does he consider that the current payments for unemployment benefits are sufficient?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The answer to the latter part of the question is, yes. In answer to the first part of the question let me say that I am pleased that Senator Bishop brought before the Senate the proud record of this Government of maintaining full employment for 23 years. There have been 2 periods in which the unemployment figures rose to a point where they gave concern. One was in 1960-61 and the other in the current period.

Our percentage of unemployment, even at the present rate of 2 per cent, is infinitely better than that of any other Western democracy, particularly the United States of America and the United Kingdom which have suffered unemployment to the extent of 5 or 6 per cent of their immense work force - in the United States now for several years and in the United Kingdom for 3 or 4 years. I would think that at least a senator of the percipience of Senator Bishop, with his acquaintance with the field of industrial employment, would acknowledge that the achievement of this Government in respect of a full employment policy is outstanding.

page 55

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a letter to the editor in yesterday’s Adelaide Advertiser* from a trade unionist from Para Hills West? The letter refers to union ordered strikes. Has he noted that the gentleman states in his letter a few lines of which I would like to quote:

After 30 years of working and striking I have had a gutsful of getting up in the morning and wondering whether my union friends are going to tell me to-

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to take a point of order. The honourable senator is quoting from a letter to the editor in a newspaper. Obviously it is an unsigned letter. No authority exists, in accordance with your previous rulings, Mr President, for the honourable senator to base a question on that foundation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator has not indicated in any way what the name of the person is, whether the letter was signed or whether it was not signed; nor can the honourable senator vouch for the accuracy of the newspaper report from which he is quoting. I have dealt with that point several times before. I think that the honourable senator has given enough information to enable him to proceed now directly to his question and to enable the Minister to answer it if he can.

Senator JESSOP:

– Well, I can say that the letter is signed; the name is here. I refer to the concern expressed by this person who wonders whether his union friends are going to allow him to complete a day’s work and to draw a full week’s pay. I ask the Minister whether he has taken account also of this unionist’s recommendations, arising from his letter, to bring in secret ballots for strikes and legislation to deprive union officials of their pay during strikes.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 have noticed the letter. I do not propose to comment upon that letter, but it can be taken as a sample of evidence of anxiety, very naturally entertained by union members, as to the arbitrary, domineering directions of some union bosses. The situation, on the evidence of several unionists, in that respect has become intolerable. In answer to the second part of the question, these matters have been taken into account by the Government in recent periods with regard to the appropriateness of legislation for secret ballots at any stage before or during strikes. It will be remembered that the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill passed in the last session, which amended the existing provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, contained provisions whereby, in substance, a presidential member has the authority to order a secret ballot in relation to a question such as that when he deems fit. I state the position quite summarily. But the appropriateness of that provision should not be assumed to apply to all cases of impending disputes.

page 56

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator McMANUS:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities. My question refers to the failure of an Australian travel agency which occasioned considerable inconvenience and loss of money to a number of travellers to and from this country. Will the Minister make a statement on what extent, if any, the Commonwealth was involved in action taken in regard to this matter and what extent, if any, the Commonwealth is involved in action at present being taken by a number of authorities? Will the Minister state also whether, in view of the fact that a number of important travel agencies are located in Canberra, the Commonwealth contemplates action to ensure the rights of travellers in the future?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– There is today and has been in earlier months and years considerable interest in the Senate in the protection of members of the travelling public who have problems with travel situations which are not as good as they might be. There are people in the Senate with considerable experience in the travel agency field. As I said earlier, those senators have an understanding and a number of senators have a concern. I share that concern. What I think I should do for Senator McManus is to obtain from the responsible Minister a clear answer in respect of the various points of the question that he raises. That will be necessary. I will obtain that answer for the honourable senator as soon as I can.

page 56

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service whether at the 53rd session of the International Labour Organisation a decision was made that a representative of the Director-General of the ILO should visit Australia to have discussions with the Australian Government that could lead to Australia’s ratifying Convention 87 which deals with freedom of association and freedom of the right to organise. I ask the Minister why the Australian Government has failed to adopt Convention 87, thus necessitating a representative of the ILO visiting this country to ensure the protection of the democratic rights of the Australian people.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I should like to give a full answer to the honourable senator’s question. Therefore I ask that the question be put on notice.

page 57

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to inform honourable senators that I keep a running statistical table which shows, firstly, the number of questions asked, and secondly, the time taken to ask them. Both yesterday and today fewer questions than usual have been asked because of the time taken to ask them. This has been caused, I suggest, substantially by some questions not being questions seeking information. Further, some answers have been far too long. Not only are some questions being padded; there is a good deal of padding in answers by some Ministers. I am aware that there is nothing in the Standing Orders which curtails the right of honourable senators to ask questions, but honourable senators must bear in mind that the Senate has a great deal of business to fulfil. So far today an hour has been taken up by questions. Some senators have risen in their places a third time to ask questions. Therefore I suggest, in the interest of the comity of the Senate itself, that senators might consider whether 1 hour is sufficient time to give to questions without notice.

page 57

QUESTION

ACCIDENT INSURANCE

Senator MURPHY:

- Mr President, permit me to ask for about the fourth time a question of the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General recall that on 27th October 1971 this Senate carried an adjournment motion designed to enable us to discuss as a matter of urgency, the Government’s delay in introducing legislation to regulate and supervise accident insurance? As we have now reached August 1972, will the Attorney-General tell us when we may expect the legislation which was the subject of that debate and which has been the subject of pressures and complaints by the Liberal Attorney-General of New South Wales, by another Minister of that State, and by almost all concerned with accident insurance?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I do recall the debate of 27th October, but I must say that my recollection of it is a little different from Senator Murphy’s: I think he has asked me the same question on more than 4 occasions and has received the same answer. The position is, firstly, that accident insurance is not the ministerial responsibility of the Attorney-General; it is the ministerial responsibility of the Treasurer. Secondly, the Treasurer made a statement in December last year in which he indicated the outline of the general insurance legislation, that statement having been made to facilitate public consideration and debate. Senator Murphy has been told that the drafting of the legislation to give effect to the Treasurer’s statement is under way. This is very complex legislation, and it is public knowledge that we have received assistance from Victoria to undertake the drafting of it. Senator Murphy may get better information if he directs his question directly to the Treasurer. I understand that it is intended that the legislation be brought in as soon as possible. It is hoped it will be brought in during this session.

page 57

QUESTION

HOSPITAL CONTRIBUTION FUND OF AUSTRALIA

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. In view of the formula devised by his predecessor and the New South Wales Minister for Health pegging contribution fund reserves, is the Minister completely satisfied that the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia in Sydney is entitled to spend $4m on a new business headquarters in that city? If the answer is in the affirmative, does he believe that the Fund operates democratically when the subscribers’ views were never obtained on the expenditure involved in this costly edifice?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I will be asking the indulgence of the Senate after question time - I have conferred with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party - to allow me to make a ministerial statement out of the order shown on the business paper, which will advert to some aspects of the health insurance funds. In relation to the particular point that the honourable senator raised dealing with the authority of the funds, the funds do have a certain authority. However, there is also an inbuilt situation under which the Government has some control of the funds and, as I indicated to Senator Douglas McClelland, probably during the last session in answer to a question, it was decided that in respect of hospital funds the tables should be such as to make some effort to reduce fund reserves. I am happy to say, without pre-empting my ministerial statement, that 1 will be adverting to that aspect in my statement.

page 58

QUESTION

OVERSEAS ENTERTAINERS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration whether he was correctly reported as saying, in a recent statement he made on American crime syndicates, that overseas entertainers visiting Australia had been connected with criminal operations. Does the Minister recall that on 26th May last in reply to a question I asked about work permits being issued to foreign entertainers he asserted that it must be appreciated that persons who are to be entertained may not necessarily desire an Australian entertainer and that he would be unable to say what could be done to police work permits? In view of the Minister’s statement last weekend about criminal operations on the part of overseas entertainers visiting Australia, what specific action is being taken by the Department of Immigration to police the permits that are issued by the Department to foreign artists?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The statement which I made last weekend was made in my capacity as Attorney-General following a report which I received from the Commonwealth Police and after an examination of that report by several departments. With regard to the other matters, which relate to the portfolio of the Minister for Immigration I think I should ascertain the position as accurately as I can. I shall convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister and ask him to forward a reply as quickly as possible.

page 58

QUESTION

FOOD LABELLING

Senator TOWNLEY:

– Has the Minister for Health received any proposals from the National Health and Medical Research

Council suggesting the listing on food labels of the names of chemicals used for colouring, preserving and flavouring those foods? If not, will he ask the Council for a report along those lines?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI will seek some information from my Department on this question which is linked with the National Health and Medical Research Council. I am not fully briefed on the matter and, as honourable senators know, I always forbear from giving kerbstone opinions on matters of health without first getting the facts.

page 58

NURSING CARE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - Honourable senators will recall that on 5th October 1971, in announcing an interim increase of $10.50 a week in Commonwealth nursing home benefits, I informed the Senate that the Government had for some time past been examining the role of nursing homes in caring for the sick aged, their financial position and the extent of Commonwealth financial assistance for all nursing home patients. I also stated at that time that it was the intention of the Government as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to introduce new long term arrangements for nursing home patients as soon as it was practicable to do so. The Government has now finalised its consideration of a comprehensive study of the existing nursing home arrangements, and, as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget Speech, it has decided to introduce some new forms of assistance for patients who require nursing care on a continuous basis. The purpose of this statement is to inform honourable senators of the details of these new forms of assistance and of the conditions which will apply to them.

In order that the Government’s proposals may be seen in their proper setting, I will first of all refer to the main issues to which the examination carried out by the Government was directed. Over the past 2 decades, institutional care has undergone important evolutionary changes. At an earlier stage of development, chronically ill aged persons who could not be cared for at home were generally admitted to public hospitals. This practice still occurs to some extent, but with the rapid development of nursing homes, this type of institution has come to be recognised as the avenue for caring for the chronically ill and sick aged who do not need treatment for an acute condition in a general hospital.

Since 1959, the number of nursing home beds in Australia has grown from 16,500 to over 51,000. Whilst this steep growth has not been without its problems, it must be borne in mind that, without an expansion of this kind in the availability of nursing home accommodation, chronically ill aged persons would either have not been adequately cared for or would have represented a considerable and perhaps an impossible strain on the State public hospitals system. It is largely because of the widespread development of nursing homes that the adequacy and standard of hospital and nursing home care of aged persons achieved in Australia compares more than favourably with that of many other countries. However, the provision of nursing home care is not a static activity, and never can be. There are differentials in charges, and services and indeed in facilities provided for patients both within and between States which make the task of ensuring that nursing homes achieve their prime purpose of maximum patient care a continuing challenge.

The aspects which have concerned the Government in its approach to this problem are 4 in number. Firstly, the fact that some old people are admitted to nursing homes when there is no real medical need for them to go into a home. If such persons were cared for in their own homes or other residential accommodation, their peace of mind, and consequently their overall medical condition, would be far better. Professional advice made available to the Government, both departmentally and from independent sources, is almost unanimous that elderly people should be encouraged to remain in their domestic environment, as long as they are able to do so. Secondly, the financial hardship being experienced by some patients and relatives in meeting the fees charged by nursing homes. Allied to this are the financial difficulties faced by many religious and charitable nursing homes which have recognised the inadequate financial resources of many of their patients and have charged them fees below the cost of the service. Thirdly, the fact that nursing home patients are accommodated in homes varying considerably in size, services provided, standard of accommodation and cost. Of the 51,000 nursing home beds at present available, 19 per cent are in homes conducted by State governments, 27 per cent are in homes conducted by religious and charitable bodies, and 54 per cent are in homes run by private proprietors. Fourthly, the need to incorporate conditions into the nursing home arrangements so as to ensure that benefits which are intended to provide financial protection for patients do, in fact, achieve that objective.

These matters have been thoroughly examined by the Government. I assure honourable senators that this review has been motivated by our determination to find the very best means of providing the chronically ill aged members of our community with the nursing care and other facilities they need, coupled with the financial protection that we all wish them to have. The new comprehensive plan now being introduced involves a series of essential points which are directed to providing encourage? ment for aged persons to remain in . their own homes as long as they are able - to secure the nursing and other care they need in their homes. At the same time, the plan is designed to ensure the continuance of nursing homes as a recognised form of institutional care, particularly for chronically ill aged persons who can no longer be adequately cared for in a domestic environment.

page 59

DOMICILIARY NURSING CARE BENEFIT

The first part of the plan provides for the introduction of a new domiciliary nursing care benefit to be paid to a person who accepts responsibility for the provision iti his own home of professional nursing care and supportive services required by an aged relative on a regular and continuing basis. This benefit will be at the rate of $14 a week. In general terms it will be payable to persons who are willing and able to care, in their own homes, for aged parents or immediate relatives who would otherwise qualify for nursing home benefits. This benefit will not be subject to a means test. It will be payable under the National Health Act and it will be paid in addition to any entitlements that persons may have under the Social Services Act for pensions or other supplementary allowances under that Act. There has been a significant increase in the pension rate and there are supplementary allowances which will be known to honourable senators.

The basic criteria for payment of the domiciliary nursing care benefit will be that the aged person’s own doctor certifies and a departmental medical officer approves that the aged person is in need of professional nursing care equivalent to that which he would receive in a nursing home; that the domestic situation is such that this nursing care can be and is being satisfactorily arranged; that the person receiving the care is aged 65 years or over; and that the medical condition requiring the care is of a continuing nature. The introduction of this new benefit is a tremendous step forward in the Government’s health and welfare programme. Besides being of inestimable help to the many individual families concerned, it will serve a most valuable purpose in encouraging persons to care for aged parents or other relatives in their own homes whenever it is considered that such care in the domestic environment would best meet the needs of the aged person concerned.

page 60

HOME CARE SERVICES

The Government recognises that the introduction of this financial benefit needs to be supplemented by continuing measures to develop the availability of home care services required by aged persons. My Department has been operating a home nursing subsidy scheme since 1st January 1957. As announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech, the Government has decided to increase the subsidies payable to eligible home nursing organisations with effect from 1st September 1972. Under the new rates, subsidies payable to organisations established prior to the commencement of the scheme will be increased from $3,200 to $4,300 per annum for each additional nurse employed on home nursing. For organisations established since 1956 the rate will be increased from $1,600 to $2,150 for each nurse employed.

I assure the Senate of the Government’s determination to develop this scheme to assist the splendid organisations engaged in the provision of home nursing services to continue and, where possible, extend their activities. There are other home care services that are being developed by the State governments, with some financial assistance from the Commonwealth. Some of these home care services are welfare measures in which the Commonwealth’s role is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Social Services. I can tell the Senate that the Government has decided that there should be further discussion with the States on these matters.

page 60

NURSING HOME PATIENTS

Whilst taking these initiatives in the fields of domiciliary nursing care and home care services, the Government has at the same time developed plans for improving the situation of present and future patients in nursing homes. I will now describe the proposed new nursing home arrangements in some detail. In so doing I must make clear that all these proposals will be subject of amendments to the National Health Act which will be brought before the Parliament during this session.

page 60

QUESTION

NEW NURSING HOME BENEFITS FOR PATIENTS WHO HAVE PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE CARDS

As honourable senators are aware, the Government already provides significant assistance to all nursing home patients by way of nursing home benefits. For some years the rates of nursing home benefit were $14 a week for ordinary care patients and $35 a week for intensive care patients. From 21st October 1971 these benefits were increased by $10.50 a week, taking the rates to $24.50 a week for ordinary care patients and $45.50 a week for intensive care patients. These benefits are provided without the need for contribution to a health insurance fund and without a means test. However, surveys of nursing home fees conducted by my Department have shown that increased financial assistance is now necessary in order that the patients may be able to meet nursing home fees without hardship. Having examined the information available to it regarding the levels of nursing home fees, the Government addressed itself in the first instance to the situation of pensioners. Eighty per cent of nursing home patients - that is, of the 51,000 - hold pensioner medical service entitlement cards. The surveys made have shown that there is a gap of up to $30 a week between nursing home benefit entitlement and nursing home fees commonly charged. In some high cost nursing homes the gap is even wider. Many pensioners have had only their pensions and supplementary assistance from the Department of Social Services, say a total of $20 a week, to meet the gap created by these fees. It is all too clear that for many patients it has been possible to meet these fees only with assistance from their relatives or some other source.

As a general rule, the nursing home is the place of residence of the patient, and a pensioner patient in a nursing home applies a substantial portion, and often virtually all, of his pension towards the cost of his care. It has been decided that an amount equal to three-quarters of a single pensioner’s pension and supplementary social service allowances will be the patients participation in the new nursing home arrangements. The amount so arrived at is $18 a week. This will be the amount which all pensioners will be expected to contribute towards the cost of their nursing home care. In the case of single pensioners, it will leave them an amount of $6 a week out of their pension for their personal needs - the only exception to this will be in the case of pensioners in the very high cost nursing homes whose fees will not be fully covered by the new nursing home arrangements, and indeed, in my view, could not reasonably be covered by any government assistance plan. Having thus arrived at a patient participation of $18 a week, the Government proceeded to determine the rate of the new benefit necessary to enable patients to meet fees in nursing homes up to a reasonable level. Levels of nursing home fees vary from State to State and the new benefit rate will vary accordingly. The following are the new benefits which will be paid by the Commonwealth on behalf of the pensioner medical service pensioners to nursing homes in all cases where the existing Commonwealth benefit, the patients participation and this new benefit total not less than the fees charged:

This benefit will be the same for ordinary care patients and intensive care patients. Honourable senators will note that the rate will “be the same in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, that slightly higher rates will apply in South Australia and Western Australia and a much higher rate in Victoria. These rates are a reflection of the varying levels of fees applying in each of the States. In order that honorable senators may examine how these new benefits will affect the position of patients in nursing homes, I will now give some examples of the application of the new system. The examples I will give are limited to the situation in New South Wales, but I assure the Senate that the same sort of situation will apply in each of the States. Subsequently, if need be, I will produce documents setting out various examples in other States. The first examples are of an ordinary care patient in New South Wales who is being charged a nursing home fee of $53 a week and of an intensive care patient who is being charged a fee of $74 a week. Their situation as at now and under the new arrangements will be as follows-

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe honourable senator is interrupting my theme. Could he speak to me about the matter afterwards?

In quoting these examples, I draw honourable senators’ attention to the fact that, in the cases quoted, there will be a reduction of $10.50 a week in the payment to be made to the nursing home by the patient or by someone on his behalf. In these situations a single pensioner will in future retain $6 a week out of his pension for his personal needs after meeting his nursing home fees.

My next examples are of an ordinary care patient in New South Wales who is being charged a nursing home fee of $48 a week and of an intensive care patient who is being charged a fee of $69 a week - S5 a week less than in the first example. Their situation as at now and under the new arrangements will be as follows:

In these examples, the patient will likewise have his participation substantially reduced. The new benefit in these cases will be $5.50, because that is all that will be required to meet the fees after the existing Commonwealth benefits and the patient participation have been taken into account

The third examples are of an ordinary home fee of $58 a week and an intensive care patients who is being charged $79 a week - $5 a week higher than in the first example. Their situation as at now and under the new arrangements will be as follows:

The surveys conducted by my Department have established that this home is in the high cost bracket. The patient will secure an improvement of $10.50 a week in the extent of his participation, that is, a reduction from $33.50 to $23 but because this is an unusually high cost home he will have to find himself more than the $18 normal patient participation. I emphasise again that these examples are not specially selected to apply to special situations. They are representative of the situation as a whole and illustrate what will be the effect of the new arrangements in all States of the Commonwealth.

Pensioners who hold Pensioner Medical Service entitlement cards need not join a hospital benefits fund to be eligible for these new nursing home benefits. Benefits of the amounts I have quoted in each State will be paid direct to nursing homes on behalf of pensioners by the Department of Health. The benefit rates will be reviewed from time to time to reflect changes which must be expected to occur in the fee levels prevailing at different times as the result of increased costs.

page 63

INSURANCE FUND BENEFITS FOR NURSING HOME PATIENTS

For nursing home patients who are not pensioners holding Pensioner Medical Service entitlement cards, it has been decided that the hospital benefit insurance system will be extended so as to provide nursing home benefits for members. The nursing home benefits for members of hospital benefits funds will be exactly the same as the benefits provided by the Government for pensioners as stated earlier, namely, New South Wales $10.50 a week; Victoria $22.40 a week; Queensland $10.50 a week; ;South Australia $14.00 a week; Western Australia $11.20 a week; and Tasmania $10.50 a week.

It has also been decided that the patient participation for members of hospital insurance funds will be exactly the same as for pensioners, namely $18 a week. Consequently, the insurance fund benefits will be determined in exactly the same way and will have the same application to fees as the examples I gave earlier in relation to pensioners. Initially, these benefits will be financed by registered organisations out of their reserves. That is the point I made earlier. Therefore, no adjustments to hospi tal fund contributions are necessary at the present time.

Nursing home patients who do not hold Pensioner Medical Service entitlement cards and who are not already members of registered hospital benefits funds will be allowed 2 months from the commencement of the new arrangements in which to join a fund without serving the 2 months waiting period which normally applies before new members become eligible for benefits. The fund nursing home benefit will be an integral part of the benefit entitlements of each hospital benefits table. The same rate of nursing home benefit will be payable from each table. The contribution payable by each member for hospital benefits will also give coverage for nursing home benefits. It will not be necessary to insure for nursing home benefits separately and there will be no arrangements for securing nursing home coverage without insuring for hospital benefits.

page 63

QUESTION

PARTICIPATION BY NURSING HOMES

As mentioned by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech, the new nursing home benefits being introduced by the Government will involve a considerable increase in the financial participation by the Commonwealth. Apart altogether from the new benefits, an amount of over $78m will be provided in the National Welfare Fund in 1972-73 to meet the cost of the existing Commonwealth nursing home benefits. This very large sum is being increased by over $9m for 1972-73 and about $22m for a full year to meet the cost of the new nursing home benefits. It is thus clear that the Commonwealth’s participation is a very substantial one.

I have also mentioned that the new arrangements will provide for a .participation by patients to the extent of $18 a week towards the cost of their nursing home care, and higher amounts as necessary in the higher cost homes. In this situation I am sure that honourable senators will agree that it is appropriate and necessary that there should also be an increased degree of governmental supervision of nursing homes in order to make the new plan effective.

At the present time, nursing homes must be approved by the Department of Health under the provisions of the National

Health Act in order that their patients may be eligible for receipt of Commonwealth nursing home benefits. It is proposed that each nursing home which desires to continue to be approved under the Act will make a new application for approval. As a condition of the continuation of its approval, each home will have to agree to participate in the new arrangements by undertaking to charge patients fees which do not exceed those normally charged at 30th June 1972, or to which variations have been agreed by the Department of Health.

The decision by the Government to supervise the fees charged by nursing homes was taken after a long and serious study of the considerations involved. As I mentioned earlier 80 per cent of nursing home patients hold Pensioner Medical Service entitlement cards. In a situation where a major part of the cost of providing nursing home care for these patients will be met from Commonwealth funds, the Government believes that it is an essential measure that fees be subject to supervision. Furthermore, the extension of insurance fund benefits to nursing homes would be impracticable without some supervision over fees.

It is intended that the concept of participation by nursing homes as regards fixing of fees, will not have application to nursing homes operated by State governments. The fee charging policies of such nursing homes will continue to be the responsibility of the respective State governments. I would stress at this point that the Government is not imposing a uniform fee system on nursing homes throughout Australia. In recognition of the varying standards applying in nursing homes, each home will be free to continue to charge the normal fees it charged at 30th June 1972.

However, the Government recognises that many nursing homes apply a concessional fee rate to some of their patients and therefore such homes may have a variety of fees depending upon the financial resources of the patient. Some rationalisation of fees will therefore be permitted, but this aspect will be strictly controlled by my Department. The Government recognises that there may be occasions when a nursing home proprietor may be dissatisfied with the fee determined by my

Department which he will be allowed to charge. It is proposed to establish, under the National Health Act, independent Nursing Home Fees Review Committees, in each State, which will be empowered to review the decision of the Department where the nursing home proprietor lodges an appeal. Details of the constitution and powers of these Committees will be announced when the amendments to the National Health Act are introduced.

If a participating nursing home proprietor increases his fees from those applying as at 30th June, or introduces charges for extras, without the approval of the DirectorGeneral of Health, action may be taken to suspend or cancel the approval of the nursing home for receipt of Commonwealth nursing home benefits. In addition to these new arrangements in relation to the supervision of fees charged by participating nursing homes, there will be a modification of existing procedures in relation to the admission of patients to these homes. Under the modified procedure a certificate by the patient’s own doctor relating to the patient’s medical condition will be the primary basis on which nursing home admissions are approved. This certificate will need to be supplemented by a departmental medical officer’s endorsement. Where necessary there will be a process of consultation with the patient’s own doctor.

Construction of new nursing homes and additions to nursing homes

Many of the present problems associated with nursing homes have related to their rapid growth through the construction of new homes and additions to existing premises. The uncontrolled increase in the number of nursing home beds over the past few years, particularly in the private profit sector, was of concern to the Government in the course of its review. The Government recognises, however, that the licensing of nursing homes is primarily the responsibility of the respective State governments. The Commonwealth Government will therefore seek the co-operation of the States in the formation of CommonwealthState committees to examine proposals for the construction of new homes, and/or the addition of new beds to existing homes, and to work towards further improvements in standards.

Conclusion

Honourable senators will appreciate from all I have said that the Government is determined to introduce a comprehensive programme to resolve the problems that have arisen for chronically ill aged persons in our community. It will be a costly programme, but I am confident that the dividends will be immeasurable. For the vast majority of our aged community, the burden and fear of crippling nursing home costs will soon be replaced by an orderly system where they can make fair and equitable payments, within their means, for the nursing facilities they need. It is proposed that the amendments to the National Health Act to authorise these new nursing home benefits and arrangements will provide for their introduction on 1st January 1973. The domiciliary care benefits will commence from 1st March 1973.

It is estimated that the new arrangements will involve payment of insurance fund benefits for nursing home patients amounting to $2.20m for 1972-73 and $5.40m for a full year. The estimated cost to revenue of the increased nursing home benefits for pensioners in nursing homes is $9.1m for 1972-73 and $21.9m for a full year. The estimated cost of the new domiciliary care benefit is $4m for 1972-73 and$14.5m for a full year. I seek leave to propose a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the Senatetake note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 65

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS ACT

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– Pursuant to section 38 of the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967, I present the 5th annual report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 65

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– Pursuant to section 168 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971

I present the 5th annual report of the Commissioner of Trade Practices with respect to his operations during the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 65

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

Senator COTTON (New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation - I present the following reports by the Tariff Board:

A.C. Generators Exceeding 120 kVA; Rotary Converters Exceeding 50 kW;

Hand Tools; Interchangeable Tools, etc.;

Hardened Casein, etc. (New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement);

Shipbuilding;

Shot, Angular Grit and Wire Pellets of Iron or Steel;

Acetone (Dumping and Subsidies Act):

Acoustic Boards (Dumping and Subsidies Act); and

D.C. Mill Type Motors

The last 3 reports do not require any legislative action.

page 65

QUESTION

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

– Is General Business, notice of motion No. 8, standing in the name of Senator Byrne formal or not formal?

Senator Byrne:

– Formal.

page 65

PRICES LIMITATION BILL 1972

Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to restrict increases in prices of certain goods and services resulting from the making of industrial agreements, and for purposes connected therewith.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 65

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS: REPORT OF NATIONAL RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Ministerial Statement

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– by leave - The report of the Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee on the Biological aspects of the Fallout in Australia from French Nuclear Weapons Explosions in the Pacific, JuneAugust 1971, which was distributed in printed form recently, falls into two parts. The main parts of the report is the assessment made by the NRAC of the biological significance of fallout from the 1971 nuclear tests in the Pacific. Appended to this assessment is report AWTSC No. 3 of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee on the levels of fallout over Australia from nuclear weapons tested by France iri Polynesia from June to August 1971. This latter report was tabled by my colleague, the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland) in April 1792.

The Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee is responsible to the Minister for Supply for safety aspects of the use of testing of nuclear explosive devices in Australia, for evaluation of proposals by other countries to explode nuclear devices outside Australia which might give rise to increased levels of radioactivity in the Australian environment arising from activities with nuclear explosive devices either in this country or elsewhere. Its members are all physicists in the fields of nuclear, radiation and meteorological physics. The Committee has particular operational responsibilities to monitor fallout in Australia and reports the results of its monitoring on a continuing basis to the Minister for Supply. All its measurements are published as soon as possible and are made available to interested parties.

In contrast to the operation role of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee, the National Radiation Advisory Committee has a purely advisory function. The latter Committee was established by the Government in 1957 to provide scientific information in the matters associated with the effect of ionizing radiation on the Australian community arising from any source. Since its responsibility is to consider the effects of ionizing radiation, including those which might arise from fallout from nuclear explosions, the membership of the Committee is biased towards the biological sciences - genetics, public health, experimental pathology, radio-biology - but also includes several physical scientists with particular expertise in the nuclear sciences. The NRAC is, therefore, a body of scientists with wide experience in appropriate scientific disciplines, charged with making its own independent judgment on the effects of the various sources of ionizing radiation on the Australian community.

The National Radiation Advisory Committee has reported in the past on the possible biological consequences of a wide range of sources of ionizing radiation including the medical use of x-rays, the tuberculosis case-finding programmes and radiation control programmes as well as fallout from each French nuclear test series in the Pacific. In addition, the Committee has, from time to time reviewed in language comprehensible to the lay-reader, the current status of knowledge with respect to biological effects of ionizing radiation. The most recent report of the Committee of this nature is that dated October 1965. I am informed by the Committee that it is now undertaking another such review in the light of additional knowledge acquired since that time. The future role of the Committee will no doubt include assessments of safety factors in the development of a uranium industry in Australia.

In its present report the National Radiation Advisory Committee has stated that fallout from the 1971 French nuclear weapons tests presents no hazard to the Australian population. In making this assessment the Committee has, in 2 instances, compared the levels of radiation dose due to fallout with the dose received from natural background to which populations have been exposed since the beginning of life on this earth. In the other instance, the Committee has compared the radiation doses with a radiation protection guide it established in 1965 which is consistent with a similar guide established at about the same time, and for the same purpose, by the British Medical Research Council.

I have been advised that a wide range of biological effects can be produced in experimental animals or in human beings by exposure to large doses of ionizing radiation delivered in a short period of time, that is, at high dose rates. The effects may include radiation sickness, cancers of various kinds including leukaemia, opacity of the lens of the eye, some shortening of the life span and hereditary effects. There are, I understand, many technical difficulties which prevent direct evaluation of any effects of radiation doses on experimental animals at low levels approaching that of natural background radiation and even more so at the still lower levels resulting from fallout in Australia. The effects, if any, are so small that their recognition would be extremely difficult even in large and strictly controlled experiments, if these could be undertaken. The difficulties are even greater in the case of man.

On the basis of experimental animal data, and the limited human data, obtained at high doses, international and national bodies have recommended standards for protecting persons against the effects which might arise from sources of ionizing radiation. They have considered it prudent to make the working assumption that even down to the lowest radiation dose, the risk of producing particular biological effects (e.g. cancer or hereditary effects) in humans is directly proportional to dose, without a minimum or threshold dose at which no effect occurs. However, the Internationa) Commission on Radiological Protection, a non-governmental international body, has referred to such assumptions as being both ‘cautious’ and conservative’ and stated ‘that some effects may require a minimum or threshold dose’.

In part of its evaluation of the hazards to health of the 1971 French tests, the National Radiation Advisory Committee followed a practice, adopted by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, namely that of comparing the radiation doses from nuclear weapon tests with the doses inevitably received by the community from natural background radiation. The average natural background radiation dose to a person in the Australian communities is about 100 millirad per year. However the natural background varies from place to place due to such factors as altitude and the amount of naturally occurring radioactive materia] in the soil. In a given location, the annual dose due to natural sources also varies from person to person duc to such factors as the materials used in the construction of buildings in which they live and work and the amount of time they spend indoors and out-of-doors. Taking all these factors into account the actual radiation dose due to natural background radiation received by persons would vary, one from the other, from the annual average by up to about 10 millirad per year. Some of the population living at altitude or in areas of high natural radioactivity would receive annual radiation doses greater than the average by 50 per cent or more.

The Appendix to the report of the National Radiation Advisory Committee shows, for example, that the total external radiation dose from fallout deposited on the ground from the 1971 French nuclear tests was, when reduction factors due to shielding are applied, in all cases less than 0.7 millirad. If the conservative assumption of direct proportionality between dose and biological effects, without a minimum or threshold dose, is applied it follows that this dose would have given rise as a total to less than 1 per cent of the same biological effects in each and every year which are due to the average natural background radiation dose. Any biological effects would have been less than those which would result from the variations which occur in natural background radiation from place to place and for individual to individual.

I wish to emphasise that I am not in any way supporting the French tests. The Government has made known its opposition to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing by any nation. However, I believe that it is important to reassure the Australian population that on the basis of the best independent advice available and contrary to some alarmist views fallout from the French tests to date does not constitute a hazard to the health of the Australian population.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– by leave - I move:

I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted: Debate adjourned.

page 67

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE: PROGRESS REPORT ON JAPAN REFERENCE

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I seek leave to make a statement concerning the progress made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in considering the Japan reference transmitted to it by the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator SIM:

– The resolution of the Senate of 1 1th June 1970, which set up the legislative and general purpose committees, anticipates that committees will report progress to the Senate. Accordingly, it is my pleasure to report briefly on the progress made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in its current inquiry into Japan.

This Committee was established on 6th October 1971 and on the following day had referred to it the subject of Japan for investigation and report. The Committee held its first meeting on 7th October and did me the honour of electing me its Chairman. Public hearings commenced on 22nd November 1971 and since that time the Committee has had 30 days of sittings, principally in public hearing, and has received evidence from 70 witnesses. In addition, many written submissions and much published material has been studied.

Perhaps I should mention the uniqueness of the reference to the Committee. It is a simple one-word reference - ‘Japan’ - which left the Committee free to planthe scope of the inquiry and the nature of the subjects into which it would inquire. I understand this is the first occasion on which a committee of the Senate has inquired into relations with another country.

The Committee decided that it would not restrict the scope of the inquiry to foreign affairs and defence only. As Japan has become Australia’s greatest trading partner, it appeared desirable to study trade and cultural relations and, importantly, to explore how mutual understanding between the peoples of the 2 countries might be advanced. The Committee also considered that it would be of value for it to examine Japan’s position globally and not exclusively in the narrower field of Australian-Japanese relationships.

The Committee has sought information from the widest possible field of witnesses and I am pleased to inform the Senate that a high level of co-operation has been received from academic, government and business circles and from private citizens with special knowledge of Japan. We have also been fortunate to have had the opportunity of discussions with visiting Japanese academics and businessmen.

There remain only several witnesses to be heard by the Committee and it is our intention, if at all possible, to present our full report to the Senate during the present Parliamentary session.

page 68

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Austra lia

– At the request of Senator Murphy and with the concurrence of Senator Byrne I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 68

SOFTWOOD FORESTRY AGREEMENTS BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 August 1972 (vide page 29), on motion by Senator Cotton-:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Upon which Senator Mulvihill had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add - but the Senate deplores the Government’s failure to prepare and publish, in consultation with the States, a national plan for -

the full use and development of Australia’s forestry resources; and

the conservation of existing hardwood forests and associated flora and fauna in relation to softwood plantings’.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– It is not my intention to speak at length on the Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill 1972. But I do reiterate the importance of the amendment that was moved by my colleague, Senator Mulvihill, when this Bill came before this chamber yesterday. To refresh the memory of honourable senators, I will repeat the terms of the amendment. The Opposition criticises the Bill on the basis that there is no national plan for:

  1. the full use and development of Australia’s forestry resources; and
  2. the conservation of existing hardwood forests and associated flora and fauna in relation to softwood plantings.

It is now a number of years since this agreement was reached between the Commonwealth and the States, but I doubt whether the Commonwealth has ever taken a very keen interest in how the money is spent. I can speak with some experience of what has happened in my own State of Queensland where the Forestry Commission under the existing Government set-up in the last 12 or 13 years has been a rather haphazard sort of organisation. When 1 say that, I am not criticising the trained people of the Commission or those who work in it. The policy of the Queensland Government goes from stump to stump, as it were, without any real planning. Particularly in north Queensland areas, much agitation has occurred for the establishment of softwood forests. These pleas largely are neglected, in the southern areas, taking in the Gympie district, the Mary Valley and adjacent areas, over a period of years the usual procedure has been to carry out a destructive programme in large areas of existing native softwoods and native hardwoods for the purpose of planting exotic softwoods.

The purpose of the financial agreement is to see that sufficient money is available and proper planning is carried out - I question the latter - for the establishment of these exotic softwood forests. It has been said by conservationists that in this field there has been complete neglect of the indigenous flora and fauna. When a large area is placed under exotic softwoods, most of the indigenous wildlife disappears entirely. The usual procedure is to feil the existing trees and bulldoze large tracts of country, which subsequently are burnt off, and then the replanting takes place. There are large areas of forests where proper regeneration can take place. It is not impossible, according to some forestry experts, to plant exotic softwoods in existing hardwood areas without carrying out a destruction of all the existing trees in those areas. It is in this field that the Commonwealth ought to exercise greater supervision.

Other conservationists have suggested that, when areas are totally cleared, strips of the indigenous scrub country or forest country ought to be left for the preservation of flora and fauna in that area. My colleague, Senator Mulvihill, mentioned yesterday one example in which a species of kangaroo completely disappeared from an area that had gone under exotic softwoods. This occurred in that whole area with the exception of a small patch in the forest where some kangaroos were able to graze on native grasses. It is, I think, a well understood fact amongst all authorities concerned with Australian wildlife that, when planting of exotic pines and other types of softwoods takes place, the berries, nuts or cones produced by the new trees do not provide the food necessary for the survival of existing fauna. But, if the plantations are laid out in such a way that some of the original scrub country or forest country and, in tropical areas, rain forest country can be preserved, it is certainly possible to save the local fauna and also the local flora.

It is on these grounds that the Opposition’s amendment has been moved. We wish to see planning carried out on a proper basis. For a long time reafforestation has been a sort of unwanted child in the Australian community. Many years ago it was looked upon as an area of activity in which the unemployed could be absorbed. It has been shown that the planting of private forests is a most profitable industry. If one looks at Australian pines - not a great area of them has been planted in this country - one finds that after a reasonable period, frequently much less than 20 years, thinning can be carried out and the thinnings can be disposed of as a profitable enterprise. The same situation applies with respect to the various exotic pines. After a suitable lapse of time, depending on the type of tree and the nature of the country in which it is grown, the thinning processes produce timber and other by-products which return a profit. So, if the whole of the reafforestation programme is properly planned, no need exists for this country in the long term to continue to import softwoods. We ought to be able to carry out a reafforestation programme in such a way that we can provide all the timber that is required for our own market and probably, in the long term, have an exportable surplus.

Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of the fact that, unless reafforestation is properly, planned - this includes the regeneration of areas of native softwoods and native hardwoods and possibly the introduction of scattered sowings of exotic softwoods in the regeneration areas - quite harmful effects may result. Long term planning must be carried out. The authorities responsible for the forests in the respective States - particularly do I know that these remarks apply to Queensland - seem to operate in a sort of economic grasshopper field in which this activity can be expanded this year because the necessary labour or money is available while there is no plan- ning for it next year. No long term planning at least occurs on a percentage scale by which a proper programme is set out so that reafforestation can be carried out in a manner which is economical and which helps us to preserve out native plants and animal and bird life.

I know that Senator Douglas McClelland will touch on some of the more technical aspects of this matter, so I propose to confine my remarks to those few paragraphs. I hope that the Commonwealth, through its various agencies and particularly through the Minister for National Development (Sir Reginald Swartz), will exercise some supervision of the States and the manner in which they dispose of this money.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party approaches this Bill from a point of view of some concern. In the first place, I indicate that we support the amendment which has been moved on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Mulvihill. That amendment expresses an opinion of the Senate without affecting the fate of the Bill. We propose, in the Committee stage, to propound an amendment to clause 9 of the Schedule to the Bill. This will be an operative amendment and, if it is carried, it will affect the fate of the Bill.

The question of the development of Australia’s natural resources consonant with the protection of the Australian environment is becoming of tremendous significance. This type of confrontation or conflict is becoming significant in every country, but perhaps nowhere more so than in this continent where there is now this tremendous drive for the exploration, exploitation and development of our natural resources. The resources of this vast continent, which are lying substantially untapped in terms of their development, are now receiving the attention of entrepreneurs, prospectors and developers. If we do not move now to ensure the elevation of environmental concern to a very high national position, the opportunity will inevitably and irrevocably be lost. That is why with a Bill of this nature we are disposed to propound an operative amendment in terms of our concern for the preservation of the environment.

The Democratic Labor Party takes very great pride in the fact that, although the growing interest in environmental protection is of somewhat recent origin and has certainly reached great dimensions only more recently, years ago it was the first political Party in Australia to insert in a national policy speech a programme of national conservation. This cannot be denied us. It is a concern we expressed early. We placed it among those very cherished items which naturally must be limited when writing a national policy speech, and we believe that we pioneered the national concern which is now so evident.

In addition, the DLP, with honourable senators from other political parties in this chamber, had the pleasure and privilege of serving on 2 conservation committees of the Senate - The Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution and the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. The findings of those select committees were presented in this chamber and commended to the Government. The report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution was the subject of a resolution of this chamber, a rather unusual procedure, that it be taken into urgent consideration by the Government for early attention and action. Since then the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) has made a statement on the subject; but I should like to see a more recent statement showing what steps have been taken to implement or to adopt, or to adopt with qualifications, the recommendations of that Committee.

Senator Keeffe:

– They have lost the copies of both reports, I think.

Senator BYRNE:

– With respect to Senator Keeffe, I do not think that would be correct. I understand that Mr Howson made a statement. Our recommendation was that there should be concurrent legislation and co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States to discover a national plan for the conservation of water. I believe the Senate should be informed periodically of the fate of reports of this Senate and its committees, and particularly to this report since it was the subject of a particular resolution of urgency by this chamber. I had proposed to move that the Leader of the Government in the Senate be required to report periodically on the fate of Senate committee reports, but I understand that there is a motion of that character standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

In relation to this Bill the DLP proposes that before development takes place and before softwood replanting is allowed to supplant indigenous tree growth, be it eucalypt or other indigenous forest, the matter be considered from the point of view of environmental control and protection. The amendment which I shall propose for the DLP in the committee stage of this Bill reflects decisions which were taken over a period of time and more particularly by the Federal conference of my Party in April this year. I think 1 should indicate to the Senate now the amendment we propose.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Does it relate to “ clause 9 of the agreement?

Senator BYRNE:

– It is clause 9 of the Schedule, which is the agreement. We shall submit that clause 9 as it now stands in the Schedule and which sets out the terms of the proposed agreement between the Commonwealth and the States should be deleted and replaced by the following clauses:

  1. – The State shall ensure that planting during each year ls carried out efficiently and in conformity with sound forestry, environmental and financial practices. 9a. - The State shall ensure that natural forests shall not be cleared for planting softwoods unless the particular proposed clearing has beforehand been the subject of an environmental impact study made by an independent expert on behalf of the Australian Forestry Council and the Council after considering the report of the said study has approved the particular clearing.

The DLP is quite conscious of the fact thai the moving of such an amendment and its acceptance by this chamber will have the effect of not allowing the Commonwealth to subscribe to the projected agreement. That agreement then in altered form would have to be resubmitted to the States, to see whether the States in concord can accept it. We are conscious of that, but we regard the matter as being so important that we consider that should be done. We are conscious of the fact that this is not now an agreement merely to be signed and ratified by the Commonwealth through legislation but that it is a projected agreement which is still in the stage of Commonwealth-State discussion though agreement has substantially been reached. The proposition we have in mind reflects the actual decisions taken by the

Federal conference of the DLP which I shall take the liberty of reading to the Senate, since they are informative as to our thinking on this subject. We referred to the environmental crisis in Australia, and among the priorities we determined were the following:

  1. requiring that the presentation of an environmental impact study he a condition precedent to the approval of any development,
  2. the adoption of the principle that pollutors (be they Governments, manufacturers or private individuals) be responsible for the cost of cleaning up their own pollution,
  3. the widespread establishment of national parks and nature reserves (including historic sites) particularly - for recreational and educational purposes - along the coast and in close proximity to large centres of population, but also - and of no less importance - for scientific study, habitat for wild life and the simple preservation of wilderness and:
  4. the retention so far as possible of what relatively little remains of our natural forests and landscapes instead of destroying them whether in order:
  5. to sell wood chips abroad or

    1. to mine for minerals of transient value (so often for the benefit very largely of overseas investors) or
    2. to drown large tracts of land under the waters of uneconomic hydro-electric schemes or
    3. to replace natural forests by specially planted exotic forests which would better by planted on farm and grazing lands no longer economic;

Those are the parameters which our Party considers should occupy the attention of those who are parties to redevelopment or parties to the planning of exotic forests be they of pine or some other tree type or species.

The object of this Bill is to continue the agreement by which the Commonwealth provides money to the States for the planting of forests in order to produce reserves of timber which can be used for commercial building purposes. In that process it is found necessary to clear land, to destroy indigenous growth and sometimes to plant areas where there is no indigenous forest growth but which could be used for some other purpose, that is, a plain or undulating land not being close and growing eucalypt forest. We are concerned that this matter should receive the attention of the Parliament and that our point of view should be known, and that it should be indicated to the States that we are concerned in this. We have taken the lead, particularly in this chamber, for the protection of the environment, and the States should be told by this method that we hope that they would be parties to the incorporation within any CommonwealthState agreement on their side of this recognition of the need for environmental reference in any agreements which may he entered into for the provision of finance to supplant indigenous growth by exotic forest planting.

Now I shall refer to more specific matters. The purpose of the first amendment is to ensure primarily that the principles which were set forward not only in our deliberations and in the decisions taken by our conference, but in the announcement by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, are observed. I think the formulation of views such as this while denying oneself the opportunity of carrying them into practical legislative and administrative operation is to be deplored - if that is to be the attitude of the Government. Secondly, our amendment emphasises the importance we attach to environmental matters in any question of redevelopment. We do not think for one moment that consideration for the environment should of necessity and inevitably surmount every other consideration. We know there must always be found that reconciliation between the legitimate need to explore natural resources and the protection of the environment and sometimes one or the other may have to be sacrificed. The important thing is that the environment shall not be disregarded, that it shall be given its due place and at least shall be a matter of concern when a judgment has to be made.

The third matter raised in the amendment again indicates the importance we attach to environmental matters and draws attention to the fact that our Party’s policy for so long has been in the forefront in drawing national attention to these matters. We understand, of course, that the development and expansion of a softwoods industry is a natural part of our national economic growth and part of our commercial operations. It does supply a national and an international need. It is part of our trade pattern. We are using the opportunities provided by our land and our climate to grow certain exotics which are marketable and we cannot afford to overlook the opportunity. Therefore, we do not in any sense set our face against the development and use of land for the planting of exotics for this purpose. But again it is a question of finding the proper balance and the wanton laying aside of concern for the indigenous timbers cannot be accepted or tolerated just because of the demands of trade and the commercial demands for the development of an industry.

We feel that already there has been a heavy denudation of our natural forests and this process must be impeded if it cannot be stopped. Recently in our Federal conference we carried a resolution that we wanted to retain as far as possible what relatively little remains of our natural forests. We know that all States are concerned and have passed legislation declaring natural forests and have surrounded them with all types of prohibitions on entry, on use and on the lighting of fires, and have expanded fire services, because this is a diminishing national asset which is extraordinarily precious and is virtually irreplaceable except over a long period of time, as nature has demonstrated to us. We are conscious of those things and that is why we take this very firm stand in relation to this Bill.

I am informed that in New South Wales - I am not from that State - there are particular problems which have led the New South Wales Forestry Commission to undertake to destroy certain natural forests to enable the planting of monterey pines. I am informed also that in one case the New South Wales Forestry Commission contemplates the elimination of a natural eucalypt forest on the Boyd Plateau in the western Blue Mountains some 65 miles west of Sydney to enable the planting of pines for eventual milling at Oberon some 40 miles away. That no doubt can be justified in some sort of commercial terms.

Senator Mulvihill:

– A policy of reafforestation.

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes. If that is the situation and the paramountcy of commercial exploitation is the only consideration affecting the minds of those who make the decision then I think it is to be deplored. The purpose of our amendment is to require an impact study on the environmental consequences of this disturbance, replacement or elimination before permission is given to replace indigenous plants with exotic plants of whatever character and for whatever purpose. It appears by no means to be an unwanted presumption to require that to be done. After all, if any commercial exploiter in any field is going into a new enterprise the first thing he will undertake is an impact study. Whether he is seeking to sell a line of soap powder, to develop a new machine or a new technique he will make an impact study, particularly in the field of public relations and advertising.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is an impact study?

Senator BYRNE:

– It is a study of the effect the project will have on the local environment, the local fauna and the local flora. After all, when one replaces a eucalypt forest with a pine forest it is not merely the replacement of a eucalypt with a pine. It is also the disturbance of the ecology of the area and the disturbance of the habitat of animals.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is made into a biological desert.

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes. It involves the disturbance of the habitat of the creatures who live in the eucalypt forest. It may be, for example, a koala bear which is one of the inhabitants. So an impact study is not merely a study that looks at whether one will conserve as much water by the growing of pines as by the growing of eucalypts but the whole effect on the environment and the ecology of the area. Surely it is not too much to say in this new concept of environmental concern that is developing all over the world that this is a matter that should be taken into consideration in any developmental project where there is a danger of disturbance of the ecology or the environment by the contemplated commercial venture. In New South Wales recently the State conference of the Democratic Labor Party opposed the development of the Boyd Plateau on the ground that it would be better to include the land in the proposed Kanangra-Boyd National Park. I do not speak with great authority about it, but our conference did, and there were men .there who were intimately associated with the area and who knew something about it. Apparently there was a reasonable and available commercial alter native to the projected development of the Boyd Plateau. Surely that was the type of thing that could well have been the subject of an impact study by a body equipped to do it and to whom the study could have been entrusted.

We agree that the development of the wood chip industry for export, particularly to Japan, is a matter of very great commercial consequence but we must remember that in the development of this industry, which may be of long or short duration because we know that commerce is subject to the vagaries of international relations and things of that nature, it may well be that when we have developed the industry at the cost of our eucalypts we will find that the trade has collapsed or disappeared and the eucalypts have gone never to be regenerated or recovered. That in my concept would be an extraordinarily bad bargin. I have raised the question of using plain and undulating land instead of forest land for the development of these exotic pine forests. The Democratic Labor Party feels that the Commonwealth should lay down as a matter of principle, so far as it lies within its constitutional power to do so, that the use of land for pine plantations should wherever possible be in areas of this kind rather than in areas which would involve the displacement of the natural flora. Therefore the Democratic Labor Party propounds this amendment. It is an operative amendment. I notice in the Bill that, while this agreement has apparently reached the point where it is substantially an agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and the States, clause 3 states:

The execution, on behalf of the Commonwealth, of an agreement between the Commonwealth and a State substantially in accordance with the form contained in the Schedule to this Act is authored.

I do not quite know how that clause was to be read if the Bill went through in its present form. It would mean that we would adopt, apparently, the agreement in the form contained in the Schedule which is part of this Bill. But if a State, being a party to the general understanding, legislated that schedule, provided it was substantially in accordance with the terms of the Schedule, it would be a party to that agreement and we would be bound in some way by the so amended Schedule. I do not canvass that. All I say is that obviously contemplated in clause 3 of the Bill is the possibility that either the Commonwealth in the passage of legislation or any one of the States at the same time and in the same way may see fit to vary in some particular the agreement embodied in the Schedule of this Act. That appears to be contemplated in clause 3. If that is so, there is nothing untoward in our making some adjustment to the agreement as it now appears in the existing Schedule. If that amendment is accepted and the Schedule is amended we say that we are prepared to subscribe to this agreement but with a qualification. When it goes back to the States any one State may say: ‘We will so legislate in terms of your variation’, or it may not. Correspondingly, if the State of New South Wales, on looking at this Schedule and this agreement, as we are looking at it today, decided that it should insert something, I presume we would have to look at the matter again here. So I take it that the whole matter is still inchoate and is still a matter of agreement between the States as to the final form in which the agreement should emerge, or alternatively if one of the States adopts it substantially but with some variations then the Commonwealth would adopt this Schedule and the 2 would run together, for what this is worth.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is a most unusual clause.

Senator BYRNE:

– lt is a most unusual clause and I am not quite able to discover what is the purport of it. At least it does indicate that there is room in this Parliament for us even at this stage to make a variation to the agreement as it is recited in the Schedule. In that case the States would have to look at it and see whether they are prepared to concur in that agreement in that new form or, as I say, legislate in other terms with the 2 agreements running along together substantially in concurrence. Nevertheless, we will propound our amendment to the agreement in terms of the circulated proposal which provides for the insertion of new clauses 9 and 9 (a). I know that the current agreement runs from 1967 to 1972. Just what the financial consequences would be if this Bill were held up, I candidly am not aware at the present time, but I have little doubt that the financial consequences would not be irremediable. Even though there were some delay in obtaining total Commonwealth and State concurrence there is little reason to believe that the matter would be held up and that any further moneys which were needed in any sense or for any purpose would not be provided and would not be available.

So far as I can see, the agreement has not yet expired and therefore the Bill perhaps is not of that urgent nature that requires immediate passage to prevent the supply of money from completely disappearing and the whole of the projects being suspended. For those reasons, the Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill in principle. It supports the expression of opinion embodied in the amendment propounded by Senator Mulvihill on behalf of the Opposition. The Democratic Labor Party will present its own amendment to clause 9 of the Schedule at the Committee stage. We trust that we shall have the concurrence of the Senate in that proposal. I understand we will receive the concurrence of the Opposition and I trust we will also have the concurrence of the Government.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This Bill, which is known as the Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill, relates to agreements that are made under the Schedule attached to the Bill between the Commonwealth and the Stales in connection with softwood forestry plantings over a period of 5 years commencing in 1973. On behalf of tie Opposition Senator Mulvihill has moved that there be added at the end of the motion that the Bill be now read a second time the following words: but the Senate deplores the Government’s failure to prepare and publish, in consultation with the States, a national plan for -

  1. the full use and development of Australia’s forestry resources; and
  2. the conservation of existing hardwood forests and associated flora and fauna in relation to softwood plantings.

In their speeches in the second reading debate my colleagues, Senator Mulvihill and Senator Keeffe, have dealt, so far as the Opposition is concerned, with the conservation aspects and the problems that will occur if this Government, in conjunc- tion with the States, does not get down to a positive plan of action for the future needs and development of this industry. They dealt also with the aspect of preservation and protection of flora and fauna and the preservation and conservation of our national resources. I intend briefly to deal with the aspects of productions and community needs. In the formulation of a national plan - a plan that has to be evolved under the present arrangements with consultation between the Commonwealth and the States - there has to be considered not only the question of the preservation and conservation of flora and fauna and associated matters but also the question of the future community needs for softwood in Australia. Also in conjunction with community needs, one has to consider the production requirements of the industry and how best the industry can be developed in accordance with the needs of local communities that depend completely in many instances on a timber industry for their economic survival and viability.

I addressed some remarks on this subject to the Senate during the adjournment debate on 29th February of this year. On that occassion I pointed out that under the original Commonwealth-State agreement on softwood planting programmes the Commonwealth provided loans to the State Governments to meet the additional annual costs of new plantations intended to be carried out by the States over specific base areas. The State of New South Wales, which I, Senator Mulvihill who lead for the Opposition, and indeed Senator Cotton, the Minister in charge of the Bill, have the honour to represent in this chamber, was provided by the Commonwealth with loans to meet the additional annual costs of new plantations over a base area of 8,100 acres each year. That agreement came into effect on 1st July 1968. It was to run for a period of 5 years. In anticipation of a similar arrangement or similar arrangements continuing after 1971 the Government of New South Wales was planning to achieve an annual rate of new plantation development of 25,000 acres a year by 1975-76. As I understand the situation, the Commonwealth, in renegotiating the agreement for a second 5-year period, put a ceiling of 9,730 acres - I think that was the figure - as the size of the plantation for which it would provide loan funds - not grants but loan funds - each financial year over the period of the agreement. In renegotiating this agreement the Commonwealth has lifted the base area that it had agreed to previously from 8,100 acres to 8,780 acres.

If one looks at the Schedule to the Bill one finds that the New South Wales planting rate has been pegged to 18,510 acres in each of the years 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 instead of the planned development rate of the Government of New South Wales of 25,000 acres. Of course, that means in short that the softwood plantation programme in New South Wales this financial year has been reduced by more than 4,000 acres which, over a period of 5 years, means a reduction in the planned development rate or planting rate of 20,000 acres. The result of this lack of advance planning and lack of ability on the part of the Commonwealth and the States to reach agreement is that the industry is in complete confusion and workers are out of work in many country areas that rely to a large extent on the timber industry for their economic survival. When I spoke in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate on 29th February the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) who was at the table gave me a reply. As reported at page 295 of Hansard, he said that the Commonwealth had done a great deal to help forestry programmes over the whole of Australia in the last 5 years. He said that it planned to do more. He pointed out that over the last 5 years the Commonwealth had financed a planting programme throughout Australia of 113,100 acres and that in the next 5 years it planned, in conjunction with the Australian Forestry Council, to plant 125,000 acres. This is an increase of a mere 12,000 acres over a period of 5 years. The Minister went on:

So in total it will agree to help to plant in the next 5 years more than it has in the last 5 years. In New South Wales the planting programme has been as follows: In 1967, 12,500 acres; in 1968, 16,000 acres; in 1969, 17,500 acres; in 1970, 18,300 acres; and in 1971, 19,600 acres. The programme agreed upon, which is a totally greater programme, is 18,510 acres.

In 1971, 19,600 acres were planted and in 1972 only 18,510 acres are to be planted; so how the Minister can say that the pro- gramme agreed upon is a totally greater programme frankly is beyond my comprehension. The Minister went on to state:

The fact that New South Wales wanted to plant 25,000 acres and wanted the Commonwealth to pay for the difference ought to be put in its proper context.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to heed the words which I am about to quote:

If there is a problem then it belongs substantially to New South Wales. I suggest that in forestry matters the Commonwealth has done a remarkably good job.

Senator Milliner:

– Who said that?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

That was the Minister sitting at the table.

Senator Mulvihill:

Senator Cotton?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister, Senator Cotton. But what does the Government of New South Wales say about that matter? One of my State parliamentary colleagues, Mr Day, the member for Casino, raised the subject with the New South Wales Minister for Conservation. Hon. W. Fife. On 2nd February, about the same time as 1 spoke in this chamber - 1 remind honourable senators that the Minister for Civil Aviation said in this chamber: ‘If there is a problem then it belongs substantially to New South Wales’ - Mr Fife in reply to Mr Day stated: lt is true that there has been a reduction in the area of softwood plantation being established annually in New South Wales. This reduction results directly from the lower level of financial assistance available from the Commonwealth Government to the States in terms of the second 5- year Commonwealth Softwood Forestry Agreement. Because New South Wales has been operating the largest softwood plantation programme, it has been, most affected.

The cut back in the programme has forced the Forestry Commission to review its plantation projects and,, as a result, ons of the areas which has been affected- a number of areas have been affected - is the small project at Whiporie State Forest in Casino district where the establishment of new plantation areas has been discontinued. This action has been necessary so that plantings in the major project areas can be retained at levels capable of achieving the long term aims of encouraging the establishment of new wood using industries.

In his final paragraph the Minister added:

The necessity to cut back its new plantation programme has been very much regretted by the

Forestry Commission. The Casino district is by no means the only area affected by the reduction in planting areas. However, present indications are that the existing area of 4,316 acres together with the fire killed area yet to be replanted will eventually produce at least 5 million super feet per annum indefinitely.

It is all very well for this Government to say that it is taking steps to reduce unemployment particularly in country areas; but, according to the New South Wales Government, as a result of financial stringencies imposed upon it by the Commonwealth Government workers in the timber industry are being thrown out of work. The Tumut planting programme - that is in the electorate of Hume, a marginal seat - has been reduced by 3,000 acres and men have been put out of work. The softwood plantation programmes in the Casino and Coffs Harbour districts in the Cowper electorate - another marginal seat - have been halted. The Glen Innes programme will not be expanded and the commencement of the Barrington Tops programme in the Gloucester district has been deferred by the New South Wales Government.

Senator Milliner:

– Why has it been deferred?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Because of lack of finance. Sufficient money has not been made available by the Commonwealth to the State under the new agreement to enable the State to carry out what it regards as a reasonable production programme. The Barrington Tops programme was expected to become one of the biggest employers in the district. If one looks at the unemployment figures recently published by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and relates those figures to the areas which are serviced by the various district employment offices one will see that the uncertainty and lack of planning in the timber industry in New South Wales have, to a reasonably substantial degree, been responsible for high unemployment in the State which I represent. Indeed, just recently in the Gloucester ‘Advocate’ - no-one can say from its past record that it is a sympathetic Labor newspaper - it was reported that Mr Hewett, the President of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, had been in contact with the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) and also a member of the New South Wales Parliament. Mr Hewett is reported to have said:

The State-wide cutback, however, will accentuate rural unemployment and will affect other country areas in that if the scheme had gone ahead the Forestry Commission would have employed, over the years, many victims of the rural recession from other parts of the State.

This then is a severe blow to the principles of decentralisation and highlights the glaring inconsistencies of the Government’s economic policy.

I urge the Government, in considering a re-negotiation of any programmes of this nature, to plan much further in advance than it did on this occasion. The New South Wales Government went ahead on the basis that what was being done under the original 5-year agreement would continue to be done under the second 5-year agreement. Planning was done on this basis and the industry was geared to produce on this basis. Suddenly, when it came to the time of re-negotiation, different arrangements had to be made.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was mentioning the lack of planning on the part of governments, Commonwealth and State, in relation to the timber industry and the problems with which the industry in New South Wales is confronted because of the reduced amount of finance made available to the New South Wales Government under the second 5-year arrangement. I had completed my remarks on that aspect. I wish to refer to another matter which, although not directly related to the Bill, is very much interrelated with it. I refer to the income tax deduction for depreciation on timber mill buildings. I refer particularly to the Yarras timber mill which is situated 14 or 15 miles from Wauchope on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales.

Senator Webster:

– Who owns that mill?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know who owns it. I am more concerned about the workers at the mill. The mill was transferred from one of the western suburbs of Sydney to the mid-North Coast of New South Wales to effect the decentralisation of an industry. As a result of this Government’s policy in the dairying industry of ‘get big or get out’, a lot of people on the mid-North Coast of New

South Wales had to get out of the dairying industry. About the only form of employment available to them in that area was work connected with the timber mill at Yarras. The Yarras mill employs about 180 males and females. Not only does it provide a great deal of timber for the Sydney metropolitan area but also I understand that it was responsible for providing the plywood veneer in the New South Wales Government’s office at The Strand in London.

I raised with the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) the subject of taxation deductions for depreciation on timber mill buildings because the livelihood of 180 people who could not get work but for the successful operation of this mill would be affected. On 29th May 1972 I was advised that for a timber mill to qualify for taxation deductions 2 requirements as to the location of a timber mill building have to be satisfied. The building must be situated not only in a forest but also in or adjacent to the area where the timber being milled is felled. I was told that the Commissioner of Taxation had advised the Treasurer that the Yarras timber mill had at no time been situated in a forest. This mill would be about 10 yards from a forest. It is a decentralised industry, one that has been moved from the Sydney metropolitan area to the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. Whilst it is not in the forest, using the technical term, it certainly is very much adjacent to the area where the timber is being felled. I suggest that if the Government wishes to encourage other organisations in the industry to move into similar areas, to enable them to operate and to obtain the benefits of a depreciation allowance for taxation deduction purposes, this matter should be looked at by the Commonwealth.

I support the amendment moved very ably by my colleague Senator Mulvihill. I believe that because of the continued lack of planning in this industry on the part of Commonwealth and State governments we have run into problems so far as the environment is concerned and so far as the preservation of flora and fauna are concerned. We are uncertain of Australia’s future softwood requirements and because of the uncertainty in that regard we cannot be sure of the production requirements. I believe that the amendment should be supported by the Senate.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– 1 listened with interest to Senator Douglas Mcclelland, who has just resumed his seat. I believe that he mentioned something about unemployment in the particular industry. 1 would imagine that the Bill would alleviate unemployment in the areas which he mentioned, because the Government is providing $21m over the next few years to enable the States to continue planting pine trees on State owned land. I think we must agree that the Bill is a very worthy one. Contrary to what Senator Douglas McClelland said, it will be for the benefit of the people employed in this industry. 1 draw the attention of the Senate to tm plight of the private forestry sector. Private forestry is primarily a softwood proposition. That is how it is commonly considered in Australia. It can be divided into 3 categories. The first is farm forestry, which usually consists of the planting of pines on odd pieces of land which are normally unsuitable for any other purpose. That planting is done without the benefit of any professional advice and often without regard to the location of the markets. The second is investment forestry, which is usually effected by the sale of bonds or shares to the public. The temptation for the salesmen to exaggerate the returns to be expected, in order to induce sales, can be readily understood. In this area control may prove undesirable. The third is industrial forestry, which is the establishment by the timber industry of large areas of pine plantations to provide a source of raw material for the processing plants as an insurance against restrictions of large supplies from Government sources as a result of extensive destruction of forests by fire, wind, insects or disease. Staffs of professional foresters are employed to establish and manage these plantations. They have already established for their forest products a ready market situated within economic distances of utilisation plants.

It seems to me that the various governments should provide a forest service to advise the first 2 categories that 1 have mentioned on the suitability of the sites for growing pines and on the proper methods for the establishment of forests and their management. At present large numbers of professional foresters are being provided through the Forestry Department of the Australian National University. I do not see why these men should be made available solely to the State forest services, as is the case at present. I know that a certain number of these students have become available mainly to the industrial forestry companies. But I am concerned that practically none of the farm foresters or investment forestry companies apparently can afford to employ them. The State forest services so distrust the investment forestry companies that sometimes they will not even permit their forestry officers to advise such companies.

Under this Bill the Government is providing millions of dollars to enable the State forest services to expand the establishment and management of softwood plantations. Yet not only do these organisations have amply trained staff at the moment, but also they have many other advantages over private foresters. For example, the Government forestry departments pay no income tax or land tax. Certainly, private forestry is given some taxation benefits but these’ are not equal to the tax free position of the State services.

Senator Webster:

– They cannot compete with them in commercial terms when the product is sold.

Senator JESSOP:

– I was coming to that point. I thank the honourable senator for reminding me. The State forest services are also free of local government rates which are tending to assume alarming proportions. Yet the private companies have to compete, as Senator Webster mentioned a while ago, with produce from the government forests. To plant 2.000 acres a year, even in the most economic conditions, would cost at least $100,000 each year without including the cost of the land, lt would cost about $200,000 properly to maintain the resulting forests at the end of the 1 5th year. The total investment to that time, without adding interest charges, would be about $2m. At the end of 35 years when these forests can be considered mature this amount would have more than doubled. It is an extremely expensive undertaking. I want this point to sink in.

When it is realised that from time to time these industrial companies must continue to install and replace the very expensive machinery necessary to process the ever expanding production from a developing forest, it will be seen how important assistance can be to them in their financial problems.

Senator Wilkinson:

– From what is the honourable senator quoting?

Senator JESSOP:

– I have a few notes that I put together for the honourable senator’s benefit because these points are very significant to the people in the industry.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am the judge of what constitutes copious notes.

Senator JESSOP:

– Thank you for your protection, Mr President. Efforts to raise a loan for forestry purposes of the above nature have been abortive.

Senator Webster:

– It is nearly impossible for a private forester to raise the money necessary.

Senator JESSOP:

– Of course it is because the banks are not prepared to make funds available for the length of time involved before a return is available. I suppose that is a fair attitude to take when it is considered that it takes a very long time for these forests to become productive. Moreover, the rates of interest charged by the banks for a loan for forestry purposes are prohibitive. I believe that as the Commonwealth is providing substantial assistance to the States to enable forest expansion, it is fair to suggest that the Government should be prepared to assist private forest owners during the years in which the crop becomes established in order that they might compete on reasonably equal terms with the produce from government forests. I want to elaborate a little further on this point. I suggest that as a result of the non-availability of finance at least 2 industrial companies have had to reduce their annual plantings, to zero in one case and to one-third in the other.

Senator Wilkinson:

– The honourable senator keeps looking at Senator Webster.

Senator JESSOP:

– I know that he is much more interested in this matter than perhaps Senator Wilkinson is. The fact that these plantings have had to be reduced has been brought about purely and simply because the companies have not been able to produce the finance required for the more essential works, such as the installation of this expensive machinery that I mentioned before, in order to process the product of their rapidly developing industry. Not only do the State forest services have the advantage of obtaining the use of State and Commonwealth moneys for the purchase of land and the establishment, management and protection of their softwood forests but also they now receive Commonwealth money free of interest and the need for any repayment of principal for 10 years. This is a concession that has been outlined already in the Bill. If honourable senators look at the second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), they will see that these repayments are geared to the cash flow pattern of forestry investment in which there is no financial return until the first thinnings. Further, I remind honourable senators that the State forest services do not pay income tax or land tax.

I feel that financial assistance should be made available to both public and private owners to the extent that they do not already receive such assistance. I suggest that it ought to be made available to those who could meet the following conditions: Firstly, their forests should be under the management of a qualified forester, that is, a person with a degree in forestry from an approved university and who has some years of practical experience.

Senator Webster:

– A person need not necessarily hold a degree in order to possess those criteria.

Senator JESSOP:

– That is true. Secondly, such an owner should possess sufficient suitable land to enable the establishment of an economic forest unit. Thirdly, the . area of land to be planted - this is a condition that ought to be taken into consideration - should be within economic hauling distance of a market for his forest produce. Fourthly, the owner should have sufficient financial resources to ensure that he will be able to meet any normal deficiencies in the moneys needed by him for future management. I suggest that because private forestry is assisted by governments of most countries, although the extent and nature of this assistance varies, we should have a serious look at the position in Australia. The loans that could be made available to these people should be made for a period of 35 years or until the forest is clear felled, whichever is the sooner, as it is only at this stage that the bulk of the monetary earnings are received, if necessary, repayment of the loan could commence on the 15th year when normally the first thinnings can be expected to give some return.

Senator Poke:

– Is the honourable senator trying to say that it is 15 years before the first thinnings?

Senator JESSOP:

– This is the usual period. Repayment of the loan could, if necessary, be commenced when the profits of the thinnings started to materialise. I think it is reasonable to suggest that interest should be at the rates normally paid for Government loans. All payments made under the loan should be subject to the forest being properly maintained at all times. A scheme of this nature should assist considerably to improve the efficiency and economics of the State forest services, as well as increasing our supply of timber. I ask the Minister to consider the points that 1 have raised tonight and to transmit them to his colleague in another place. I reject the amendment proposed by the Opposition and support the Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– We are dealing with the Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill, as has been mentioned by other speakers, and in the process of the debate we have had a consideration of many items and of 2 amendments, one proposed by the Australian Labor Party and one proposed by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. As I understand the situation from the debate as it has progressed, each Party has given its blessing to the amendment proposed by the other Party. I think I should say at the outset that for a variety of reasons which will be developed the Government does not feel that it would be proper or wise to accept either amendment. If we look at this matter fairly objectively we must first of ali say to ourselves that fundamentally forestry is a State matter, that it has been a

State matter for as long as this country has been involved in forestry, and that a great body of expertise has been built up in Australia in the State forest services.

The interest of the Commonwealth from the beginning has been quite minor in that it was limited to the Territories of the Commonwealth. It had its interest in the Australian Capital Territory, it made some attempt to influence development in the Territory of Papua New Guinea and it has had fairly limited resources in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth was persuaded by the States as an early manifestation of its activity to provide the Canberra Forestry School. This was not a University course but a forestry school. It was to involve a combination of State students who had completed their first 2 years in their State universities and who were to spend the remaining 2 years in the Canberra School of Forestry. As the Australian National University developed, the Canberra Forestry School became part of the Department of Forestry in the Australian National University. But the Commonwealth interest in the total afforestation programme of the sovereign States was really limited to that until the first forestry agreement became a fact of life as part of a general consideration of forestry and part of the whole Australian forestry programme. I shall endeavour in the limited time available to enlarge on that programme. lt has been quite evident from the debate that the Senate has on all sides a great interest in forestry. It has shown a concern which I say with respect to many speakers in the debate is not shared by the same depth of knowledge. But that does not matter. The debate has been most interesting and has been useful because it has expressed fundamentally a concern by the Senate for the forestry problem and programme of Australia. As the Senate is an institution of the National Parliament one would expect that it would adopt an attitude like this where it has concern for a long term national issue and programme, which is what this is all about. To that extent I have been happy to listen to the debate and have welcomed it. However, to do what is proposed in the 2 amendments, if one accepts the Senate as being to any degree a States House, is to interfere in the affairs of the States by direction and pro- cess of demand, lt would be regarded by the States as an unwarranted interference in their affairs and, indeed, in their sovereignty. From that point of view I do not think the amendments are wise.

We must bear in mind also that one of the great exercises in co-operative federalism in respect of this matter has been the Australian Forestry Council. It has been a remarkable arrangement of the Commonwealth and the States joined together to examine the programme, to think about all the issues, to plan progress, to work towards a state of self sufficiency and generally to work as a Commonwealth and States in conjunction. The Commonwealth Council and its standing committee have had remarkable success. The Council takes the normal form of a 2-tier consultative co-operative federalist organisation with a first tier of political heads, being the Commonwealth and State Ministers, and a second tier of departmental heads and advisers from the Commonwealth and the States. It has worked very well. I happen to know a little about it. I was involved in its early years when it began its work, just as I was involved in the early years of the Commonwealth’s first assistance for afforestation.

The Commonwealth has been active in the Australian Forestry Council with the constituent States which make up the Council. The Commonwealth takes an active part through its interest in the Australian Capital Territory, the education programme of the Australian National University, the Territory of Papua New Guinea and through the Department of the Interior timber and forestry programme in the Northern Territory. As the debate has gone on we have heard many observations about the sudden need to consider the environmental and ecological problems of Australia. We have been asked to assume - 1 do not think fairly or properly - that the reservoir of all knowledge and interest in this matter is in the Commonwealth and particularly in the Senate. In no way do I detract from the genuine intent, goodwill and earnestness of the people involved, but as I have listened to the debate I have been reminded that the forerunner in Australia of conservation as I know it in the sense of political interest was William McKell, a former Premier of

New South Wales who was later GovernorGeneral of Australia.

Senator Mulvihill:

– A great Australian.

Senator COTTON:

– 1 quite agree. He is a friend of mine and a man I admire. McKell went to America and saw the work of the Tennesee Valley Authority, which is well described by David Lilienthal in the book ‘A Region Begins to Live’. There he saw the denudation of the years of neglect of the soil, forestry and water problems of that great region. The concept that was regenerated with the Tennesee Valley Authority, the concept of power, water and soil, the multiple use of the region and the multiple discipline, so impressed itself upon McKell that he came back and founded the first department of conservation in this country. That Department of Soil Conservation, Forestry and Water Conservation and Use, with offshoot arrangements into the power generation field, was the forerunner. We should remember this. So I do not think we have the right to assume that we, as a Commonwealth group of people, have suddenly discovered environmental problems or conservation and ecological management, or multiple use disciplines, or that they have been arrived at in later years by a sudden flash of genius in the Commonwealth Parliament. That is not so and we should not assume it to be so.

As a group of people in this Commonwealth Parliament we have a great interest in this matter. We should be acting in the sense of partners, as we have done in the Forestry Council and in the work that the Commonwealth has done to support the forestry programme. Accordingly, that among a great many others would be one of my suggestions why neither of these amendments is proper or wise in the context of operating a federal system sensibly and wisely where the great knowledge and understanding tends to reside in the States. Assume that the people in the Senate, with all their concern, genuineness and interest in this matter, translated themselves to the Minister for Forestry in a State. What would he be saying about his friends and colleagues in the Commonwealth Senate? This will happen to honourable senators if they carry these amendments. But be that as it may. I suggest that what they are talking about here is really a fairly substantial interference in affairs where really they do not need to interfere, where what they are seeking to do < is already being done, the activities of the Forestry Council taking care of their concern. The alarm that has been expressed is an unjustified alarm. Let us consider the Australian Forestry Council. These are its terms of reference:

To promote the welfare and development of Australian forestry.

To arrange a mutual exchange of information regarding production and utilisation of forest products.

To formulate and recommend a forestry policy for Australia with particular regard to forestry development necessary to meet national requirements for forest products, including the provision of finance for development.

To promote and co-ordinate research in forestry and forest products.

The deliberations of the Council, which meets twice a year as a standing committee and once a year as a council of ministers, are directed principally to the development and implementation of a national policy in forestry. That is what the members have done; it is what they do.

The softwood forestry programme flows directly from the work of the Australian Forestry Council. It examined Australia’s present and future requirements for forest products and potential supplies. The Council considered that there was a need to increase Australia’s production of forest products and the most important initial move that could be made towards overcoming Australia’s long term deficiency, which is quite real and very serious in terms of money, would be to increase the rate of softwood planting. There are a lot of reasons for that. What we are really doing here is involving ourselves in a discussion which is properly the sort of thing that should be done in a seminar of a couple of days duration.

Other notable developments within the Council have been the consideration currently being given to the question of assisting States with the development of indigenous forests and the development and the endorsement of forestry and wood based industries development conference which wild be called ‘forward’, which will be scheduled for 1974, and for which material and papers are being prepared and ear nest scientific and examination work is now going on.. Perhaps those honouable senators who are interested in this matter might attend, with me, that foward’ conference. Part of the concern will be the consideration of proposed policies which will ensure that Australia makes the best use of its capacities to grow wood and develop forest industries.

Senator Mulvihill is concerned, as I know he would be from earlier observations and talks that we have had both privately and here in the Senate, with the conservation of the existing hardwood, indigenous forests and associated flora and fauna in relation to softwood plantings. The most significant factor in relation to existing indigenous forests is that based on a prediction that 3 million acres of softwood forest exotic will have been planted by the year 2000, less than 1 per cent of indigenous forests will have to be cleared to make way for such a planting programme. So, although Senator Mulvihill is concerned - and he and I understand each other by saying that we appreciate what I have said - it is quite a minor factor in the total position.

Senator Kane’s amendment, to which I draw Senator Byrne’s attention, is directed towards environmental matters which I touched on earlier. In this connection it is relevant that the Australian Forestly Council has discussed at length the necessity to consider the effect on the environment of forest management practices. Forest services, as such, both State and Commonwealth, have demonstrated their ability to manage areas on a multiple use basis. They have shown that the provision of raw material for industry is not incompatible with the conservation of flora and fauna and in addition to the action taken by other responsible government agencies, forestry services are continually adding to the areas which they set aside for specific use other than providing raw material.

During the process of this debate we have made inquiries of State forest services and they have revealed that areas to be planted under the second 5-year programme will in the main be the extensions of plantation areas previously established by the forest services and they will not include major development in new areas that might appropriately be the subject of prior environmental impact studies. The services, State and Commonwealth, have taken into account the relevant land use considerations and in the acquisition of land - and this is so provided - the forest services have as far as possible tried to use land previously cleared for agricultural purposes and reverted or land that is able to be bought from agriculture which is the case in South Australian areas.

The problem one has here is that we are dealing with an immense subject of great interest and to some extent complexity. It is not that this matter cannot be totally comprehended. The problem is one of time. Therefore 1 have to move fairly quickly through some of the observations made by some of my colleagues. If I do not deal with all of the matters raised I hope that honourable senators will accept my assurance that it is not that I really do not want to answer their questions but that some restrictions have been placed upon me and I cannot cover the points in the time at my disposal.

Senator Mulvihill talked about pile on marginal and submarginal country. The problem is that it is uneconomic in most cases and the operation is a economic disaster. If one is to appropriate money to achieve a satisfactory softwood planting programme one must have regard to the economies of the land available. A lot of this land is submarginal in the sense that one would be thinking of it as perhaps not necessarily much good: For instance, there are areas which may include reverted dairy farms in high rainfall country. If one thought of that as submarginal, it would not be my opinion. It could be highly suitable country. However, I just put that point to honourable senator’s. Senator Mulvihill discussed the question of the Boyd Plateau. I just want to say, not to him, but to others who have seen fit to make observations on this matter, that I personally resent very much some of the things they had to say. They have been based upon total misinformation and, lack of understanding of the facts, and to some extent they have been close to defamation of character. I have resisted attempts to do anything about this because life is short and other things are there to be done.

Just in passing, I say that the Boyd Plateau is an area of native hardwood forest which was practically destroyed in earlier years by man himself who burnt the forest every year for the purpose of grazing. It was a fine, open park-like forest but gradually the process of being burnt every year for summer grazing produced a total destruction of what might be called good stand. It reverted substantially to wattles and low grade types. In the end its use as a forest was so low as to be almost a joke.

Senator Milliner:

– The Country Party again.

Senator COTTON:

– Not really; no, it was not. I think it was a Labor Party seat traditionally all those years, held by Mr Chifley whom I had opposed, and earlier manifestations of the same kind of philosophy. I know that country very well I have walked over it a great deal. I have done a lot of climbing there. A lot of my life has been involved there and therefore that is why I resent the imputations against the people who have been involved in this area. I have fought fires to protect this area in very difficult times with groups of my friends who had formed fire fighting brigades. I did not detect any of the ecologists helping us fight the fires. These were serious fires. The forest was destroyed in the first place by people who burnt it for summer grazing. Then the forest went through a very disastrous stage. Something very unusual happened to it. The same thing happened in the alpine forests from the north of New South Wales into the southern part of Victoria, There was an infestation of a huge insect called phasmid which denuded the forest 2 years in succession. It defoliated the trees. That forest is a great mass of dead standing trees that have been killed by the infestation of insects that were quite uncontrollable.

What is proposed to be done out there is to take a lot of useless forest - and it has proved to be so - and to plant it with the pine trees. This will have some defects in the eyes of some people, but in the community sense it will have some very substantial benefits. If one regards oneself as a person concerned with the environment, pollution of the air and all the ecological factors one should bear in mind that one of the great things that we want close to great concentrations of people is huge, dense forests. What we are seeking to do is to clear the carbon dioxide out of the air. A huge softwood forest close to the metropolitan complex of Sydney is one of the best things that we could have because this would absorb the carbon dioxide at a massive rate. That is just one item in passing.

I will not elaborate on this matter. There is much to be said. A lot of State forests will be left to parks. Parks are going to be quite adequately protected. People have expressed great concern and alarm - they have done so quite properly in the interests of what they believe in - but they have tended to ignore the facts and the probity of other people and to forget that other people have contributed towards the development of this country by doing things rather than stopping things being done. Let us look at the question - and I think it is probably useful to observe it here because Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Mulvihill spoke about it and I think everyone has an interest. It is perfectly true that one of the best instruments of decentralisation in this country is a well managed pine forest if it can be put in an economic position. An economic position relies upon proximity to market and a type of land that will grow an efficient, competent and useful forest. One such type of forest, this is roughly the situation. One will employ 3 people per hundred acres of forest in the operation. That will give a capacity to have a really useful decentralisation through a span of years. So the observation about forestry’s value in decentralisation is one that I naturally would support.

Senator Webster:

– What comment would you have about the proximity to market?

Senator COTTON:

– I think it is quite essential. I think the foresters amongst honourable senators would know that they have considerations called site qualities. They range from site quality 1 to site quality 6. Site quality 1 is the optimum land that will grow the highest concentration of wood to the acre and will be the closest to the market. Site quality 6 would have practically no economic value. Proximity to market is a matter of great consequence. This is one of the reasons why it is hard for one to have forests in some places where one may want to plant them. One ought perhaps to observe equally that when looking at softwood forestry one is looking at growing a crop which would be carried out on a long rotation basis. One would be growing cellulose in so many tons to the acre. This plantation would be managed and cared for. Naturally it is a mono-culture.

People have complained about this. But nobody else complains about monoculture in any other form of cropping. Nobody tries to have a grazing operation which is based upon other things and sensible considerations. Nobody tries to have a wheat crop that is mixed up with oats, barley and a collection of weeds such as Patterson’s Curse. Monoculture is monoculture. One is trying to grow something optimumly for a human need. That is why we need to think about that as the ultimate position. We are trying to grow in a timber deficient country wood for the acre efficiently for the people of Australia to use - cheaply and as sensibly as we can. Those would be some of the observations that I would wish fairly to make to Senator Mulvihill. I could make others; he would understand that. I would like perhaps even to have time one day to talk to him about these matters.

Senator Webster dealt with the relationship between hardwood and softwood imports. I would like to take some little time on that matter. But I wish to say briefly to Senator Webster that I appreciate his remarks as I appreciated all the contributions that have been made. His observations bore very much to the point that we are looking at a world in which cellulose consumption is rising at a dramatic rate. That is what we are talking about when we discuss the growing of softwoods. We are talking about the growing of cellulose. Senator Webster talked bout the problem of financing forests. Senator Jessop dealt with this matter also. The problem of financing forests arises from the fact that forests have a 40-year life cycle. The difficulty is that the cash flow from a forest does not equal its outgoings until about year 33 in those 40 years. The financing of such an operation is difficult except for those with access to long term finance. It is a profitable exercise over a 40-year span. We can say that the forest will return approximately 6 per cent compound interest throught time on a 40-year rotation cycle. But we must bear in mind that no net cash flow surplus occurs until the 33rd year. The early years are hard years. They do not allow much money for management. They do not allow much money for the repayment of loans or interest. 1 think that we might look at Australia first of all as a forest deficient country having a prime need - and essential and substantial need - to put itself in the situation of growing at least its own wood requirements, lt could think very well later on about growing wood for export because the world will be deficient in wood as the years pass. I recall that it has been said that the future of the world will belong to the forest countries - that is, those that have forest resources - because forests, under good management, provide wood and food, clothing and shelter. I would argue that the Australian forestry programme which is designed to achieve self-sufficiency against consumption is extremely wise and sensible. Beyond that, when our industry is well established, some future generation might think about whether we have the land that could be used to grow timber to provide an export surplus. The point about growing close to the economic sense of use is where Senator Webster came in and that is where, perhaps. I would wish to leave. 1 have some notes here that may be useful as to the total import bill this country would meet in future generations if it had not taken up the planting programme. This has been a debate of interest to many of us and my officers and 1 have gathered a great deal of material. Such a wide range of interest was expressed by honourable senators that we were seeking to cover all the many points that were raised. Imagine that we had not had a Forestry Council in which the States and the Commonwealth joined to exercise cooperative federalism. Imagine that we had not set out to overcome our future timber deficiency. What then would our situation be at some point in the future? The cost of the estimated deficiency that we would have had if we had not set out to overcome this problem is this: If the current rate of planting only were maintained, the cumulative total import replacement cost by the year 2000 is estimated at not less than §4,040m at present day prices with the general tendency for world wood prices to escalate. This arises from the fact that no real benefit from the first agreement will be felt until the year J980: due to the increased consumption through pODulation increases and per capita consumption increases the annual import figure will increase inevitably. So, first of all, we are looking at a substantially useful action that has been taken by the States and the Commonwealth in the creation of the Australian Forestry Council. Through the Council we will set out to overcome the problem of Australia’s deficiency in timber.

Senator Webster:

– Would you not need to put in a proviso to show that you are not taking into account what private enterprise has done? You are claiming all that for the Commonwealth-State agreement.

Senator COTTON:

– No. 1 am not doing that. The forestry programme is one which is designed for the private planting programme to be part of the total programme. The assessment has been made that in the year 2000 a combination of both those factors will achieve a result equal to what I have said.

Senator Webster:

– ft is not related all to the Commonwealth-State agreement. A good deal of private enterprise has gone on without Commonwealth help.

Senator COTTON:

– That is perfectly true, and I am not in any way quarrelling with the observations of the honourable senator. In fact, in an earlier period when 1 was involved in this I was one of the people who argued that there was a substantial case for what I called the market economy becoming involved in the softwood afforestation programme. As I sought to develop earlier, this was not easy other than for those companies or concerns which have access to large amounts of long term finance. That has been the delimiting factor. I am always happy to pursue work which leads towards individuals - farmers, companies or institutions - being more involved in the forestry programme than they are at present. But in no way would I wish to delimit what has been done by people or organisations such as Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd which is one of the huge private forestry operations of Australia. Coming down quite well below that body, I would wish to pay tribute to the many farmers’ in good forestry areas who are picking up the programme themselves by doing something with their own properties. All of these are programmes that one has sought to encourage when one has been part of this activity.

Senator Douglas McClelland made a number of comments on past performances, what had been happening, and drew some conclusions which were not correct. But he also took some pains to stress that New South Wales had been badly treated. The quickest way that I can respond to that in the short time that I have left to me, if I have any time left at all, is to refer to the Schedule to the Bill. Honourable senators will see there that the total programme of forestry being financed by the Commonwealth in order to help the States shows that New South Wales is getting one-third. I do not think anybody really can make a complaint in that respect except of a most minor character.

I would wish, as I indicated earlier, to take a good deal more time. I will not do that, because the time that I need is hours, not minutes. Accordingly, I thank all honourable senators who have spoken for their contributions. I have told the Senate, I think, clearly why the Government does not feel that it is proper, wise or necessary to support either of the amendments - the one moved and the other foreshadowed for the Committee stages. I indicate now personally, without any sense of being other than offering a contribution, that if these amendments go through, I believe - and I underline again the word ‘believe’ - that it will be necessary for the Commonwealth and the States to come into consultation again to see whether the programme agreed upon is one which the States and the Commonwealth can continue to succeed in. That is in no way other than an observation. Knowing the temper of some of my colleagues and friends in State forestry services and the State Ministers responsible for forestry, I would think that there will be very considerable resentment that this has been set to one side for a series of observations and comments that they will believe are not necessary and which do them less than justice.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Mulvihill’s amendment) be added.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 21

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

page 86

QUESTION

THE SCHEDULE

  1. The State shall ensure that planting during each year is carried out efficiently and in conformity with sound forestry and financial practices.
Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I intimated during my second reading speech that at the Committee stage I proposed to move an amendment to clause 9 of the Schedule annexed to the Bill. I take it to be, in effect, an amendment to clause 3 of the Bill which refers to the Schedule. I now move:

In the Schedule, leave out clause 9, insert the following clauses:

– The State shall ensure that planting during each year is carried out efficiently and in conformity with sound forestry, environmental and financial practices. 9a. - The State shall ensure that natural forests shall not be cleared for planting softwoods unless the particular proposed clearing has beforehand been the subject of an environmental impact study made by an independent expert on behalf of the Australian Forestry Council and the Council after considering the report of the said study has approved the particular clearing’.

During my second reading speech 1 indicated the general basis on which we propounded the amendment. We are indebted to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) for the observations he made when closing the second reading debate in which he revealed his personal association with this industry, somethings of his own skill in connection with it and his interest in its welfare. When such knowledge is presented to this chamber - too briefly, unfortunately - we should all be grateful that the Minister was so well prepared and so well informed. 1 say that because I am not able to accept his observations as to the consequences of the proposed amendment, if it is written into the Bill, and the criticism be levelled against it.

The Minister said, firstly, that it would be in some sense a denial of co-operative federalism. What is apparent in this Bill is that the executive government of the Commonwealth and the executive governments of the States have conferred and have agreed to the writing of a new agreement to operate when the existing agreement terminates with the effluxion of time. That agreement is not yet concluded, and it is clear therefore that this is not a Bill for an Act which will confirm an agreement already entered into, ft is a Bill to which Ls annexed a schedule, a proposed agreement which though it may receive the joint assent of the participating parties is not yet a concluded agreement. I am not able to concede that it is purely within the province of the executive governments to conclude agreements of this character when they require legislative sanction whether on the part of the Commonwealth or on ,:ne part of the States, and merely to present a parliament, be it a provincial parliament or the Federal Parliament, with a fait accompli and require that parliament to give it legal authority and legislative operation. I cannot concede that in this case. Obviously an agreement of this character, because it has to receive legislative approval, will be an agreement made by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and the States. The fact that we are presented with what is virtually a draft agreement, not concluded, and with these extremely interesting words, to which Senator Cavanagh indicated he proposed to refer later on, in clause 3 - ‘the execution on behalf of the Commonwealth of an agreement between the Commonwealth and a State substantially in accordance with the form contained in the annexed Schedule’ - obviously indicates that it is contemplated by the Bill that this would not necessarily be the final form of the agreement for either the Commonwealth or a State. Obviously the way is open for the Parliament in either case to express its own view and if it found it necessary or desirable to indicate in some way how the proposed agreement should be varied.

Senator Cavanagh:

– J would have thought it was the final agreement unless there was a substantial alteration.

Senator BYRNE:

– That may be the interpretation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– ls your amendment a substantial alteration?

Senator BYRNE:

– I am indebted to the honourable senator who proposed to make some observations on this. That may well be the interpretation to be placed on it. It would be quite improper, on my reading, to deny this legislature or one of the State legislatures the opportunity and the right to scrutinise the agreement and, if necessary, to find a reason to impose its own ideas and let it go back for further consideration. The Minister said, and I indicated this in my second reading speech, that if we carry this amendment and if the amendment is then carried in another place the proposed agreement will have to go back to the States for them to rethink it to see whether they are prepared to accept this approach by the National Parliament. The States would then say whether they are prepared to renegotiate on that basis or whether they adhere to their original proposition as contained in the Schedule. Then it would be a matter for renegotiation and further discussions to see whether some accord could be discovered along the lines that this chamber is now pro proposing should be the proper basis on which the agreement should be written. Therefore I do not think that this Parliament should be expected, and 1 would not be a party to it, to surrender its right to scrutinise this agreement merely because the executive Government has seen fit in these terms to negotiate it.

As the Minister said, there are men in this place skilled in this field who have brought their ideas to bear. Surely those ideas quite rightly can find some fruitful operation and the effect of their presentation can find expression in an amendment carried in this place. Since the time whe the 1967 agreement, the last agreement and the presently operating agreement, was concluded a completely new concept has emerged in the thinking of the whole world, including Australia, on the significance of environmental control. Surely that is a new concept the real importance of which is only now becoming apparent. It would seem that if that was not a concept embodied in the original agreement it is because it was not at that time considered to be of the importance that it is considered today to be. Therefore it would appear completely logical that we should write this new concept, if we have the opportunity, into the agreement to be concluded. That appears quite logica! and I would hope that the States would accept it in that way. This is not an attempt by the Commonwealth to impose its will on the States. I am unable to accept that as an interpretation of the action that my amendment proposes to take.

This is the Commonwealth, through the Parliament, expressing its view on what should be in an agreement in pursuance of which revenue is to be appropriated and money made available to the States. I cannot accept that as other than a proper exercise of co-operative federalism. I can find no validity whatever in the argument of the Minister that this is a denial of cooperative federalism and I do not think the States would regard it as such. If, for example, instead of our moving in this matter this agreement had come before the South Australian Parliament and it proposed a step such as my Party’s amendment proposes, would we regard that as an attempt by South Australia to impose its will on this Parliament?

Senator Cotton:

– Yes.

Senator BYRNE:

– I would not interpret it in that way.

Senator Cotton:

– I would.

Senator BYRNE:

– I would not interpret it in that way at all. Surely a sovereign parliament is entitled to express its view, its opinion and to give it legislative form on a matter on which it is required cooperatively to legislate and in respect of which it is to provide funds. Surely that is not an imposition of the will of the Commonwealth on a State or vice versa. The Commonwealth may have had a fairly limited role in the field of forestry development, which has been exclusively within the province of the States. Nevertheless the provision of funds in this case is of Commonwealth interest and concern and flows from Commonwealth revenue and that gives us an entitlement to speak our mind in this matter. That is what we are now asking the Senate to do.

Senator Webster:

– Are you going to explain to us what you mean by this wording you have put forward?

Senator BYRNE:

– I was not aware that the wording was so obscure that it would require that.

Senator Webster:

– It is obscure to me.

Senator BYRNE:

– That would not necessarily prove the point, with due respect. Nevertheless, it may still be obscure. What we propose is that the environmental consequences of the operation of reafforestation shall be investigated. That is what we ask. We are not asking that the investigation be entrusted to an irresponsible body. The body to which it is to be entrusted is a body to which Senator Cotton has referred. He referred to its charter, its status and the effectiveness of its operation. Surely if that body is asked, as an additional function within its existing charter, or as an additional head of its directive, to take into account the environmental consequences and if the body has the status and competency stated by Senator Cotton surely there should be no concern in this place as to whether that body should be entrusted with this additional responsibility.

Senator Webster:

– Can you refer to an environmental study which would be equivalent to what you are seeking? What are you seeking?

Senator BYRNE:

– What do you mean by that question?

Senator Webster:

– What are you seeking by your words?

Senator BYRNE:

– We are seeking a study of the environmental impact of proposed development, redevelopment or reafforestation. Senator Webster may not have been here at the time, but earlier in the debate Senator Cotton raised that matter and we spoke of the ecological consequences. For example, if we are to replace an indigenous forest with an exotic forest there will be a disturbance of the native life - flora and fauna - within the eucalypt forest which may not be able to live within the pine forest. That is an illustration of the type of impact we feel such a disturbance might have, and it is the type of impact we are hoping this body will investigate. If on the balance of advantages the disturbance is so grave and so great that it would not warrant a proposed venture there should be serious consideration given to whether the project should proceed. That is the type of investigation which appears to me to be completely logical and wise and it is certainly in consonance with the new sensitivity of this nation in relation to environmental protection and the general conservation of flora and fauna and natural resources. Therefore I am somewhat at a loss to know why the Government should not be prepared to accept this amendment. We know that the consequence of it being accepted would be that the agreement would have to go back for reconsideration and perhaps renegotiation, but I do not know that the States would not quite readily be prepared to accept this proposition. After all, it would involve the conservation of State assets and ecology and way of natural life.

Senator Webster:

– Are you able to describe where there is any natural forest being cleared in Australia for the planting of softwoods?

Senator BYRNE:

– I do not have the list here; I have given it to Hansard. I have mentioned already where in fact that was taking place in New South Wales. I was briefed on that but I forget the names of the places. The Boyd Plateau is one I remember- and one to which Senator Cotton referred.

Senator Webster:

– Was that a burnt out forest?

Senator BYRNE:

– You heard how Senator Cotton described it. I imagine that those who would be familiar with it and who would be interested in the amendment that we propose may have had another description and another analysis of the reasons for its present condition and the possibility of its retrievability. I would imagine that there could well be another interpretation of the whole position, but that in fact is going on and it is something we should strive earnestly to avoid. 1 certainly think the State governments should try to avoid that situation arising. If they accept this proposition then I think it may well conserve their resources; I think it has all the elements of wisdom and prudence in it.

Senator Keeffe:

– How do you think Joh will take it? He will be most upset.

Senator BYRNE:

– Unfortunately, I cannot read the mind of the Premier of Queensland but I suppose that any impediment to the ordinary processes of government is not always welcome even though it may be wise. Nevertheless, perhaps after further consideration the Government may see the wisdom of this proposal. I would have little doubt that this would not in any sense impede a proper renegotiation of this agreement with this new principle embodied in it. It is only a new principle; that is all. All the agreement is saying is that when it is being renegotiated there is one new factor to be taken into account, and we think it should be taken into account. I think the Government should have no concern in that regard. If the Government rests on the basis that this is an imposition of Commonwealth will on the States, I think that is inaccurate. If it is believed that it is a denial of co-operative federalism, I think that is inaccurate. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that it is a prime example of co-operative federalism. It is one element in a series of contracts between a number of parties on the one side and the Commonwealth on the other.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired. I wish to make a statement. This amendment has been moved as an amendment to the Schedule. It has been ruled that the Senate cannot alter an agreement already made. This agreement has not been finalised but the heads of agreement have been agreed to between the Commonwealth Government and the State governments.

Senator Byrne:

– What have been agreed to - the heads of agreement?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The principles have been agreed to but the agreement has not been signed, so it has not been finalised. It would appear that it would be a better procedure if the amendment were moved so that it was associated with clause 3 of the Bill.

Senator Byrne:

– That is what I suggested earlier in my speech.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– 1 think it would be better from our point of view if you could move your amendment so that it is associated with clause 3.

Senator Cotton:

– I would be happy to accept that procedure.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Would you agree to that, Senator Byrne?

Senator Byrne:

– What would you suggest then might be the mode-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– You could attach that amendment as a recommendation to clause 3 of the Bill.

Senator Byrne:

– As a recommendation, Mr Temporary Chairman? That would be a different matter. We propose to make this not merely a recommendation but an operative amendment, which in fact would change the text of the proposed agreement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The

Clerk advises that clause 3 could be authorised subject to this amendment.

Senator Byrne:

– We will have to get a form of words to accommodate that proposition. What it means is that clause 3 picks up the Schedule. We suggest that the Schedule should be amended, so we would move an amendment to the effect that clause 3 stand part of the Bill provided that clause 9 is rescinded and new clauses 9 and 9 (a) are substituted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The Schedule to this Bill is authorised subject to the amendment which you have moved.

Senator Byrne:

– To this amendment?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Really it would be subject to leaving out clause 9 and then dealing with the amendment.

Senator Byrne:

– Could we get the precise form of words to carry into operation what is now proposed?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

While Senator Mulvihill is talking we will have drafted the form of words to be used.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The official Opposition regards this amendment as a natural corollary to the amendment which we sponsored at the second reading stage. Without being impertinent to anybody, I want to say at the outset that when I saw this united front tonight for the cause of conservation I thought of Leon Blum in the French Parliament before World War II. Having said that, I want to question what I. felt was Senator Cotton’s undue solicitation for State forestry officers. I regard them as very dedicated men, but I believe it is a cardinal concept of the Commonwealth Parliament that if the Commonwealth provides the money it should have the overriding determination of how it shall be spent and what the ground rules shall be. I. think that the United States Senate abounds with situations in which it tags on certain qualifications when federal money has gone back to the States. 1 believe that is a good thing because all State Premiers, irrespective of the party they represent, have tended at times to get their issues a little blurred.

My very good friend, Senator Keeffe, referred to the frequent intrusion of our own native timber forests. The fact of the matter is this is a problem that has worried us. Senator Webster by way of interjection was trying to pin down Senator Byrne on the practical application of his proposal, and my intervention, quite apart from the broad principles contained in this amendment, was concerned with the gut issue so far as New South Wales is concerned. I do not cavil with Senator Cotton’s knowledge of the area and his mobility in the area but I say respectfully that there may be death bed repentances when some of the city slickers visit the area as members of the Colong Committee. We do have some knowledge of the area. The Minister referred to the limitations of the old forests and the depredations of bush fires and all that sort of thing but I would point out to him that the fears of the conservationists could be symbolised in a paragraph from a ‘Save Colong’ bulletin which briefly read:

The soil on the Boyd is granite-derived and gravelly. The effect of clearing similar land on the Upper Cox is seen in the flow of gravel down that stream into the Warragamba Dam.

If we are to have the choice between desolate areas and pine plantations I do not question that we should have pine plantations, but I believe that in the tooling up for the pine plantations, for want of a better term, there is an aggravation of soil erosion and, for the sake of the acreage involved, I believe that we could have this 11th hour saving of the Boyd Plateau.

I do not want to hold up this discussion unduly. We have the united front of the conservationists who have talked to the amendment and Senator Byrne’s proposal in effect provides for a form of mediation or arbitration in relation to conservation issues. I could make my reply by asking for the leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard 3 small paragraphs, which I have called (a), (b) and (c), of a pamphlet called ‘Park or Pines?’ To use the legal jargon, the defence would rest on those 3 paragraphs. I am optimistic enough to believe that in the calm of tomorrow when Senator Cotton browses through Hansard and he has to explain to his fellow Ministers what the amendment meant, if this arbitration structure on environment or conservation is carried-

Senator Keeffe:

– Are you sure we are not being caught by the Temporary Chairman on this?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– If we adopt your words of wisdom, Mr Temporary Chairman, and do as Senator Byrne suggests, which is to call clause 9 clause 3 or graft it on to clause 3 - I am looking ahead - we have a certain form of tribunal which will look at conservation issues. So, whether this amendment should be made to clause 3 of the Bill or clause 9 of the Agreement I leave to my legal betters such as Senator Murphy and possibly other honourable senators in the chamber. But at the moment I am advocating what I regard as a suitable form of arbitration which will save the Boyd Plateau. Therefore I ask for permission for what I have called clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the pamphlet ‘Park or Pines?’ to be incorporated in Hansard. The paragraph I have called clause (a) refers to a dispute between the New South Wales Minister for Conservation and conservationists. Clause (b) refers to alternative sites. I like to be practical and to offer another idea to Senator Cotton. Clause (c) refers to native forests and the future of native birds, plants and animals. I ask for permission for these 3 small clauses to be incorporated in Hansard.

Senator Cotton:

– I would be happy to agree if the honourable senator would give the name of the pamphlet and the author to whom it is attributed.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The author of this pamphlet is the Colong Committee. The senior officer bearers are the Secretary, Milo Dunphy, who is well known to Sydney people, and the Chairman, Rev. Fr Tierney. We have an ecumenical unity ticket there.

Senator Cotton:

– Thank you. That will cover the matter from my point of view.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

The document reads as follows:

  1. Mr Beale has claimed that a meeting of representatives of interested Government Department and conservation bodies decided in favour of planting pines on the Boyd in 1963. This is not so. The question of planting pines was raised at the 1963 meeting because the forest had been damaged by a phasmatic infestation and fire, but was rejected because of the excellent re-generation of the eucalypt.

Alternatives

  1. It is evident that the Forestry Commission has made no serious attempt to find alternatives to the Boyd Plateau for pine planting. In April 1970, the Colong Committee located 10,600 acres of suitable land 40 miles from Oberon by a good road, available for sale at $6 an acre. This price contrasts with the ‘well in excess of $55 an acre’ which Mr Beale has stated alternative land would cost. Negotiations by the Forestry Commission for purchase of part of this land had reached the final stages when they were abruptly broken off at a high departmental level.
  2. The native forest of the Boyd supports hundreds of species of native plants, animals and birds. It carries a richer grass cover than the steep gorges of the rest of the park and consequently supports more of the larger grazing species of native animals, such as kangaroos, wallabies and wombats.
Senator MULVIHILL:

– The defence rests.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– 1 ask Senator Byrne to read out the amendment.

Senator Byrne:

– My original amendment, which was to the Schedule, was to leave out clause 9 and insert 2 new clauses. I ask for leave to withdraw that amendment and to present another amendment in lieu thereof. This is a proposed amendment to clause 3 of the Bill, which reads:

  1. The execution, on behalf of the Commonwealth, of an agreement between the Commonwealth and a State substantially in accordance with the form contained in the Schedule to this Act is authorised.

The amendment reads:

At end of clause 3 add ‘subject to the amendment of the agreement by the omission of clause 9 of the Schedule and the insertion in place thereof the following clauses: °9. - The State shall ensure that planting during each year is carried out efficiently and in conformity with sound forestry, environmental and financial practices. “9a.- The State shall ensure that natural forests shall not be cleared for planting softwoods unless the particular proposed clearing has beforehand been the subject of an environmental impact study made by an independent expert on behalf of the Australian Forestry Council and that .the Council after considering the report of the said study has approved the particular clearing’ “.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Cotton:

Mr Temporary Chairman, to me that seems to establish the sense of what you were seeking to do and what the Opposition and the Australian Democratic Labor Party are seeking to do. I have no objection.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Byrne:

– Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I formally move the amendment as I have stated it.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– 1 shortly oppose the amendment which has been put forward. I suppose that every senator is keen to align himself with what are considered these days to be environmental practices - whatever they may be and whatever the words ‘environmental practices’ mean. In this instance the Australian Democratic Labor Party is seeking to change the wording of something which has been agreed upon between the various

State governments and the Commonwealth Government on the granting of finance for the planting of about 30,000 acres of forest during the ensuing 5-year period. This has been agreed upon by the Premiers, who are of all political complexions. Labor Premiers control 3 States. In this instance we have had the interesting exercise of the Australian Labor Party moving to deplore the agreement which has been made between the Premiers and the Commonwealth. 1 hope that honourable senators opposite can report to their States-

Senator Keeffe:

– Come on, back to the game.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is the fact, Senator Keeffe, and you know it as well as I do. The wording which the Labor Party has used has been to deplore the action which the Premiers, including those of the Labor States, have agreed upon with the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator has been reading Grimm’s fairy tales again.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator says no but I hope that honourable senators opposite from South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania-

Senator Mulvihill:

– We have political freedom. What does the honourable senator want?

Senator WEBSTER:

– We will see whether honourable senators opposite have political freedom. 1 was pointing out that what has already taken place is that honourable senators who have been sent here by their States to represent their States have, in the wording which has been put forward by the Labor Party, deplored ‘the Government’s failure’. Of course, that means their State governments’ failure. One can only deplore the action of honourable senators who criticise their States in such a way.

But the more interesting and perhaps more moderate proposition is presented by Senator Byrne. He seeks to delete clause 9 of the Agreement which in fact expresses how the programme is to be executed. In that clause the States and the Commonwealth agreed that consideration would be given to the work being carried out each year efficiently and in conformity with what is professional practice and also that a financial assessment of the proposition should be made. Great enthusiasm is showing throughout the community. Much as I would not attribute it to Condon Byrne, it really smacks of political-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Order! Senator Byrne, not Condon Byrne.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I thought I said Senator Condon Byrne’. I apologise. But political flavour is brought into this wonderful thing which we call ‘environmental control*.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is not a dirty word.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is not a dirty word and it is one to which we are all most attracted. But it is very difficult to explain what may be meant by ‘environmental practices’. Here we have an honourable senator putting forward for decision by honourable senators an amendment which says that the States shall ensure that there are efficient environmental practices. So far as forestry is concerned, I imagine that this is something which has applied throughout all generations. I do not know of any instance in which this has not applied. If honourable senators have in their minds some specific instance in which there has been a disregard of the environmental conditions of the area in the planting of a forest, I hope that they are able to express that to their own State Ministers for Agriculture in the future.

The second point made by Senator Byrne is less clear. He is asking the Senate to decide upon clause 9a, which states what the States shall do in relation to natural forests. To me, ‘natural’ is the interesting word. We are dealing purely with natural forests. So far as natural forests are concerned, I am afraid that I cannot speak with great knowledge of the situation in New South Wales or Queensland, but certainly in relation to the natural forests which exist in my own State of Victoria and in Tasmania I am aware that there is great environmental interest if environment’ covers the regeneration of the type of forest which exists in natural forests.

The most amazing thing that has come to light in past years in relation certainly to eucalypt forests has been the enormous regeneration for commercial purposes that has been brought about in a limited number of years due to expert thinning. That regeneration has astounded even the most acknowledged expert foresters in the country. In Tasmania 10 years ago certain forests were thinned out and the best logs were taken out for milling purposes. A reevaluation of those forests after very few years - it was given to me by one man as 8 years - showed a complete regeneration of the hardwood forests to a stage at which a thinning for commercial purposes was required again. I think that in relation to natural forests it would be a financial and commercial assessment as to whether the forest was of a type that could be productive or whether it was one which was best cleared, burned and planted with pinus radiata or one of the other pine species that have become established these days.

The honourable senator’s amendment refers to natural forests, lt refers to no others. It does not refer to any bush area or to any area of cleared land. It refers only to natural forests. It states that in natural forests there should be an environmental impact study. I suppose that in the last half a dozen years there have sprung up groups of people who call themselves environmental impact study experts. I think that Senator Little or myself could probably range through an area and say whether the natural forest should be left as it is. Perhaps that idea would appeal to us if we lived nearby or if we lived in the heart of Sydney and rode once a year, or at least when there was a bandwagon, to a particular area and declared that the area should be left in its natural state. The amendment will mean extra cost and extra time being forced on State governments, and they have not requested that. I suggest to honourable senators who claim to represent their States that they should not interfere with agreements that are drawn up by responsible State and Commonwealth officials.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I became interested in this matter during the second reading debate by virtue of the fact that Senator Byrne introduced some confusion into the debate, I thought, when he referred to clause 3 of the Bill. What does that clause mean? He agreed with an interjection of mine that it was a most unusual clause. He dealt somewhat with the clause. I think he did so in the hope that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), in closing the second reading debate, would give an explanation of what the clause meant. From what I beard and from what has been told to me of the Minister’s reply, we got no explanation of the meaning of clause 3. In the Committee stage, in answer to my interjection, Senator Byrne seemed to agree that the Bill is a Bill for an Act. that what we agree to is final as far as we are concerned and that subject to the States approving it it becomes law throughout Australia - with the exception that the States can alter the agreement if the alteration is not a substantial one. In the Committee stage the confusion that Senator Byrne caused by referring to clause 3–

Senator Byrne:

– I did not cause it. 1 drew attention to it.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He drew attention to it. I think he first drew attention to the fact that there is some confusion in the Act. In the Committee stage the amendment has become more confused. In your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman, I think assisted by your advisers, you suggested that Senator Byrne’s amendment was a substantial amendment, that we could not alter the agreement between the States and the Comonwealth and that if the amendment to clause 3 were not a substantial amendment we could have altered the agreement.

Senator Byrne:

– That was not the basis of the Temporary Chairman’s ruling. His ruling was on the basis that the agreement was not a concluded agreement. Therefore, it being not concluded, it may be amended. He did not deal with the question of substantial amendment. That was not the basis of his ruling.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 would have thought that the amendment could have been moved to clause 9 of the Schedule, as the honourable senator originally proposed. I still think that the amendment is a substantial one. The original clause 9 in the Schedule has 2 requirements. It refers to the planting being carried out ‘in conformity with sound forestry and financial practices’. The amendment refers to ‘sound forestry, environmental and financial practices’. It is time someone raised the advis ability of the tendency to seek the adoption throughout Australia of uniform legislation. I think the Minister indicated in his reply that this tendency takes away from parliamentary representatives the right to discuss, amend and decide on a Bill. This legislation, which will become uniform legislation throughout Australia, was decided upon by the various State Ministers. Because they have made a decision there is a risk that representatives elected by the people may not be able to change the Bill. Senator Byrne then moved his amendment to clause 3 of the Bill. It refers to clause 9 of the Schedule as it now stands.

Senator Byrne:

– What I propose to do now is to amend clause 3.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know, but the effect of amending clause 3 is to make a complete alteration to clause 9 of the Schedule.

Senator Byrne:

– To delete clause 9 of the Schedule and to substitute clauses 9 and 9a.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know, but the amendment includes the word ‘environmental*. The original clause 9 in the Schedule states:

The State shall ensure that planting during each year is carried out efficiently and in conformity with sound forestry and financial practices.

The substituted clause refers to ‘sound forestry, environmental and financial practices’. What are sound forestry, environmental and financial practices? I do not know. The amendment provides that there has to be some study of that. We have a tendency in legislation to use words that do not have a clear definition of what they mean. At times applications to a court of law are necessary to ascertain what the Parliament said when it passed an Act of Parliament.

Proposed clause 9a creates more problems. The first problem is the one that Senator Webster mentioned: What is a natural forest? Senator Webster does not know, but he could tell us many areas that are not natural forests. What is a natural forest is beyond my knowledge, but those engaged in forestry work might have a knowledge as to what is a natural forest. There is to be no inquiry into the plantations. Under the amendment the only inquiry is into the clearing of natural forests. There has to be an inquiry into the clearing of natural forests. The proposed clause states:

The State shall ensure that natural forests shall not be cleared for planting softwoods unless the particular proposed clearing has beforehand been the subject of an environmental impact study . . .

I asked Senator Byrne what was the meaning of an impact study. In his mind it is the impact that it will have on the whole subject of environmental life and flora and fauna in the area. I do not know whether this would be the legal interpretation or what the use of the words ‘impact study’ means. This impact study is to be made by an independent expert. Who is an independent expert and on what subject is he an expert? Is he an expert on clearing land, on the environment or on wildlife? While he is an independent expert, he is acting on behalf of the Australian Forestry Council, which will authorise the study. After considering the report of the said study, the Council has to approve the clearing. The independent expert, whoever he is, makes the impact study, whatever the impact study is, on behalf of the Australian Forestry Council. It is immaterial whether or not the report is that the land should be cleared. The decision is left to the Council. Even if he advises that the land should not be cleared, it could still be cleared as long as the Council had before it that report and it decided to clear the land.

I do not know the function of the Australian Forestry Council, but I take it that it is not a body which is so much concerned with preservation as with afforestation. I think it would be concerned with having softwoods planted if it were a commercial proposition. Of course, it is not compelled to act. The only requirement necessary to clear the land is the recommendation of the Australian Forestry Council. But it cannot act until an impact study has been made by an independent expert. No matter what the independent expert says, the Council does not have to accept his advice. Obviously, this is wrong. My recollection is that the commencement of this position arose from a dispute between South Australia and the Commonwealth. This matter will bring in the question that Senator Webster raised in regard to State rights. The appropriate Minister from South Australia had protracted arguments with the Commonwealth over the restriction on the amount that the Commonwealth was prepared to give to South Australia in the form of Commonwealth assistance for the plantation of softwoods in the early programme of softwood plantations. Because South Australia possessed a big acreage of softwood plantation, the Commonwealth curtailed its financial assistance. After a long dispute with the South Australian Minister, the Commonwealth agreed to lift the amount payable to South Australia to bring it somewhere into line with the amount previously paid. The South Australian Government thought that this was essential for the development of softwood plantations in that State and also to obtain the acreage. Now we are presented with an amendment which could seriously restrict the results of the great fight that the South Australian Minister put up for the further development of softwoods in that State.

Senator Young:

– That is what the amendment is trying to do.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is what the amendment could do.

Senator Young:

– That is right.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Naturally the honourable senator is saying that we should oppose the amendment. But I am saying that the amendment is so confused I do not know what will happen. One cannot simply cast aside the environmental considerations in clearing any site for commercial gain. Therefore, I think that some protection should be provided. I have some doubts as to whether the amendment gives those protections because I am unable to interpret it properly. The Opposition has indicated through its spokesman that it will support the amendment with all its imperfections, that has been moved by Senator Byrne. Therefore, it has the support of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and the Australian Labor Party and will be carried. The Bill will then be submitted to the other House as amended by this chamber. I suggest that rather than leaving loopholes to provide picnics for legal men in the future, the Minister should realise the possibility that this amendment will be carried. In view of its possible acceptability to the States and a change in the agreement, perhaps there should be a short adjournment of this question so it can be framed in a way that will eliminate all the anomalies which I see in the amendment and in order to avoid the necessity of court applications from time to time to explain what the amendment actually means.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– Let it be understood that I stand here, as it were, in loco parentis. I listened with some considerable care to Senator Cavanagh. I am not prepared to adjourn this debate. I want to conclude it. But that does not mean that his observations, which he directed to clause 9, will not be conveyed to the Minister for National Development (Sir Reginald Swartz) in the other place for his consideration in the full body of the debate, along with what they imply in the sense of the drafting and in the sense of the relationship between ourselves, as the Commonwealth Parliament, and our colleagues in State Parliaments. I do not think that I need to read again clause 3 or clause 9 contained in the Schedule. I think that sufficient attention has been directed to that.

But the amendment of the Australian Democratic Labor Party deals with quite a number of matters. In particular, the question is asked: What is an environmental impact study all about? Those who have remained in the chamber and who have taken an active interest in this debate - I have paid them proper tribute at an earlier stage - might like to learn some of the factors that are believed to be important in the environmental impact position. In general terms the impact on the environment of afforestation is almost entirely favourable. The following points are relevant: Firstly, silviculture is consciously applied ecology. The era of haphazard timber harvesting is largely a thing of the past in Australia. Forest services are now very conscious of their environmental responsibilities, as well as those of conservation and the wise use of resources. Some States have already created branches within their forestry departments to cover these aspects. In passing, I refer to my earlier comments in regard to Sir William McKell when he was Premier. Secondly, forests, whether natural or man made, constitute one of man’s few renewable resources. Thirdly, forests represent the largest most complex and most self-perpetuating of all ecosystems. Both the environmental and productive values are highly significant. Roughly one-third of the world’s land area is forested. During the process of photosynthesis carbon dioxide is assimilated and oxygen released. Nearly half of the world’s net photosynthesis is contributed by forests, consequently their significance as purifying agents of the atmosphere is enormous. Australia is badly off so far as forest area is concerned and badly off in regard to concentrated forests - the number of trees to the acre.

It has been pointed out that important factors influencing climate are reflectivity, heat capacity and conductivity, aerodynamic roughness, dust, emissivity in the infrared band and heat released to the ground. It can be shown that forests are extremely important in these respects. For example, they possess low reflectivity, high capacity to absorb heat during the evapotranspiration process and low conductivity; they create aerodynamic roughness, arrest dust particles and have high emissivity in the infra-red band. Forests are therefore one of the climatic buffers on which mankind depends. The role of forests in regulating water supply, preventing soil erosion, improving infiltration, preventing run-off and building up organic matter is well known.

Forest products, unlike their substitutes, are bio-degradable. Large areas of forest’ have been set aside for wilderness areas, national parks. They are recreational areas. I am condensing some of my comments, but 1 can make available to those who might like to see it later a document on this subject. It states that forests are a natural haven for a large part of Australia’s unique wildlife. There is concern that some people have said that softwood plantations are biological deserts. Informed opinion expressed to me is that nothing could be further from the truth. An increasing variety of native animals, birds, etc, have adapted or are becoming adapted to the recently established coniferous environment.

I mention, really directed to Senator Mulvihill and between the two of us, that in my own district, where he knows there has been much afforestation, it interested me recently while driving along the road of a pine plantation which adjoins on the other side of the road an area being cleared for future pine plantations that for miles along the road in the established pine forest all the gates were open. I asked one of the people wilh me, a person who is mixed up in this business: ‘Why are the gates left open?’ He said: ‘So that the natural wildlife and kangaroos from the cleared land can pass into the forest land.’ Honourable senators opposite may laugh or jump up and down at that remark, but it was an observation made by a person who actually saw it as distinct from someone who felt about it.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Do you believe that?

Senator COTTON:

– I believe it because the man who told me that was a competent, honest and dedicated man. 1 recommend that the honourable senator consult him. Anybody who wants to see for himself the condition I have described can take a drive north from Canberra on any decent day. The document goes on to say that one of the prime functions of forests is the protection of watersheds to ensure high water quality. A number of other points are mentioned, but what I have said demonstrates that forests are extremely important. As has been said, an environmental impact study would have some regard to these factors.

I listened carefully to Senator Byrne’s proposed amendment which is supported by the Australian Labor Party. I think we have agreed to put the amendment in a form in which it would be acceptable to (he Chairman. Although I listened carefully I was unable to find myself in the slightest degree persuaded by Senator Byrne that we are not doing something which instinctively to me, in my understanding of what the Senate should do and the relationships with State governments in a federal system, is intrinsically wrong. Therefore I am unable to support the amendment, either on behalf of the Minister or for myself. Senator Byrne said that the States were not worried about it, that they will be perfectly happy and think it is wonderful. Experience will determine that when the matter gets back into the hands of the Minister. I think’ Senator Mulvihill would agree with me. : that State, forestry officers are capable and dedicated men and that no-one would want to suggest otherwise. This is not to say that Commonwealth foresters are not equally capable and dedicated.

I have mentioned the points raised by Senator Cavanagh. I am aware of a number of other issues which I do not think add much to the process of the general debate. Referring specifically to the amendment proposed by the DLP, I am informed that if it were carried the amended agreement would have to be referred back to the States for consideration by them in the Australian Forestry Council. It is possible - indeed, it is quite likely - that the States would reject the idea of an impact study by any independent expert. As Senator Cavanagh rightly said, who is an independent expert? Who gets him and where does he come from? How is he independent? Of whom is he independent and for what? In the meantime it is quite possible that the States would be precluded from receiving sums under the agreement.

Senator Byrne:

– It could be easily established whether he was an independent expert. One would know that he was an expert and that he was independent.

Senator COTTON:

- Senator Byrne with his great legal knowledge would know the classic definition of expert. I repeat that in the meantime it is quite possible that the States would be precluded from receiving funds under the agreement. As has been said, these sums would be helpful in a country area in aiding employment. Senator Byrne is quite concerned at the setting aside of any consideration of natural forest. He should not be upset about this because the Australian Forestry Council has recommended that the Commonwealth Government provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of native forests. This is under active consideration. I mentioned that I was involved in the beginning of the Australian Forestry Council and that I attended its first meeting. At the first meeting the programme of doing something about the Australian indigenous hardwood forest was laid down as a work to be taken up.

Senator - Byrne expressed, concern also about the woodchip’ industry. I think the honourable, senator is entitled to know that woodchips are subject to export control. The question of regeneration was considered by the Minister for National Development before granting approval to export. Experience to date has indicated that a substantial regeneration of logged-over areas has been achieved. There has been some confusion, although not much, on the question of dates. The Softwood Forestry Agreements Act 1967 covered the 5- year period from 1st July 1966 to 30th June 1971. If this Bill is amended and becomes law it will cover the period from 1st July 1971 to 30th June 1976.

I have before me other material relating to national parks and wildlife. Senator Webster and Senator Mulvihill referred to other species of softwoods. I should mention to them that other species are being planted in Australia. They are hoop pine, which is a native conifer; pinus elliott ii. namely, slash pine; pinus taeda. which is the loblolly pine; pinus caribaea. which is the Caribbean pine; pinus pinaster, which is the maritime pine; and the native cypress pine. Quite a range of other species have been developed and are used according to the results they show in commercial and economic capacities. Finally it is a useful producer of cellulose. It is clear that both the DLP and ALP are not prepared to pass this Bill. Amendments have been moved and as a consequence it will be necessary for the Bill to go back to the responsible Minister for consideration by the other House. As I said earlier, the debate that has taken place here will be studied carefully and read by the Minister and the departmental officers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator WOOD:

– Before calling Senator Byrne I shall read the amendment to the Senate. It states:

At the end of clause 3 add -

Subject to the agreement being amended by the omission of clause 9 of the schedule and the insertion in place thereof, of. the following clauses . . . ,

They are clauses 9 and 9a which have been circulated to honourable senators and which I do not propose to read.

Senator Byrne:

– I noticed, Mr Temporary Chairman, that you used the word agreement*. That should be iri the plural. The Bill relates to softwood forestry agreements, so the amendment would be sub ject to the agreements’. There is an individual agreement between the Commonwealth and each State, so it must be agreements’.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The word ‘agreement’ is used in clause 3 which was drawn up by the Parliamentary Draftsman.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I do not wish to prolong the debate, but Senator Webster asked me whether I could mention an instance where there had been a replacement of indigenous forest by an exotic pine plantation. My attention has been drawn to a report in the ‘Canberra News’ of 23rd September 1971 which stated under a heading ‘Bush Replaced by Pine’:

The New South Wales Forestry Commission confirmed today it would convert 34,000 acres of bush, on the Dividing Range east of Canberra, into pine plantations.

The Conversion of bush in the vicinity of Palerange and Tallanganda State, Forest would take a considerable time, a spokesman for the commission said.

The spokesman would not comment on the charge this would mean destroying the natural environment.

In a letter to the “Canberra Times’, yesterday, V and R. Routley attacked the commission’s plans, saying they would create ‘biological deserts’.

They criticised the replacement , of eucalypt forest by a single exotic species which “little indigenous life could exploit.

Senator Webster:

– Is that- what you consider bush to be - natural forest?”,; -ft,” ‘ ‘

Senator BYRNE:

– I suppose, :it. is. a. matter of interpretation. However, ; that : is the type of thing, with which .. we are concerned. . : . (; :.,:-> ut

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Like Senator- Byrne, - 1 - do not want to prolong the debate. In my ‘ contribution to the debate I -thought I had raised many questions as to the : meaning of the amendment and’ ‘I ‘-thought that Senator Byrne, rather than the -Minister, would have thrown some light on the points I raised, especially as it is his amendment. I wanted to “know what was meant by certain terms and what’ would be an acceptable legal definition, pf those terms. However, we are faced with the situation of putting our own interpretation

On what may be the effect of the amendment. Anyone who is interested in the environment would be forced to support the amendment because we may do irreparable harm if we simply allow States to go ahead with the destruction of indigenous forests in order to plant softwoods. It could lead possibly to the destruction of fauna in the area, or the fauna will leave and will not return to the pine forest.

I think that the whole question of uniform Commonwealth-State legislation should be considered. The form of this legislation is decided by various Ministers meeting in conference, and this completely deprives the people’s representatives of the right to make amendments. They dare not alter the legislation because to do so would be to destroy the uniformity. Therefore, we are getting a system of government by 7 people. In respect of most uniform legislation, and in regard to the agreement thai is before us, it is a question of ‘adopt and the Commonwealth makes a grant or refuse and you get nought’. Therefore it is obvious that the States must accept whatever we do by way of legislation. I think that, in conditions which involve a grant by the Commonwealth to the States, the Commonwealth should discuss the legislation and the agreement that it is prepared to enter into. It should then be up to the States to decide whether they will become participants in the agreement or whether they will forfeit the financial benefit that the Commonwealth is prepared to offer. Such an arrangement would permit a full discussion of. what we, as the people’s elected representatives here think should be the Commonwealth terms. We would not have hanging over us the threat of this kind of legislation having to go back to the States on every occasion.

There is another point. There are 2 fields of thought ‘ in Australia and, as Senator Byrne said, we are getting more environment conscious. Senator Byrne took credit for the Australian Democratic Labor Party in apprising us of the necessity of this.

Senator Byrne:

– We were the first. Thank you, Senator.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am not disputing it. I do not know.

Senator Byrne:

– I assure you that is right.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I say that the honourable senator claims it. But if he commenced before Senator Mulvihill I can assure him that it was only because of age that he succeeded. Of course, this thinking has reached the proportion, on some occasions, where it is asserted that we should destroy nothing, even for progress. We have reached a stage where it is considered that we should make Australia a country fit only for animals to live in. We could well reach a stage where, instead of killing animals for feeding humans, we may need to kill humans in order to feed animals because they will have become so precious. I see the necessity for the non-destruction of our environment. However, I also see the necessity for developmental work. We cannot retard Australia’s progress because there is some kind of animal kingdom in a particular area. Where one draws the line between these 2 points of view, I do not know. I do not know whether the amendment moved by Senator Byrne seeks to do that. However, in the absence of measures which let the States destroy willy-nilly natural growth and animal life without affording any protection to them, one is forced into the position of supporting the amendment.

In view of the high priority that we put on the environment today I think that this subject should be given more careful study in the future. We should know all the arguments - the pros and cons - and draw the line somewhere between what we should do to protect the natural fauna and flora and what is necessary - and there must be some necessity for destruction - for the purpose of the progress of Australia.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesrMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– The speech just made was a thoughtful contribution. I will not develop any arguments except to say that I took it as such. The points raised also will be part of the general study to be made of what has taken place in this chamber. I suggest that we would be well advised to dispose of the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

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

page 100

NOTICES OF MOTION

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I seek leave to give notice of motion to refer 2 matters to the Public Works Committee tomorrow.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIGHT:

– I give notice that tomorrow I intend to move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-72, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report:

Development of the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Amberley, Queensland.

I give notice that tomorrow I intend to move in the same terms the reference to the Committee of the following proposed work:

Development of Royal Australian Air Force Base, Townsville, Queensland.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Drake: Brockman, in the absence of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson as Government Leader, will you take the Chair at the table.

page 100

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 May (vide page 2347), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Bill, as the Clerk has just announced, is the Industrial Research and Development Grants Bill 1972 which, honourable senators will recall, was postponed in the dying hours of the last session because the industry asked for this to be done. The Senate agreed to follow that course. I intend to move - and I will explain why - that this Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade for examination and report.

The history of this matter is that in 1967, I think, the Government first introduced special grants to enable Australian industries to be financed and subsidised in respect of research work in the fields mainly of mining and manufacturing. This measure was introduced because -it was felt that Australian, industry was relying far too much on overseas technology and research. The Bill that was introduced, this year sought to amend that legislation because it appeared prima facie that the grants as they were being made were not having the desired effect. Accordingly, it was decided that the legislation should be recast so that it would do the things that the first Bill had failed to do. I am sure that all honourable senators have had correspondence from organisations such as the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures which has conducted a lot of research and inquiries into this new Bill. Some objections to this legislation have been raised. It seems to me that this is an ideal type of Bill to refer to a standing committee. Speaking for myself, I certainly envisaged - I think We all did - that standing committees would be distinct from other committees in that they would be set up to operate for a long period and to examine various matters referred to them including Bills of this nature. We know who the personnel of our standing committees are. An examination could be made of this Bill and evidence could be sought from all interested parties on which the committee could report to the Senate as to whether the Bill could be improved or on the other hand that the Government’s original ideas are correct and that no improvement is possible. In other words, the committee would do what standing committees were set up to do and should set out to do.

I wish to quote from a very long letter, running into 8 pages, from the Victorian Chamber of Manfactures. I . do not intend to quote from all of the pages but I wish to give the Senate some idea of the letter’s contents. If we tried to cover all aspects of this matter tonight’ by arguing back and forth, we would be doing the job that a standing committee is far better equipped to do. I sympathise with bodies ‘ such as the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures in trying to put all . relevant thoughts in a letter such as this. 1 will quote portions of the letter. The. first quo- .tation I make gives some .praise to the Government. The letter states:

Many of the provisions in the Bill are considered beneficial to industry as whole. “ ‘

This body is arguing that it wants to support this Bill but it wishes to overcome the problems that were contained in the original Bill. It goes on to state:

However, with a more detailed study, of the operating effect of this Bill has come the realisation that certain aspects of the legislation will prove detrimental to the achievement of its objectives.

We see that, although this body agrees that it wants this type of assistance, it is able with its experience to offer some advice to the Government. It states further:

Other aspects of the Bill are uncertain. It is not made clear how overhead items will be treated in the base period calculations.

The last quotation that I make from this letter is this: lt is considered reasonable that there should be some revision of the method of assessment of base period expenditure. In this regard the adding of a new 3 years period averaged as proposed may remove some anomalies which exist under the present system.

To summarise this letter as best I can without going into a very long dissertation on this subject, this Bill will require an industry which seeks grants continually to increase their level of expenditure on research and development. A company which maintains a fixed expenditure on research and development in a short period will receive no benefit at all. The concept of rapidly increasing research and development expenditure over a 3 year period favours the quite small company and the very large company. The very small company, because of the reduced sum it expends on research and development, could quite easily give a large percentage boost to its research and development expenditure without in aboslute terms a large increase in expenditure. Obviously, if a company is spending a small amount on research and development, it is easy to attract a Government grant by increasing that amount because this will not cost the small company very much money. A large company may also maintain a large percentage annual increase in its research and development budget because although the absolute sums of money involved are considerable they are quite small in relation to the overall expenditure of a company of that size. Medium sized companies, on the other hand, will find it difficult to sustain large percentage increases in their annual research and development expenditure.

A large proportion of the money granted under the present Act and proposed in the new Bill goes to foreign owned companies. There is some evidence to suggest that some of these foreign owned companies are increasing the amount of research and development performed in Australia. This is being done because these companies can get the Australian Government to pay half of the cost of research and development. It should be remembered also that expenditure on research and development is an allowable deduction in assessing companies for income tax. As company income tax is currently at the rate of 47i per cent, this means that research is almost wholly subsidised by the Government. The situation is that overseas companies, because of their size and because of these 2 provisions, can almost have the Australian Government subsidising and in fact financing the whole of their expenditure on research and development.

The current position is that the Government is trying to do something for research and development. The Opposition agrees that this is a good thing. At the same time, we want expert advice. It may be that if this Bill is referred to a standing committee contra evidence to the proposition that I have quoted mainly from the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures - I have information from others oh my file but I have chosen this body because obviously it is responsible and it must be knowledgeable on this subject - will be forthcoming from other organisations. Anyone who wishes to do so may put evidence before such a committee and that evidence may disagree with the proposition that I have quoted. This is the important thing: Perhaps the Australian Government even now is lagging behind other governments of the world because the evidence is that all governments - when I say ‘all governments’ I am speaking of those of the Western world of which we take notice, including the United States of America. Japan, Canada and West Germany - are increasing expenditure on research and development. Not only is this expenditure increasing but also it is accelerating fairly rapidly. There is evidence that in countries like Germany and Japan - these are developing countries with a high national product - the productivity rate is very great, and the morale in these areas is quite high. The latest available information on the development of our own country indicates the sort of achievements that have been attained. They are quite impressive as far as one can judge that they are impressive. One is in difficulty in dealing with a grant of $2,500 because one does not know whether in terms of the company involved that is a good deal of money or a small amount of money. One does not know the product but the amount seems fairly impressive.

This Bill is typical of those which could be referred to a Senate standing committee. This Bill would provide work of the type for which I think we set up these committees. As I see it, this would be a job of not long duration. I cannot speak on behalf of the Committee but I think that in a matter of weeks it could rapidly examine the matter and report to the Senate on its progress. After all, this legislation has been held up for the last 3 months because the industry asked that it be held over to give it a chance to examine the contents of the new Bill. It seems to me that it is most appropriate that my suggestion should be adopted.

What is the Opposition doing? It has agreed to support this Bill. The Government is seeking to amend its original ideas on this legislation. The Opposition has some worries about the Bill. One is that overseas companies seem to enjoy a pretty fair go, and probably a little more than a fair go, in respect of the money that is paid by way of these grants. Other matters that the Senate standing committee might well consider include what is the beneficial result of this research and development? Should this information be made available for the rest of Australia? Are grants of this type appropriate? It seems to me that the complaints are not on the grounds of the amount of money that is. being expended by the Government . but merely on the best way to expend that money.

As I say, with all the files that I am sure we all have on this matter, we could enter into a long argument and debate on this Bill. I do not think that this would be beneficial because each of us would be taking certain angles about which we probably would not know very much. I merely raise this proposition. The amendment that

I will put before the Senate will propose that this legislation be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade under the chairmanship of Senator Prowse. That Committee could examine this legislation. I would not put a time limit on its examination because that might be unfair to the Committee, but I do not see any difficulties at all in such an inquiry because obviously the people who have made these complaints or suggestions are ready to give evidence on notice of a couple of days. It has been extant in Australia since 1967, and I suggest that an examination could be made within a few weeks. The Senate would then b.e in a much better position to suggest amendments. I am sure the Government is trying to do something about it, and I know that the Opposition is trying to assist. It would be in a much stronger position if it moved an amendment accordingly.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Willesee, at this stage of the debate, and only at this stage, I make the comment that to date the practice in this process of developing the functions of standing committees has been for a motion such as you have proposed to be moved upon notice. I pitt this forward only for your consideration,. , and for the consideration of the Minister, that you might follow the practice by .moving an amendment to add words to. trie motion for the second reading. Would you consider an amendment which, expressed , the opinion that the Bill be ref erred., to. . the Standing Committee which you have . just named. I would like Senator Cotton. to comment on the suggestion. ‘.. ,

Senator Cotton:

– I would, comment on the suggestion only on the basis that my comment would not be taken aS . a concluding speech but that I may speak’ again.

The PRESIDENT:

– Of course.

Senator Cotton:

– Your observation is both wise and sensible, Mr President; I think it is close to the point that .Senator Willesee’s proposition is out of order… However, we do not want to engage in .a dog .fight on what ought or ought not to he done, We, all recall the closing hours of the last sessional period when . 3 Bills came . to. . the, . Senate from another place, and they, were deferred on the basis that there was insufficient time to deal with them and they,” heeded more mature consideration. In- “the ‘intervening period those concerned have had an opportunity to give them mature consideration and judgment. This opportunity has been equally available to the manufacturers who are complaining about this proposal. The Minister and the Government believe that the proposal has essential merit and has within it a. great improvement which they are anxious should be explored and developed. This, however, would take some little time.

As a practising senator involved in the task of trying to get the Senate’s work through, if this proposal should go to a standing committee - and I hope it will not - I imagine that committee would have to be the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. The Chairman of that Standing Committee is overseas at present, and the Committee already is inquiring into two subjects. The first is the promotion of trade and commerce with other countries, the operation of Australia’s international trade agreements, and the development of trading relations; the second is the determination of prices, measures to prevent unjustifiable price increases, and the establishment of a Prices Surveillance Tribunal. Neither of those tasks is a light undertaking; neither are they tasks that will not consume a tremendous amount of time. If this proposition is to .be referred to a standing committee - presumably the one mentioned - then I would assume that the manufacturers, the Minister and all concerned with these grants, which are substantial and have great public benefit, would face the situation that that benefit would have to cease as from 1st July this year. That appears to be inevitable, as much as I regret it.

Senator Willesee:

– May I have leave to make a brief statement?

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) - Mr President, as a result of your comment, I think it prudent that I should move an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time to provide that it be referred to the Committee. The Senate would then not have to go through the procedures of the Committee stage and the third reading stage. That would achieve what I want I have given consideration to the points raised by Senator Cotton - that the Committee has other commitments and that the Chairman, Senator Prowse, is overseas. I myself was overseas in the dying hours of the last sessional period, and although what Senator Cotton had said was reported to me, I understood from Senator Murphy that representations were made to us that the session was in its dying stages and that those concerned did want to look closely at the situation. This prompted us to suggest to the Government, which suggestion was accepted I understand, that consideration be postponed at that stage. I repeat that I did take into consideration that the Standing Committee had other commitments. While I do not want to be taken as telling the Committee what to do, I should imagine it would be able, particularly if this is a short inquiry - which it will be, as I see it - to look at this evidence as it is already in writing. The Committee probably would be able to give this subject priority because it would be able to dispose of it at a very early stage. Accepting your wise guidance, Mr President, I shall move, if you will accept the motion now, that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. .

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Will:.see will you write out the amendment so we will be quite clear about it. That is in accordance with’ Standing Orders, anyway.

Senator Cotton:

– We are content to rest upon the eternal verities and the combined wisdom of you, Mr President, and the Clerk at the table. We are content to follow the procedure you have recommended, as long as it is regularised.

The PRESIDENT:

– Very well. We will then proceed with the second reading debate.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– This is a Bill to amend the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act of 1967, a Bill which those who have some involvement in industrial matters are pleased to support. The Government first offered financial encouragement to companies undertaking and proposing to undertake research and development as long ago as 1967. At that time a 5-year plan was formulated to produce a climate in which the Government would encourage industrial research and development. The achievements of that measure have been very considerable in the Australian national interest. One need only refer to the annual report for 1971-72 of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board to be impressed by the very great achievements following the granting by the Commonwealth of cash assistance, through the scrutiny of the Board, to a number of institutions and particularly private trading companies to encourage them to increase expenditure on research and development. The purpose of this legislation was to encourage further investment in research and development. It was never intended that this would be a subsidy to companies for the work that they did. That is one of the matters at which we must look closely. We must remember that the Commonwealth never set out to subsidise companies for the work that they did although that followed rationally from the Commonwealth’s move. The subsidy was basically intended to encourage further research and development in our community and the type of development that has occurred is set out in the report.

I will now mention one or two points contained in the report. The report indicates that a noteworthy feature of the past year’s activity was the increase of more than 36 per cent in the number of applicants eligible for consideration for selective grants during the year 197.0-71 as compared with the previous grant year. That being the case it perhaps encourages us to think that this legislation should not by any means be held up, as it is essential that there be a continuing flow of subsidies and a continuing knowledge in companies that they can expect further encouragement for their development. Perhaps this indicates to the Opposition that it may be unwise at this time to refer this matter to one of the Senate committees for further investigation. If that is a point to be looked at - and it is an action which we as senators may encourage in some instances - I think the honourable senator proposing this on behalf of the Opposition would agree that every Senate committee at this time is overloaded with work.

Senator Gair:

– They are.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The senior senator for the Democratic Labor Party agrees with me that they are overloaded. I know that each senator is doing his utmost to discharge his duties properly. But each of us in the next few months will be called on to put an intensive effort into the election of our members of parliament. Whether there be a return of the Government or fulfilment of the hopes of the Opposition at the forthcoming election it will be many months before honourable senators are free to devote their time to the work proposed. Senator Willesee has proposed that this matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. He would know that not only has that Committee several references in front of it but also that it is deeply involved with the reference on trade between Australia and New Zealand and that it will be some time before we see the presentation of a report. Undoubtedly an investigation into the matter now before us could be of some value.

I am confident that the Industrial Research and Development Grant Board, the Department of Trade and Industry, which has been closely associated with administering the subsidies over the past years, and the Treasury, which has had the responsibility of granting the moneys on behalf of the Commonwealth, have ensured that the second 5-year term will be one which will again reflect encouragement for companies to undertake further research and development. The past year has ended with the Board being able to say that a 36 per cent increase occurred in the number of applicants eligible for selective grants. Undoubtedly that was the fact that prompted the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) when he first introduced this measure on 1st March 1972 to say in a statement to the House of Representatives:

We have now decided on another measure of assistance to industry. This will be the continuing of the financial incentive provided under the industrial research and development grants scheme for a further 5 year period from July of this year.

I say to Senator Willesee that it was proposed by the Government that this scheme should commence from July this year which surely is a further reason why this Bill should not be held up for any great length of time.

The Prime Minister went on to say that the amount of incentive that the Commonwealth will provide will be significantly greater than during the first 5-year period from 1967. Further on in his comments he states that it is estimated that grants under the present scheme over the 5-year period of its operation will be of the order of S60m. That indicates that it is the expectation of the Federal Government that the expenditure on research and development, while not precisely stated in the second reading speech, will be, on the basis of the Prime Minister’s assurance, in excess of the $60m that has been provided over the past 5-year period.

Some of the benefits that have flowed from this research and development are discussed in the report to which I have referred. Honourable senators may be interested to hear one or two benefits which are of great significance to the national economy and undoubtedly are in the national interest. I quote one or two of the new and improved products and processes which this type of research and development grant has produced. On consideration of these honourable senators will see what has been achieved. I hope that they will take to heart the second of the items I will quote. Honourable senators may care to look at the stock exchange listing and discover where one company by utilising this scheme has earned many millions of dollars, and I say that advisedly. It has many, many millions of dollars available to it resulting from a process which was never anticipated prior to the introduction of this scheme. On page 1 of appendix F in the Board’s report the following appears:

There has been a continuing trend overseas towards the use of ductile spun cast iron pipe to replace the grey iron previously used. Such pipe has a higher tensile strength and a much greater resistance to impact damage, thus considerably improving its usefulness in locations of severe or shock loadings, and for handling and installation by unskilled labour, as for example in some developing countries where advanced handling methods are not available. In order to preserve and expand its established export market, and to withstand overseas competition in Australia, a major company in the metal industry has successfully undertaken the development of a process for the manufacture of ductile cast iron pipe and is now scaling up to commercial production. This development was necessary to adapt basic ideas derived from overseas to the use of Australian raw materials.

In all areas where Australian national interest is spelt out in that wording we can be proud that it is a reflection of some Commonwealth encouragement to industrial research. The second interesting process which has been developed under this encouragement scheme is referred to in the Board’s report in the following terms:

A Tasmanian mining and metal extraction company has successfully developed a process which will permit the extraction of significant further quantities of zinc - together with lesser amounts of lead, silver and cadmium - from a 1.4 million ton stockpile of residue arising from more than 20 years of normal processing. In addition to this recovery of valuable metals which would otherwise not have been utilised, the process will permit an increase in the amount of zinc obtained from the processing of new concentrates from approximately 87 per cent to as much as 97 per cent. The company will also benefit extensively from royalties resulting from the use of the process overseas. It has already been adopted in Norway, Spain, the Federal Republic of Germany, Canada, Mexico, Holland and Belgium, whilst negotiations are proceeding in the United States of America, Japan, Yugoslavia, India and Peru.

But the limits of the national interest that has been pursued by the very encouragement of further industrial research in that instance will flow throughout the whole of the Australian community. I may say that there are some very interesting results in primary industry also. The report indicates those very many areas of interest and commercial pursuit which have been encouraged by industrial, research. The report states:

A country manufacturer of wheat and sugar products has successfully formulated new food colouring and texturising materials, resulting in the direct replacement of corresponding imported products. The same company, in the last financial year, achieved export sales of over ft. 5m, principally to the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

Honourable senators might be interested in viewing some of the many research projects that have proved of value. I shall instance another case. A Victorian manufacturer of traffic control equipment has developed a low-cost road line marker which, in addition to being used in most Australian States, has received initial orders to a value of $60,000 from Hawaii, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Further exports to a value of approximately $550,000 are anticipated by the company in the near future. So in short we can see the very wide area of interest that has been created by this research work.

I feel that Australians should be particularly proud of what has happened in the past and of the work that will be pursued during this next S-year period.

There is an increasing effort also in the field of environmental control and in the reduction of pollution which could be instanced in the report from which I have just quoted. I believe that the investment made by the Commonwealth by way of these grants can be reckoned to be wise in terms of Australia’s industrial development. I see it as one of the few areas in which the Federal Government is giving some direct assistance to private enterprise. When I refer to private enterprise I refer to those companies in the community which to a very large extent are providing the income from which most people in this community are being clothed and fed. I suggest that we as a Senate would be most unwise to hold up this further scheme which is proposed by the Commonwealth.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) is quite extensive and, if it is read and studied closely by all sectors of industry today, those who have written to me may find that many of their problems have not particular significance. I have had sent to me a significant volume of correspondence criticising the proposal that we have before us. The Chamber of Manufactures in Victoria has contacted me on several occasions on this matter. The Minister suggested that this Bill was laid before the chamber some months ago so that industry could communicate and suggest ways and means by which this measure could be bettered. I could quote from letters which were sent to the Government as early as May of this year by the managing director of at least one prominent Australian company pointing out the problems that he saw in the proposal. I am aware that the Associated Chambers pf Manufactures has been in touch with, all honourable senators and indeed the ‘ Federal Government expressing its views. I think we should take an interest in some of the points that it has mentioned and see whether, on balance, there is benefit to be derived from this measure or whether it will be of negative benefit in some areas.

Senator Willesee, who was the previous speaker in this debate, quoted from com munications he had received from the Associated Chambers of Manufactures to indicate some of the areas in which it has concern. 1 refer again to the first words I used in this speech. Proposed new section 4 states:

The object of this Act is to promote the development of Australian industry by encouraging increased industrial research and development in Australia.

I say again to the Senate and to those who are interested in this matter that the purpose of this Bill is to encourage increased industrial research and development, and that does not mean an increase for a particular year. If there are individuals in the community who are saying at the present time that there was a base year associated with the existing 5-year scheme and that it was on that base year that increased expenditure found some support from the Commonwealth and that that was a good thing, it could be said that that was so. But there were some definite disadvantages associated with that previous 5-year scheme which will be amended and improved by the Bill that 1 have before us. The rolling base is the main objection, as I see it, and this view has been prompted by the several letters that I have received. I have taken note of the point that they have made. I readily see that some companies may benefit by adopting in this new measure a fixed base at the beginning of the period or a base that perhaps refers back to a year or two in the last 5-year scheme. It has been suggested also in the correspondence that I have received that far too many will receive far too little from this measure. Again I say that the Government has always talked of incentives and I believe that the challenges to the several clauses of the Bill really do not justify the rejection of the Bill at this time. The effect of the rolling base will be that each year there must be an increased investment in research and development for the company to receive a benefit.

Another argument that I have noted is - I think this was a point made by Senator Willesee - that some overseas organisations apparently are receiving the major portion of the research grants. I suppose that does not rest in a person’s mind too well when he sees that the Commonwealth Government may be putting out to overseas based companies a large proportion of the financial encouragement that is provided. However, I believe that, although financial assistance is going to overseas commercial organisations, they are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the total research that is being conducted in this country today. If that happens to be a fact which perhaps cannot be challenged, it is not unreasonable that the majority of the research assistance is going to those organisations.

Some honourable senators opposite may be able to point out some facts of which I am not aware, but it appears to me that if nearly two-thirds of the total research is being conducted by certain groups of firms it is not unreasonable to think that they would, at the outset, receive that proportion of the research grants. As I have said, there are benefits which come out of this measure and which were not involved in the previous Act. To the best of my ability and understanding, I shall mention 3 areas. These are areas which have been criticised in the paper work which has come to me.

Firstly, in relation to plant and equipment it has been argued that certain types will not receive the support which has been received in the past. I point out to the Senate - I believe this to be correct - that approximately 35 per cent of the first $50,000 expended on plant was accepted as eligible for support under the first 5- year scheme. As I understand the situation, now, it will be some 50. per cent of the first $50,000 which will be supported by these grants. If one looks at the second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation one finds that he states:

The Government has decided that a broad incentive along existing lines should continue with, as at present, general grants for increases in eligible expenditure up to $50,000 and selective grants for eligible expenditure over $50,000. At present the general rate of grant is 35 per cent. The Government has announced that the general rate of grant for the first year of the extended scheme, 1972-73, will be increased to 50 per cent. Itis proposed that in future the general rate will be announced at least 6 months before the commencement of the relevant grant year. As at present,rates for selective grants will be determined by the Grants Board in accordance with national interest criteria specified in the Act, and having regard to the total funds available.

In fact there is a benefit to beachieved by firms in that measure. I understand that there has been some argument relating to the expenditure on pilot and prototype plant, but I believe that herethe rolling base period provisions do not apply to the calculations of expenditure eligible for consideration for grant purposes. An important exception is to be made in the case of expenditure on plant. In relation to plant other than pilot and prototype plant, the basis is to regard expenditure which represents an increase in capacity to carry out industial research and development as eligible for grant purposes. I am convinced that the circumstances of the new provision will be more beneficial to industries than that which was provided previously. Certain expenditures were unacceptable under the former Act. In this Bill we see a complete change and an acceptance by the Government of many areas of expenditure by companies which areattributable to their industrial research and development. To state this situation correctly I read from the Minister’s second reading speech which states:

Items of expenditure which qualify under the present Act are salaries and wages of personnel employed essentially full-time on industrial research and development for the whole of the year; contract work for a firm undertaken by, an approved research organisation, and allowable plant expenditure. The restrictionofexpenditure allowable under the present Act to these items has given rise to some inequality of treatment between companies which conduct; industrial research and development work in. their own plants and those which have industrial research and development performedfor them by an approved research organisation.’ The Government therefore proposes to allow a much wider coverage of in-company items of expenditure. This will largely or completely eliminate any existing advantage that contract workmayhave over incompany work under the present legislation.

The Minister goes on to set out very many areas. It looks as thoughitems such as travel; hired staff; technical information and reference services; repairs and maintenance work on plant;printing, stationery and general supplies; rent andleasing charges for the use of building, including notional charges wherethebuildings are owner-occupied; insurance;light, power and water; and telephonerentals etc. are now accepted by the Commonwealth under this measure as being applicable for grant purposes.

There is another most important matter which I believe has been completely overlooked by the chambers of commerce. I hope 1 am not doing the various chambers of commerce an injustice when I say that they have completely overlooked it. In the previous period where there was an expenditure running over those 5 years, in each year a calculation was made which reflected the inflationary tendency over the period, so that, if an amount were spent at the end of the period, when compared with the base period it had to be reduced by a significant amount to bring it to a notional amount which would be taken as the expenditure in that base year. Paragraph 10 on page 2 of the Annual Report for the year 1971-72 states:

After examination of official statistics and information obtained by the Board directly from official sources,, a rate of 30 per cent was fixed, in relation to grant year 1970-71, for adjustment of base year salary expenditure in accordance with section 29.

In short, expenditure on salaries in 1970- 71 had to be adjusted downwards by 30 per cent before being accepted as the true expenditure.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– The1 purpose of this Industrial Research and Development Grants Bill is to amend the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967. The Bill seeks not only to extend the period for a further 5 years as from July this year but also to extend the terms and conditions of the Act. I think the Senate should remind itself that the Act was of particular significance to Australia. As Senator Webster has so ably pointed out, it was designed to stimulate and increase the rate of industrial research and development in manufacturing and mining companies in Australia. As the honourable senator so rightly said, the aim was not to subsidise but to increase.

We do well to remind ourselves that in 1968-69, when a survey was made of some 13,000 companies, which were asked whether they could enter into this type of research, only 1,320 of them replied that they had the necessary research facilities to go ahead at that time, and only 546 firms qualified in that year. I think that that was an indication - if ever we could obtain it from figures - that in this country we required a great upsurge in industrial research and development through grants. The original Act was aimed only at companies incorporated in Australia. That should be kept in mind. Senator Webster has referred to overseas companies. The original Act also was aimed only at those companies which had professionally qualified persons already on the staff to do research or which had people basically capable of assisting. Under that original Act. 808 company grants were extended by June 1971.

Debate interrupted.

page 108

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 109

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were given:

page 109

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT

(Question No. 1580)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did a director of Woodside Oil N.L. make public his view that the merger of the interests of Woodside Oil N.L. and Mid Eastern Oil N.L. was a sell-out to overseas interests of great Australian natural resources, and, indeed, a sell-out of the last vestige of Australian control of the oil and gas leases on the north-west continental shelf.
  2. Is the director’s statement true.
  3. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the situation so described will not be permitted.
  4. Does control of Australia’s natural resources remain with the Australian Government.

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

  1. I am aware that a director’s views on these matters were made widely known.
  2. , (3) and (4) The Commonwealth, in association with the Western Australian Government, had discussions with the companies involved in this proposed merger and was assured not only that there would be substantial Australian equity in the new company, but also that the board of Woodside-Burmah was, and would remain, predominantly Australian. On the general question of overseas investment in Australia I refer to the statement made by the Treasurer on 16th May 1972 (Hansard, p. 2534).

page 109

COMMONWEALTH CARS

(Question No. 1602)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that cars which are coloured black absorb heat more readily, and suffer higher interior temperatures, than cars of lighter colour.
  2. Has the Minister seen reports on research which shows that black coloured cars are more prone to accident that white cars.
  3. Will the Minister take steps to phase-out black coloured cars from the Commonwealth Transport Service and have them replaced by cars of a lighter colour.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The Minister for Supply has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. My Department’s experience and practical tests indicate that interior temperatures in black cars exposed to direct sunlight when stationary are higher than in lightercoloured cars in similar circumstances, the absolute difference being greater when windows are closed. For general use the internal temperature is also influenced by the upholstery type and colour, the insulation between interior and engine and roof, and the ventilation. Higher internal temperatures are usually welcome in winter.
  2. I am aware of reports on research into the relationship between the colour of cars and accident rates. Some, though not all, conclude that black cars do tend to have a higher accident rate than lighter coloured cars.
  3. My Department controls approximately 5,000 vehicles of which a considerable number are made available on a permanent hire basis to other Departments. Approximately 2,000 of these are buses or transport trucks and trailers and other non-passenger carrying types . Until quite recently practically all of these were coloured light grey, but since 1971 newly purchased or repainted vehicles have been a. combination of yellow and white. The transition will be complete in approximately 3 years. There are 2,500 passengercarrying vehicles of which only some 400 are black. The other approximately 2,100 are light blue with white roofs, and I have recently instructed that replacements shall be in white. The black cars, practically all of which are driven by professional department drivers, are often used on ceremonial and official occasions, for which it has been considered the most appropriate colour is black.

For about 10 months this question has been under review, with reference to research material. A report of the expert group on road safety established under the chairmanship of. Mr Justice Meares by my colleague the Minister for Shipping and Transport is to advise on theroad accident situation in Australia and to report on fundamental causes and ways and means of reducing the road toll.

In addition, on llth May 1972, the. House of Representatives appointed a Select Committee on Road Safety. I would anticipate that that Committee will take vehicle colour into account in its deliberations.

I am keeping the matter under active consideration and findings of both these bodies will be closely examined.

page 109

NATIONAL SERVICE VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHEME

(Question No. 1749)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

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

  1. How many National Servicemen have applied for assistance under the National Service Vocational Training Scheme, and how many have (a) been granted assistance and (b) been refused assistance and, in the case of refusal, for what reasons.
  2. What professions and trades were involved in regard to persons given assistance under the Scheme, and what period of training was approved on a full-time or part-time basis in each case.
  3. What are the present rates of (a) living allowances and (b) travelling expenses paid under the Scheme, and under what circumstances are they payable.
  4. What was the total cost of the Scheme to 30th June 1971.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. At 30th June 1971 9,423 applications for training under the National Service Vocational Training Scheme had been lodged. Of these 7,356 were approved; 734 were declined; 534 had not been decided and 799 were withdrawn or lapsed. Applications were refused on the following grounds:
  1. The followingcourses of training have been approved:

The break-up of the total number of courses approved into the types of courses involved has necessarily taken some time. Consequently, the details provided above are in respect of the 1970-71 financial year. For the information of the honourable senator, I have listed below figures now available in respect of applications under the National Service Vocational Training Scheme from inception to 30th June 1972:

Number of Applications- 13,259

Number Approved - 10,565

Number Declined- 898

Number Withdrawn or Lapsed - 1,151

Number not decided at 30th June 1972-645

The actual period of training approved in each case could not be ascertained without an inspection of each personal case, but where the course is of a duration of not more than one year fulltime or 2 years part-time the full course is approved. Where the particular course extends beyond those periods, approval for training is restricted to one year full-time or 2 years parttime. The duration of some technical type courses depends on the aptitudes and abilities of individual trainees. Most professional courses extend beyond the allowed limits, whilst some other courses are of limited duration - a course in bulldozer driving for example can last for only one week.

  1. (a) In addition to the payment of all com pulsory fees for the approved course and book and equipment allowances, the following allowances may be paid to those undergoing full-time training:

Living Allowance $50.90 per week

Living-away-from-home allowance $5 per week for unmarried trainees $8 per week for married trainees

A supplementary allowance is payable to trainees who are necessarily required to move from one residence to another for the purpose of undergoing full-time training. The amount is equivalent to eight weeks payment of the hvingawayfrombome allowance.

  1. Travelling expenses necessarily incurred in attending clasees at training institutions are reim bursed. Subsistence and fares may also be paid to country applicants called for interview and trainees proceeding to a training centre.

    1. Payment of benefits under the Scheme is made by the Training Authorities viz. Department of Education and Science for professional courses, Department of Labour and National Service for technical courses and the Department of Primary Industry for rural courses. These departments have advised the expenditure to 30th June 1971 to be $1,650,931.

page 111

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

(Question No. 1836)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. How many all-jet aircraft landed at and departed from Kingsford-Smith Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. from 1st January 1971, to 31st December 1971.
  2. To which’ airlines did the planes belong.
  3. In the case of those landing, what was their take-off point: and in the case of those departing, what was their destination.
  4. At what time did each of the planes land at or take off from Mascot.
  5. What type of aircraft was each of the planes and what was the passengerloading.
  6. How many planes other than all-jet aircraft landed at or departed fromKingsford Smith airport in the same period between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Senator COTTON - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. to (5) The restriction on aircraftoperations into or out of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. applies only to jet aircraft. This restriction is strictly enforced, and the Department’ of Civil Aviation will not approve schedules involving operations by jet aircraft within this period.

There are, however, occasions on which flights must operate within the curfew period in order to cater to unusually high traffic demands at certain times of the year, such as ‘Christmas, Easter and school holidays. These flights,which I approve, receive my special approval onlywhen I am convincedthat their operation within the curfew period is essential to provide for the needs of the travelling public.

In 1971, 108 operations by jet-aircraft took place at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport within the curfew period with my approval.

In addition to the flights” which I approve, authorised officers of the Department of Civil Aviation approved flights which, through unforeseen circumstances, justify approval on short notice to intrude into the curfewperiod.

In 1971, 441 movements by jet aircraft within the curfew period at Sydney.(Kingsford-Smith) Airport were approved byauthorised officers of the Department. The reasons for these approvals were as follows:

The name of the airline or other operator; the point from which the aircraft arrived or was immediately destined; the time of landing or takeoff; the type of aircraft; and the passenger loading of each of the 552 jet aircraft which arrived at or departed from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. during 1971 is as shown in the following table. The information on aircraft movements if as recorded by the

  1. As the restriction on aircraft operations into and out of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. applies only to jet aircraft, records of the movement of non-jet aircraft within this period are not maintained. Records maintained for air traffic control purposes are retained only for a limited period and are no longer available for the year 1971.

page 125

NATIONAL SERVICE ACT

(Question No. 1874)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Will the Minister review the National Service Act definition of an Aboriginal in orderto ensure conformity with such definitions in the various State Acts.
  2. Was Mervyn Eades fined in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions for non-compliance with the National Service Act because the magistrate found him to be a non-Aboriginal in terms of the National Service Act, whereas in terms of Western Australian law he is an Aboriginal. “

Senator WRIGHT- The. Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the “‘following answer’ to’ the’ “honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) During the previous national service scheme which operated up to 1959 and from the outset of the present scheme the position has remained unchanged that ‘Aboriginals’, other than those defined in the Regulations, are liable to register and render service. Under other legislation their standing may vary from this, in the same way as the standing of any person does, in accordance with the objective orobjectives of the particular law involved. Mervyn Eades was convicted on 13th December 1971, as a person having a liability to register but who had failed to do so as required. A fine was imposed by the Court Mr Eades has more recently been found not to meet the standards required for military service and will not, therefore, be called up.

page 126

DRUGS

(Question No. 1896)

Senator WHEELDON:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is the Minister aware of the report entitled ‘On the Dangers of Cannabis’, which is Australia’s first detailed review of world scientific knowledge on the effect of cannabis, the main drug contained in marihuana and hashish; if so, did this report, by Dr G. B. Chesher of the University of Sydney’s Pharmacology Department, state that:

cannabis is not a drug of addiction,

there is no truth in the contention that cannabis use led to the use of narcotic drugs,

the most serious adverse effects of cannabis on its users is that they become vulnerable to prosecution and penalty,

adverse effects on physical health from the long term use of the drug has not been satisfactorily demonstrated,

cancer producing substances in cannabis smoke occur in a concentration of less than half that in tobacco smoke, and tobacco use is not banned, and

the therapeutic index of cannabis, which indicates the estimated safety margin, is 40,000 compared with an index value of only 10 for alcohol.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

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

I am aware pf the report entitled, ‘On the Dangers of Cannabis*.

  1. Dr Chesher’s statement was:

Cannabis is not considered a drug of - addiction’.

  1. Dr Chesher’s statement was: lt is generally conceded that there is no truth in the contention that cannabis use leads to the use of narcotic drugs’. He added that:

The only way to test this hypothesis is to compare directly over a period of time the total population of cannabis users (or a representative sample of them) and determine the proportion of this population who become narcotic users. A’ study of this natnre has not been done. . . .’

  1. In referring to the fact that legal penalties may be incurred by young users of marihuana, Dr Chesher stated:

This surely must be counted among the adverse effects of cannabis. It might very well be its most serious adverse effect’. However, in another part of the report he stated: “… It is only when accurate information of the number of people using the drug (and the extent of their use) is available that one can assess the proportion of this total who are suffering an adverse reaction.’

  1. Yes. He also made it clear that ‘it is imperative that we should know more of the long-term effects on health of the continued, chronic administration of the drug.’
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes. It should be pointed out, however, that it is to a large degree unreal to refer to a ‘therapeutic index’ in relation to cannabis, as in the context of Western medicine the drug has no role in therapeutics.

The statements referred to are, of course, Dr Chesher’s statements. I would suggest, therefore, that the honourable senator should refer to Dr Chesher any questions he may wish to raise regarding the significance or interpretation of the statements, within the context of the report as a whole.

page 126

NICKEL SMELTER

(Question No. 1935)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Has the Interim Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science warned , that the proposed site of the Institute at Cape Pallarenda could be subject to pollution from a nearby nickel smelter.
  2. What consultation has taken place between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments to frame legislation controlling pollution from the nickel smelter.
  3. What are the projected output rates of all types of effluent from the nickel smelter.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided the. following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) In my second reading speech Introducing the Australian Institute of Marine Science Bill on 23rd March 1972, I provided some information on this matter.

The Commonwealth has raised with the Queensland Government the question of possible pollution of the Cape Pallarenda site from a smelter associated with the Greenvale Nickel Mining Project.

The Queensland Government has now advised that the companies involved in that project will be required to control the quality of effluents from the smelter to conform to standards laid down in accordance with the relevant State legislation. Action is being taken under the Clean Air Act with regard to gaseous effluent, and, as there could be a risk of marine pollution without adequate control measures for liquid effluents, a technical Committee has been set up by the Queensland Government to study this problem.

The Committee is working to establish preliminary requirements for wastes disposal at an early date. It is also examining proposals for the intensive investigations which it considers will be necessary to establish the firm requirements which should be included in the licence to be issued by the Water Quality Council under the Clean Waters Act.

page 127

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

(Question No. 1951)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Were 64 prime-movers ordered in 1968 by the Department of Supply from British manufacturers for use by the Department of the Army.
  2. Were 2 prototype vehicles delivered in June 1969.
  3. Were trials as to the safety and suitability of these protypes completed in June 1970.
  4. Did the trials disclose that the requirement by the Department of the Army, that the ‘take off’ equipment, which operates winch and control couplings, be mounted on the rear of the gearbox rather than on the sheafer mounting makes the vehicle unsafe and unsuitable.
  5. Did the Department of the Army approve the manufacture and delivery of the remaining vehicles after these trials had shown them to be unsafe.
  6. Was a payment of $224,000 made in 1970- 71 to rectify the mistake.
  7. Is the present position such that (a) 60 of the prime-movers, valued at $2.4m, are in army depots and are unsafe for use, and (b) expenditure of $100,000 would be required to make these vehicles safe for use.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Sixty-four prime-movers were ordered through the Department of Supply in October 1968 from British Leyland Motor Corporation in Australia to meet the Army requirement for an all purpose motive power unit for heavy haulage.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. User trials disclosed that, when used with the 60 ton tank transporter, the prime-mover was completely satisfactory and safe under all conditions likely to be experienced. However, when usedwith the 35 ton transporter under certain exceptional conditions, the commecial type rear mounting of the power take off equipment on the prime-mover presented an unanticipated problem. Although confined to the coupling and uncoupling phases when performed under the adverse terrain conditions likely, to be encountered during military operations, this problem generated an unacceptable delay factor as well as a possible hazard to the safety of operators.
  5. In view of the need to provide a forward mounted power take off unit for use with the 35 ton transporter, the Departments of Supply and

Army conducted a joint evaluation to determine the best means of accomplishing the required modification. Due to the terms of the contract, it was found to be more economical to accept delivery of the existing vehicles, and to fit alternative power take off units subsequently, than to vary the contract specifications to effect the modifications before delivery.

  1. No.
  2. (a) At present, 6 of the prime-movers are satisfactorily in use with 60 ton tank transporters while 2 others are under examination at the Army Design Establishment in connection with the development of the modification programme. The remainder are held in Army depots and will be modified progressively.

    1. The cost of modification, to be carried out in Army workshops, will total about $108,000.

page 127

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION

(Question No. 1991)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many students were admitted this year at each of the universities in Australia’ to the Faculties of (a) Medicine, (b) Dentistry; (c) Veterinary Science and (d) Law.
  2. Of those students admitted in each of the Faculties referred to, how many were (a) Commonwealthassisted Asian Students and (b) private Asian Students.
  3. How many applicants were unable to gain admission to the Faculties of (a) Medicine, (b) Dentistry, (c) Veterinary Science and (d).Law.
  4. Of those who were unable to gain admission, how many were (a) Australian students (b) Commonwealth-assisted Asian Students and (c) private Asian Students.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following answer to thehonourable senator’s question:

Figures for admissions to universities and the numbers of applicants who were, unable; to gain admission to faculties in 1972 are not yet available for all universities. I shall advise the honourable senator as soon as I am in a position to do so.

page 127

DRUGS

(Question No. 1993)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health; upon notice:

  1. How many applications were lodged last year with the Commonwealth Department of Health for use of Drugs classified . as ‘Special Authority Pharmaceutical Benefit’.
  2. What is the usual period of time it takes for an application concerning the listing of an item for pharmaceutical benefits to be processed by the Commonwealth Department of Health.
  3. What is the procedure involved in a patient obtaining ‘ a drug classified as ‘Special Authority Pharmaceutical Benefit’.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. 84,214. All these applications were in respect of disodium cromoglycate (Intal) for which, because it is a new drug consisting of solid material inhaled directly into the lungs, additional information was required on a special application form, referred to as a ‘Special Authority’. The use of the special application form was discontinued on 1st April 1972, following a recommendation to this effect from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
  2. Between 7 and 11 months, depending on the time between the result of an application which is eventually successful, and the meeting of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee at which the application is considered.

The honourable senator will be aware that the application’ referred to in this part of the question is not related to the ‘applications’ referred to in part (1) or the ‘procedure’ referred to in part (3).

  1. Prior to 1st April 1972, when the ‘Special Authority’ requirement for Intal was discontinued, and replaced by the normal application for authority to prescribe, the application was made by the patient’s medical practitioner to the DirectorGeneral of Health or his delegate on a special form (Form PB10a). Except for the form, this procedure was identical with that required in respect of other drugs for the prescription of which the authority of the Director-General is required.

page 128

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

(Question No. 1999)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. When Commissioners were first appointed to the Arbitration Commission in 1947 how many appointments were made.
  2. What has been the greatest number of Commissioners in the employ of the Commission at any one time and how many were in the work force at that time.
  3. What is the present strength of (a) Commissioners and (b) Conciliators and how many are in the work force at the present time.
  4. When the appointments were madein 1947, what was the salary payable to a Commissioner and with what level was the salary comparable within the Commonwealth Public Service.
  5. What is the salary presently payable to Commissioners and with what.level of the salary structure of the Commonwealth Public Service is the salary comparable.

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

  1. On 8th October, 1947 15 Conciliation Commissioners were appointed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904- 1947. Two of these appointees resigned without taking up duties and a further 4 were appointed bringing the number in office up to 17 by the end of 1947.
  2. There were 18 Conciliation Commissioners in office in December, 1951. According to figures published by the Commonwealth Statistician the average number of wage and salary earners in civilian employment for the year ended June, 1952, was 2,657,000.
  3. Prior to the recent amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act there were 15 Commissioners, including the Senior Commissioner, and 3 Conciliators. The latest figures published by the Commonwealth Statistician show that in April 1972 there were 4,499,000 (seasonally adjusted) wage and salary earners in civilian employment.
  4. In 1947, the statutory salary of a Conciliation Commissioner was £1,500. This salary lay between 2 Commonwealth’ Public Service salary ranges which I am advised were £1262-1412 (plus £64 basic wage adjustment)and £1462-1612 (plus £64 basic wage adjustment). In terms of the Commonwealth Public Service salary movements that have taken place since May 1947, the £1262-1412 salary range was between the 2 salary ranges regarded as equivalent to the current Levels 1 and 2 of the Second Division, and the £1462-1612 salary range was between the 2 salary ranges regarded as equivalent to the current Levels 2 and 3 of the Second Division.
  5. The statutory salary of the Senior Commissioner is $12,850 and of Commissioners is $11,850. I am advised that as from 1st June, 1972 the salary range of Class 11 officers of the Third Division of the Commonwealth Public Service was $11282-11683 and that the salary of officers at Level 1 in the Second Division was $14,479.

page 128

URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT

(Question No. 2016)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Will the Minister table in the Parliament the terms of reference of the Franco-Australian joint feasibility study of the technical and economic aspects ‘ of constructing a uranium enrichment plant in Australia.

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

The Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (C.E.A.) of France and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission are undertaking a joint feasibility study of the technical and economic aspects of constructing a uranium enrichment plant in Australia using gaseous diffusion technology.

The terms of the agreement to undertake the study are confidential for commercial reasons and therefore cannot be tabled. However the following information can be provided.

No commitment has been made to build an enrichment plant in Australia. The 2 organisations are now undertaking the first stage of the feasibility study which will take about one year to complete.

The objectives of the study are:

to define possible sites and to determine the costs of constructing and commissioning a uranium enrichment plant at these sites;

to make estimates of the operating costs of an enrichment plant established at the sites so as to define, as far as possible in a first stage study, the likely economic value of such a venture;

to assess the costs of providing electrical energy to the potential sites for an enrichment plant;

to examine the other resources such as industrial support, manpower and materials, that would be involved in the establishment and operation of a uranium enrichment plant.

In the light of the results of the first stage study the Government will consider whether it will proceed to a second phase in which the technical and economic factors could be examined in greater depth. No commitment has been entered into, however, to proceed beyond the first stage of the study.

page 129

INFLUENZA

(Question No. 2020)

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

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

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 has had any significant influence on the incidence in influenza or significant protection on the individual, and that the benefits from immunisation against influenza are doubtful, why has the Government not prevented its own organisation, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, from advertising suggestively to the contrary.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The views of the National Health and Medical Research Council as expressed at its SeventyThird Session in October 1971 were largely con cerned with the value of organised and officially sponsored mass vaccination programmes against influenza.

Although Council considered that the benefits to be derived from such programmes are doubtful, it was of the opinion that the vaccination of certain ‘special-risk’ groups as a routine procedure each year is probably justified, as there is no currently available alternative procedure.

The ‘special-risk’ groups referred to by the Council are -

persons with rheumatic heart disease and/or congestive cardiac failure, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, chronic asthma, chronic hypostatic pulmonary congestion, chronic interstitial pulmonary fibrosis or mucoviscidosis;

persons with other serious chronic debilitating diseases; and

all other persons aged 65 years and over’. 1 am informed that the indications for the use of influenza vaccine as listed by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in recent advertising literature include certain groups which, in general, equate with the priority groups enumerated in the Council recommendation on this subject. I understand that the literature from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratores also lists some other limited groups, which may reflect the diversity of medical opinion on this particular matter.

The recently issued Commonwealth Serum Laboratories pamphlet ‘Flu 72’ does not recommend mass influenza vaccination of the Australian community.

page 129

HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

(Question No. 2025)

Senator PRIMMER:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is it a fact that a dependent student above 16 years of age, in receipt of a Commonwealth Teachers Training Scholarship of about 16 dollars per week, is not covered by his parents health Insurance at the family rate nor is he covered by the Subsidised Health Insurance Scheme; if so, (a) does this mean that this person has to fully cover himself out of the Commonwealth Scholarship Allowance, and (b) does the Minister propose any action to overcome this situation.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

A dependent student in receipt of a Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarship may be covered by his parents’ health insurance provided the student is:

unmarried;

a full time student at a school college or university which is recognised for income tax purposes;

under the age of 25 years; and

not liable to pay income tax.

Although the Subsidised Health Benefits Plan is not specifically designed to provide direct assistance to dependent students, such a student could be covered if he were a member of a low income family which has qualified for the benefits. The Plan does not extend to single persons on low incomes.

page 130

METRIC CONVERSION

(Question No. 2026)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that F. H. Faulding and Co. Ltd manufacture a product known as Barrier Cream, which previously retailed at $1.45 per 16 oz (454 gms) jar and subsequently at the same price for a jar containing only 400 gms, and is now selling a 400 gm jar for $1.60.
  2. What action does the Government propose to prevent unjust profiteering in the changeover to metric measurement.

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) As mentioned in the answer to Question No. 1846 the Government foresaw that this type of practice might occur. It is for this reason that the Metric Conversion Board is required, inter alia, to report attempts to take unfair advantage of the public in the course of conversion to the appropriate authority in the State concerned. This authority may be the Price Control Authority, the Consumers’ Protection Association or the Department of Weights and Measures.

    1. The Commonwealth has no power to intervene in such matters other than in Commonwealth territories.

page 130

METRIC SYSTEM

(Question No. 2167)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that the present weight of one ball of knitting wool is one ounce and that, under the new metric system, the weight of one ball of wool will be 25 grammes?
  2. At the current price, will the consumer get 12 percent less in weight or if the consumer desires to buy the same weight of wool (one ounce) the cost will increase by 14.3 per cent.
  3. Does the new method of packaging knitting wool have the approval of the Australian Wool Board.
  4. What action does the Government propose to take to curb profiteering in the wool manufacturing industry during the changeover to metric measurement.

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

  1. Since 1963, wool has been marketed in balls or skeins in both metric and imperial measure. The one ounce ball accounts for the major part of the market but packs of 10, 25 and 50 grammes (g) have been available for some considerable time. It is expected that the 25g ball will replace the 1 oz ball as the most popular size.
  2. The Senator has assumed that there will be no price differential between the one oz and the 25g ball. I am not aware of any evidence to support this. A survey of shops in Canberra that stock wool in metric packs revealed that the prices appropriate to the weight were being charged.
  3. The Australian Wool Board exercises no control over the size of the package in which wool is sold.
  4. The matter of the Government’s attitude toward alleged profiteering from metric conversion has been set out in answer to a previous question, No. 1846, by the honourable senator. (Hansard, 1 June 1972, page 2481).

page 130

GREEK IMMIGRANTS

(Question No. 2175)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Has the Australian Government received any reports of naturalised Australian Greeks returning to Greece for a short time and, being of military age, being either conscripted into the Greek Army or having to pay a sum of money to be allowed to leave Greece.

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

Some naturalised Australian male citizens of Greek origin have been called up for military service on their return to the land of their birth. This is because they do not, under Greek law, lose their Greek citizenship when they are naturalised in this country. They are thus dual citizens. When a person has dual citizenship, the principle of master nationality applies so that the person in the jurisdiction of one of those countries is subject to the laws of that country. When a person of Greek origin, who may be an Australian citizen travelling on an Australian passport, but who in the eyes of the Greek Government is a Greek citizen, returns to Greece, he becomes subject to all the Greek laws including the laws relating to military serevice and would be obliged to serve if required to do to.

I understand that there has been a number of changes in recent years in relation to this question and certain exemptions from military sevice are given in the following circumstances:

Dual Greek/Australian citizens born in Australia, or those born in Greece, but who departed for Australia legally before the age of 11 years, may enter and remain in Greece for up to one year without incurring any obligation for military sevice; (b) Dual Greek/ Australian citizens bornin Greece may stay in that country for up to 3 months only without incurring any such obligation.

Both categories may obtain exemption from military service if they remain in Greece in excess of these periods and are then obliged to serve, by the payment of a sum approximately equivalent to $A275, and by the production of the following documents:

a certificate from a Greek Consul in Australia giving full details of the family and stating that the person concerned arrived in Australia legally; (it) a certificate from the Australian authorities in Greece showing that the person concerned is an Australian citizen and remains as such whilst in Greece;

a certificate from the local authorities in Greece stating that the person concerned departed from Greece legally.

page 131

NATIONAL YOUTH SEMINAR

(Question No. 2176)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: Which organisations in the community will be represented by the 42 young people, representing all States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, at the National Youth Seminar being held in Canberra from 12th to 14th May 1972.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The young people who attended the seminar were drawn from many sections of the community and were not chosen as representatives of organisations. They were selected by States for their potential contribution to the seminar. It is known, however, that some participants were - incidentally only - members of such organisations as youth groups, police citizens clubs, and the YMCA.

page 131

BRISBANE AIRPORT

(Question No. 2184)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. On how many occasions has the curfew been broken by aircraft at Brisbane Airport since 1st January 1972.
  2. In each case, what was:

    1. the name of the airline;
    2. the time of arrival;
    3. the reason for the flight; and
    4. the destination or port of origin.

Senator COTTON- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The restriction on aircraft operations into or out of Brisbane Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. applies only to jet aircraft. This restriction is strictly enforced, and the Department of Civil Aviation will not approve schedules involving operations by jet aircraft within this period.

These are however occasions on which flights must operate within the curfew period in order to cater to unusually high traffic demands at certain times of the year, such as Christmas, Easter and school holidays. These flights, which 1 approve, receive my special approval only when I am convinced that their operation within the curfew period is essential to provide for the needs of the travelling public.

In addition to the flights which I approve, authorised officers of the Department of Civil Aviation approve flights which, through unforeseen circumstances, justify approval on short notice to intrude into the curfew period.

From 1st January to 30th April 1972 inclusive, 40 operations by jet aircraft took place at Brisbane Airport within the curfew period with my approval, and 14 took place with the approval of authorised officers of the Department of Civil Aviation.

  1. The name of the airline, the time of arrival or departure, the reason for operation within the curfew period, and the point from which the flight originated or to which it was immediately destined, in respect of each of the 54 flights concerned, is as shown in the following table:

page 132

CRIME PREVENTION AND CONTROL CONFERENCE

(Question No. 2185)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Who are the Australian representatives at the Crime Prevention and Control Conference being held in New York, from 8th to 19th May.
  2. To whom will the representatives report when they return to Australia.
  3. Will members of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment be able to peruse such reports.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. The Committee on Crime Prevention and Control met in New York from 8th to 17th May 1972. It is an expert standing committee of the United Nations Economic and Social Council composed of 15 members appointed in their individual capacities, on the basis of their nomination by the Secretary-General. No Australian is a member of the Committee.
  2. See (1).
  3. Documents concerning the meeting are available in the Parliamentaary Library. Since the meeting has only recently concluded, it is not expected that the report will be available for some time. When it becomes available my Department will ensure that a copy is placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 132

CONCORD REPATRIATION HOSPITAL

(Question No. 2186)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What is the bed capacity of Concord Reptriation Hospital, New South Wales.
  2. How many beds were occupied ‘ during the months of March and April 1972.
  3. What was the reason for the failure to use all available beds.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The

Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. After allowing for ward buildings now used for paramedical and administrative purposes, or at present out of commission due to cyclical maintenance and staged restoration projects (which are likely to continue over some years), the total patient capacity of Concord Repatriation Hospital, New South Wales, as at 26th April 1972 was 1,112. Of this figure 998 beds were available in wards open for use; the remaining 114 beds were in wards closed but equipped to be opened for immediate use.
  2. Hie average number of beds occupied daily during the 4 weeks ended 7th April 1972, was 912 and during the 4 weeks ended 5th May 1972, was 926. However, the maximum numbers occupied on any one day during these periods were 973 and 995 respectively.
  3. The 114 beds in closed but equipped wards are available for use when required. However there could be difficulties in staffing them at the present time.

Repatriation is currently meeting all of its hospitalisation responsibilities in New South Wales with the bed availability mentioned above.

page 133

IRELAND ACT 1949

(Question No. 2187)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does the Prime Minister agree that the provisions of the Ireland Act 1949, enacted by the British Parliament, is an excellent precedent to quote to the British Government in support of Australian citizens’ status when Britain gains Common Market membership.
  2. Has such a submission been made by either the Prime Minister or the Australian High Commissionerin discussions with the British Government.

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

  1. No.
  2. No.

page 133

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 2197)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. ls the Minister aware that one of the contributing factors to cost of living increases in Port Moresby is a recent increase of 12c a trip in bus charges, and an increase of 10 per cent in the price of bread;
  2. Is the Minister aware that the total wage of the urban worker is only $8.50 per week.
  3. Can the Minister inform the Parliament of the reasons for galloping inflation in the Territory, particularly in view of the fact that the Australian Government still has almost complete control over the economy of the Territory.

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Ministerial Member for Internal Finance in the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly. The Minister for Internal Finance has provided the following information:

The increase in bus fares was 2c only per trip and not 12c. This increase is the first since February, 1966. Similarly the increase in bread prices is the first since 1966. These recent increases in bus fares and bread prices have had only a small effect on the ‘cost of living’ in Port Moresby to the extent that it is measured by changes in the Papua New Guinea retail price index.

It is not correct to say that the total wage of the urban worker is only $8.50 per week. In Port Moresby in the year ended 30lh June 1970 the average wage of indigenous workers was $13.13 per week and the average in all urban centres combined was $11.44 per week.

To the extent that it is measured by changes in the Papua New Guinea retail price index, inflation occurred at the rate of 8.2 per cent during the 12 months from 1st April 1971. Main contributing factors have been increases in overseas and local shipping freight rates and increases in import prices. Increased taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco products have also been a contributing factor.

The Minister for External Territories also remarks that, in view of the substantial powers now exercised by Ministers of the House of Assembly, including those of internal finance, it is not correct to say that the Australian Government still has almost complete control of the economy of Papua New Guinea.

page 133

SAND MINING

(Question No. 2198)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Where is the location shown in the photograph on page 3 of the Environmental Quality Bulletin 1972, No. 2, published by the Australian Mining Industry Council, which claims to show that successful regeneration policies in sand mining operations have virtually solved beach erosion problems formerly caused by sand mining.

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

I understand that the area shown in the picture referred to is at Crescent Head, New South Wales, and was mined for rutile and zircon about 10 years ago.

page 133

URANIUM MINING

(Question No. 2199)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Has the Australian Mining Industry Council (vide Environmental Quality Bulletin, No. 2, Item 5) specified what area of the 1,200 square miles desired for the creation of a Northern Territory Top End National Park it proposes to use for uranium mining operations.

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

The Australian Mining Industry Council has not specified what area might be used for uranium mining operations in the proposed Northern National Park site.

page 134

MINING EXPLORATION

(Question No. 2200)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Have private mining exploration operations been prohibited in the Deaf Adder Valley and Jim Jim Falls regions of the Northern Territory; if so, will the Australian Atomic Energy Commission also be prohibited from prospecting in this area.
  2. Is the Minister for National Development empowered to prevent such prospecting or must he reach agreement with the Minister for the Interior.
  3. In the case of a deadlock between the respective Ministers, would the matter be resolved by Cabinet or some form of arbitration.

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

  1. The Deaf Adder Valley and Jim Jim Falls areas of the Northern Territory, have been excluded from commercial prospecting.

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission will not carry out prospecting activities in these areas.

The Bureau of Mineral Resources, however, is carrying out geological and geophysical surveys in co-operation with the Northern Territory Administration. These surveys will not cause disturbance of the 2 areas. The results of the survey will provide valuable information on the geology of the region and will be used in the Environmental Fact-finding Study, of the Alligator Rivers region which has recently commenced.

  1. The Minister for the Interior is responsible for the control of Mineral prospecting in the Northern Territory.
  2. See (2) above.

page 134

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

(Question No. 2203)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Since the Government reviewed the list of exports on the strategic list last June have sales of steel scrap, tinplate, pig iron, and aluminium alloys, to the value of $20m been exported to the People’s Republic of China from Australia; if so, does the Government no longer consider that China is a threat to Australian security.

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

The Bureau of Census and Statistics has provided the following preliminary figures of exports of the goods in question to the People’s Republic of China during the period 1st July 1971 to 31st March 1972:

I am advised that actual sales of the goods in question, as distinct from exports, are not available.

The revision in 1971 of Australia’s strategic controls on exports to the People’s Republic of China was designed to bring Australian controls into line with those applied to exports to the People’s Republic of China by other Western countries. The People’s Republic of China already had access to the items, freed for export by Australia, from other Western suppliers. The Government considers that the revision of Australia’s strategic export controls has not prejudiced Australia’s security.

page 134

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 2204)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

How close are Australia and Indonesia to finalising the prolonged land and sea surveys to define the boundaries between West Irian and Papua New Guinea.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

The survey to which the honourable senator refers was ecompleted in 1966 and 1967 and was confined to the land border between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. The land and seabed boundaries between Indonesia and Australia and Papua New Guinea are being negotiated progressively. An agreement establishing a partial seabed boundary was signed in May 1971. Further discussions will be held early in September.

page 134

LIMESTONE DEPOSITS

(Question No. 2207)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Has the Department of National Development offered its services to Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers to locate alternate limestone deposits to those located in the Bungonia Gorge region of New South Wales. ‘
  2. What are the locations and amounts of potential limestone deposits elsewhere in New South Wales.

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

  1. No. However, the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers would no doubt be aware of Bulletin No. 72 of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Department of National Development, titled ‘Australian Mineral Industry: The Mineral Deposits’. This publication has a chapter dealing with the limestone deposits in New South Wales and a copy of the chapter has been made available to the honourable senator.
  2. The publication mentioned in (1) above provides information on deposits of limestone in New South Wales. If the honourable senator requires further information on these deposits, I suggest he approach the New South Wales Mines Department.

page 135

BUNGONIA GORGE

(Question No. 2208)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What role has the Bureau of Mineral Resources played in moves by conservation groups in New South Wales to protect the Bungonia Gorge region of New South Wales from limestone mining by Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers.

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

The Bureau of Mineral Resources of the Department of National Development has not been involved in moves by any conservation groups in New South Wales to protect the Bungonia Gorge region from limestone mining. This is a matter for the State authorities.

page 135

PASSPORTS

(Question No. 2209)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Did an investigation follow the discovery that a Mr Roger Adams permitted his passport to be used as an instrument of entry into Australia by Mr Peter Pasquale Macari the principal figure in the Qantas robbery; if so, what action has been taken against Mr Adams.

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

Mir Macari entered Australia on a United

Kingdom passport issued in the name of Mr Brian Roger Adams. The improper use of this passport by Mr Macari has been drawn to the attention of the appropriate United Kingdom authorities.

page 135

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

(Question No. 2211)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that if the proposed takeover of R. W. Miller Ltd by Ampol ‘Petroleum Ltd is successful, it will mean that the only independent Australian-owned tanker operator will disappear and the carriage of oil cargoes will revert to a monopoly situation controlled by the oil companies.
  2. Is it also a fact that the Tanker Committee of the Department of Shipping and Transport have been able to obtain a great deal of useful information from the Miller operation on tanker costs for Australian coastal operations.
  3. Is the Government concerned by the latest move to create greater monopolies in Australia; if so what action does the Government contemplate.

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

  1. No.
  2. The Department of Shipping and Transport has obtained information on tanker operating costs from all coastal tanker operators including R. W. Miller and Co.
  3. In so far as the coastal oil tanker trade is concerned there are at present 9 seperate companies operating tanker tonnage.

The effect of any takeover of Miller by Ampol would reduce the number of operators to 8 which I do not see as a monopoly situation.

page 135

GIBB COMMITTEE REPORT

(Question No. 2213)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. When will the report of the Gibb Committee, dealing with the situation of Aboriginal communities on pastoral properties in the Northern Territory, be made available.
  2. Will the report be tabled in the Parliament.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) The report was tabled in the Parliament on 25th May.

page 136

TRADE OFFICIALS: FOREIGN LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE

(Question No. 2217)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Idustry, upon notice: (.1) How many officers of the Department of Trade and Industry have a knowledge of (a) Chinese, (b) Japanese, (c) Indonesian, (d) Arabic, and (e) Spanish.

  1. In each of the above languages, how many officers have attained the various levels of proficiency.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has given me the following answer:

  1. The numbers of officers of the Department of Trade and Industry (excluding officers of the Tariff Board) who have a knowledge of the languages listed in the question are:

    1. Chinese 12
    2. Japanese 33
    3. Indonesian 34
    4. Arabic 4
    5. Spanish 41
  2. The numbers of officers who have attained the various levels of proficiency are:

page 136

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

(Question No. 2219)

Senator MILLINER:

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

  1. Is it a fact that workers’ and employers’ representatives at this year’s meeting of the International Labour Organisation to be held in Geneva are to receive a sum of $20 a day allowance whilst attending the conference.
  2. Would the Minister investigate this matter with a view to allowing a daily allowance considerably in excess of the $20 a day so that delegates will be able to live in a manner which would be expected of representatives of the Australian Government.

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

  1. Workers’ and employers’ representatives at the International Labour Conference in Geneva this year receive a daily allowance of 125 Swiss Francs (approximately $A27). This rate was determined recently.
  2. See answer to (1).

page 136

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 2221)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that the present land selling system in the Australian Capital Territory is bringing about a reaction amounting almost to a national scandal, that leasehold provisions are not being enforced, and that developer/ builders are making exorbitant profits from the sale of land and houses.
  2. If it is not the policy of the Government to protect, without inquiry, the profits of the major developers, will the Minister immediately request the establishment of a Royal Commission for the purpose of examining the land situation in the Australian Capital Territory or, alternatively, will he take the necessary steps to cause the appropriate Senate Standing Committee to investigate the land scandal.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. and (2) The leasehold system in Canberra is efficient and effective. The honourable senator can be assured that recent allegations about the administration of leasehold in Canberra were out of all proportion to fact. There is no need for an inquiry.

page 136

DCS AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 2228)

Senator KEEFFE:

– Asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware that 4 DC3 Royal Australian Air Force aircraft are at Laverton Base and currently not being used.
  2. Will the Minister recommend to the Government that the 4 aircraft be donated to Bangladesh to assist in relief work in that country-

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. It is confirmed that 4 DC3 aircraft are surplus to RAAF requirements.
  2. I have been informed that the Department of Foreign Affairs advised the Bangladesh authorities of the availability of these aircraft in March 1972 and received a reply that they, were not suitable as Bangladesh did not have any servicing facilities for DC3 aircraft.

page 136

MIGRANT HOSTELS

(Question No. 2233)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Are there permanent unoccupied apartments at migrant hostels as a result of Australia’s reduced migrant intake.
  2. Could any such accommodation now be made available for the housing of pensioners who are at present paying exorbitant rents for substandard accommodation.

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

  1. and (2) There is unoccupied accommodation in old and sub-standard Nissen but type buildings which are being phased out and demolished as circumstances permit. Some modern accommodation in hostels has been unoccupied in recent months. This has been due to the fluctuation in migrant intakes and not to this type of hostel type of accommodation having been assessed as surplus to permanent requirement.

page 137

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

(Question No. 2237)

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that severe criticism is being levelled at the Australian National Line because of the deterioration in the standard of comfort afforded tourists visiting Tasmania caused by the substitution of the ‘Bass Trader’ for the Empress of Australia’ on the Sydney-Hobart run.
  2. Will the Minister seek an investigation into the allegation that the Australian National Line is purposedly lowering the standard of the tourist service to Tasmania in order to get out of the passenger carrying business and to concentrate on the more profitable freight transport trade.

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

  1. I am aware that some passengers travelling on the Australian National Line’s vessel, ‘Australian Trader’, between Sydney and Hobart have expressed a measure of dissatisfaction with the standard of facilities available.

A significant proportion of the difficulties presently being encountered result from several industrial issues which have had an adverse effect on the service to passengers.

Recognising the importance of passenger comfort, 2 senior officers, of the Australian National Line, recently travelled on ‘Australian Trader’ to carry out detailed enquiries concerning passengers’ complaints and to investigate at first hand the deficiencies that are claimed to be affecting the standard of comfort and service.

  1. I cannot agree with the allegation that the

Australian National Line is lowering the standard of tourist service to Tasmania in order to withdraw from the Tasmanian passenger service. On the contrary the Line has been at pains to keep Australian Trader’ up to the same standard as Empress of Australia’ and the vessel has just completed a refit at Newcastle for this purpose.

page 137

UNMARRIED MOTHERS

(Question No. 2243)

Senator POKE:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Are many, unmarried mothers forced by economic circumstances to have their children adopted, thereby denying those mothers the basic right of motherhood.
  2. Do State Social Welfare Departments provide assistance to unmarried mothers and, in the case of a claimant State, are then penalised by the Loan Council for meeting this humane social need.
  3. Will the Minister press for a more equitable social service payment to unmarried mothers.

Senator GREENWOOD -The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The situation in this regard was explained in the Second Reading Speech on the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Bill on 5th June 1968 (see Hansard, page 1414).

Under arrangements with the States, provision is made for assistance up to the rate of widow’s pension to be given to a single mother caring for her child. However, the assistance granted in any particular case is a matter for determination by the State authorities.

page 137

IMMIGRANTS

(Question No. 2244)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of the recent statement issued by the Minister concerning South American women resident in Australia, will the Minister give an assurance that officers of the Department of Immigration and Commonwealth Police have not been used in a sordid battle of call-girl cartels in Sydney.

Senator GREENWOOD - The Minuter for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes. The records of the women concerned, who were not residents of Australia, made it quite clear that they, should not be granted extensions of stay.

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Civil Aviation, upon notice:

How many airlines that can be properly classified as international airlines use the Tullamarine International Airport.

Senator COTTON- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

In accordance with article 96 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, an international airline is defined as ‘any air transport enterprise offering a scheduled international service.’

Within the terms of this definition, the following airlines currently use Melbourne (Tullamarine) International Airport on their international scheduled services:

Air Nauru

Air New Zealand

Alitalia

American Airlines

British Overseas Airways Corporation

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Malaysia Singapore Airlines

Pan American World Airways

Philippine Airlines Qantas Airways Ltd

page 137

MELBOURNE (TULLAMAKINE) INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

(Question No. 2245)

page 138

DC3 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 2252)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

What action has been taken, on the proposal to make available to Bangladesh several DC3 aircraft not currently in use by the Royal Australian Air Force.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

See my reply to Question 2228.

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science:

What was the distribution of Commonwealth Secondary School Scholarships in New South Wales to both Government and non-Government schools for the years 1971 and 1972.

Senator WRIGHT - The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships are awarded on merit and no quota for individual schools or groups of schools is set. The number of students who competed successfully for 1971 and 1972 Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships while attending government and non-government schools in New South Wales is as follows:

page 138

COMMONWEALTH SECONDARY SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS

(Question No. 2256)

Note- The figures include successful candidates attending schools in the Australian Capital Territory, who also compete within the same quota of awards.

page 138

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION

(Question No. 2257)

Senator MURPHY:

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

Has any decision been made on the question of the establishment of a university in the Riverina area of New South Wales.

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

The Commonwealth Government does not initiate action to establish universities in the States. On receipt of a firm proposal by a State for the establishment of a new university, the Commonwealth considers the proposal on the advice of the Australian Universities Commission. There is no firm proposal for the establishment of a university in the Riverina area of New South Wales currently before the Commonwealth or the Australian Universities Commission.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 22nd March Senator McLaren asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science the following question:

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 city-bound 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.

I brought the question to the attention of the Minister for Education and Science who has now provided the following information:

Concerning first the possibility of an alteration of the College lecture time-table. I believe Senator McLaren’s suggestion may be based on a misapprehension about the particular circumstances surrounding the 2 accidents to students which occurred on 22nd March. The honourable senator’s question seems to suggest that the 8.30 a.m. starting time for lectures at the College could have contributed to the accidents. In fact I am informed that both accidents occurred just before 9.00 a.m. and the students concerned were coming in for lectures commencing at 9.30 a.m.; I understand, too, that neither accident occurred in conditions of heavy traffic.

The College organises some lectures at 7.30 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. daily, for the convenience of part-time students in the Public Service. The Principal believes that a postponement of the start of lecturing until 9.00 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. could result in large numbers of part-time students cutting back on their study programmes, and would imply an overall cut in the College’s programme.

There can be no doubt, however, that at times of peak traffic along Belconnen Way the College accepts and discharges large numbers of vehicles. I have consulted the Minister for the Interior about the need for improved traffic control provisions at the Belconnen Way-Haydon Drive intersection. The Minister has told me that, though there are no plans to provide traffic signals or an overpass at this location (and indeed the 2 accidents did not occur at or near this intersection), the widening of Belconnen Way to accommodate increased traffic flows and turning movements in this vicinity is currently planned by the National Capital Development Commission. This will include any appropriate work at the intersection with Haydon Drive and, in addition, traffic signals are to be installed at the Belconnon Way-Bindubi Drive intersection which will create gaps in the traffic at Haydon Drive.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 11th April 1972, Senator Young asked the following question:

I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science a question. As many paraplegics and quadraplegic! are keen to undertake or to continue education in the tertiary field but are unable to do so or, if they do, are placed in great financial difficulty because of their inability to earn extra income, will the Minister give consideration to making available to these people financial grants to assist them with their studies and to ease some of the financial burdens and disadvantages under which they are placed, at the same time giving many of them the opportunity to continue upon a career, or to take up a course, which otherwise may be lost to them?

The Minister for Education and Science informs me that he has been advised as follows:

The kind of assistance which the honourable senator has in mind is, more appropriately a matter for provision by the Department of Social Services than by the Department of Education and Science. The Department of Social Services already conducts a scheme under which paraplegics and other handicapped persons may be assisted to undertake post-school studies, including tertiary courses.

A paraplegic may qualify for assistance through the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service provided that he is in receipt of an appropriate Commonwealth benefit such as invalid pension, sickness or unemployment benefit, and there are reasonable prospects of his engaging in employment within 3 years of acceptance. Young persons aged 14 and IS years who are likely to become invalid pensioners if not provided with rehabilitation are also eligible for assistance.

A person may be accepted for rehabilitation treatment or vocational training, or both. Where it is considered that vocational training would assist in the ultimate placement in employment of a handicapped person, a suitable course is normally provided through the training institutions available in the community.

Although the training period is normally limited to 3 years, there have been several instances of a paraplegic being assisted through the Rehabilitation Service in order to undergo a university course.

Throughout the period of training the persons normally receive a rehabilitation allowance, equivalent to the invalid pension rate, plus a training allowance of $4 per week. In addition, tuition fees are met, fares to and from lectures are recouped, the cost of books and equipment may be paid up to a limit of $80 per annum and a living-away-from-home allowance may be granted to those qualified.

In most States the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service has established an effective liaison with those responsible for the treatment of paraplegics in the acute phase so that, at the appropriate stage, the question of vocational rehabilitation assistance may be investigated. Arrangements may be made with the Director of Social Services in a particular State for the rehabilitation prospects of any paraplegic or quadriplegic to be investigated.

Senator HANNAN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 1 1th May, without notice:

Is it not a fact that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr Kurt Waldheim, attempted to call an emergence/ meeting of the Security Council yesterday on the Vietnam situation? Is it not a fact that the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations declined to attend such a meeting on the ground that such, a meeting was unnecessary.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has supplied, the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Following President Nixon’s statement on 8th May 1972, the United Nations Secretary-General, Dr Kurt Waldheim, consulted privately wilh the members of the Security Council to ascertain the extent to which use might be made of the United Nations, including the Security Council, and his own good offices, to help stop the . fighting and achieve a lasting peace in Vietnam. The SecretaryGeneral is empowered under the United Nations Charter to bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten international peace and security. Following his consultations with the members of the Security Council, he chose not to refer the situation in Vietnam to the Council. In public statements the Soviet Union has made no specific reference to the role of the Security Council in this question. It was, however, reported in the Press that the Soviet Union did not favour the holding of a meeting of the Security Council to consider the situation in Vietnam.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I refer to the question without notice put by Senator Drury on 16th May 1972 (Senate Hansard page 1654) regarding the ‘Sirotherm’ watertreatment process. The Minister for Education and Science has provided me with 3 reports and some general comments on the matter for the information of the Senate.

Two of the reports are printed brochures prepared respectively by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and ICI Australia Limited which outline the general history and technical features of the process, while the third is a summary of a paper which is being given jointly by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, ICI Australia Limited and the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories at the current meeting of the Australian Water and Waste Water Association in Adelaide. The paper describes briefly the pilot plants at Perth and Adelaide and the results which have been obtained to date.

I am informed that, as the performance of the process varies with different feed waters (depending not only on the total salt content of the water but also on the types of salts present), an extensive series of field trials is necessary to ensure efficient operation with local waters. It is for this reason that a questionnaire has been compiled and included in the company brochure so that each case of importance can be properly assessed.

The ‘Sirotherm’ process in its present form can treat waters containing a limited amount of hardness in the form of calcium or magnesium salts. For example, the pilot plant at Perth is successfully treating a water of 1200 parts per million of total dissolved solids of which about 10 per cent is present as hardness. Any greater proportion of hardness is not well tolerated by the current version of the process so that a softening pretreatment is sometimes necessary. Research and development is therefore continuing in the attempt to expand the range of water types that can be treated, improving the efficiency of treatment, and reducing the associated costs.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 16th May Senator Bishop asked me the following question without notice:

My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, refers to lack of uniformity in the compilation and reporting of industrial accident statistics, a situation which has been known for some years. I ask: Is it a fact that the Department of Labour and National Service and other departments have reported this situation to the Commonwealth Government and to other governments? What action is now being taken to correct this bad position which impedes any improvement in the compilation of statistics of accidents on the job?

In the course of my reply I said that I would get further information for the honourable senator about the compilation of industrial accident statistics. The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided me with this information as follows:

Statistics of industrial accidents are compiled by the Deputy Commonwealth Statisticians in each State from reports of work injuries compensated under the workers’ compensation legislation of the various States. Within any one State the compilation and reporting of industrial accidents is on a uniform basis and the published figures are used for safety promotion by the various authorities concerned with protection of the workers.

Because of the differences in compensation legislation of the various States and differences in systems of administration and methods of collection, the published figures cannot be combined to provide national totals on a uniform basis, lt is not considered possible to achieve a completely uniform basis between States, but the Commonwealth Statistician has taken steps towards making the basis as comparable as possible. A Working Party representative of the Commonwealth and State Labour Departments and the Commonwealth Statistician has provided estimates of national totals for fatalities and lost time industrial accidents of one day and over for the years 1967-68’ and 1968-69 using as a basis the published figures of the various States and special tabulations arranged by the Statistician. These estimates have been incorporated in Press statements made by the Minister for National Service on 28th May 1970 and 15th September 1971. I am arranging for copies of these statements to be sent to the honourable senator.

Senator COTTON:
LP

- Senator Poyser recently asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior whether the Minister for the Interior would refer to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory for investigation, the matter of increases in the price of land in Canberra and allegations that business enterprises were forcing up land prices. The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Canberra is a dynamic growth centre in which there is increasing interest in land despite a substantial rise in the number of leases offered each year.

Recent allegations about the administration of leasehold were out of all proportion to the facts. The rises in prices are primarily a consequence of greater liquidity, a strong local demand for housing and the general trend in levels of land prices in Australia.

The Government shares the honourable senator’s concern about making land available at a reasonable price. In this regard the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council has already been asked for comment on a proposal to broaden conditions for eligibility to bid at restricted auctions. The change proposed is designed to induce an overall levelling off in prices in Canberra. The Council intends to hold a public enquiry prior to providing a response.

There is no reason for any additional enquiry into this subject at this time.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 25th May 1972, Senator Davidson asked me a question without notice as follows:

Has the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science seen reports of statements by Dr Charles Williams, the head of the University of Sydney counselling service, that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on health and counselling services to prevent students cracking up under pressure and, further, that sums spent in this way are rising each year? Can the Minister indicate whether these statements are correct? If they are, will he arrange for a research programme to be undertaken in this area of student need?

In my reply I said that I did not think that the matter had been under examination by the Minister for Education and Science but would refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for his consideration.

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

I have seen the statement referred to by Senator Davidson. University students have always experienced some difficulties in adjusting from school work to university work. The majority of students have been able to make the transition without any ill effects. However, there are always some students who have adjustment difficulties of varying magnitude and in an attempt to overcome these difficulties, most universities have set up counselling and health services.

The apparent increase in the number affected may not mean that there is a greater propensity for students to experience transitional difficulties but rather that the growth of counselling and health services has resulted in more students seeking assistance than was formerly the case.

The Australian Universities Commission is aware of the pressures faced by students and is likely to comment on the provision of counselling and health services in its Fifth Report.

page 138

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

page 139

PARAPLEGICS

page 139

SOUTH VIETNAM

page 140

WATER

page 140

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS

page 141

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

page 141

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION

page 141

NORTHERN TERRITORY MINING OPERATIONS

(Question No. 2037)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Which Commonwealth Ministries will have representatives on the joint committee with mining interests, formed with the object of studying environmental consequences of Northern Territory mining operations.
  2. Are mining companies part of the study group; if so, why is an additional representative given to the Australian Mining Industry Council.
  3. Can a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment attend meetings of the Committee or be provided with a summary of the proceedings.
  4. Did the Government rightly insist that mining companies being given representation beyond the Australian Mining Industrial Council status, should pay the major costof any surveys requested by the proposed Committee. ‘
  5. Who will be the chairman of this body and will he have a casting vote.
  6. Since the Atomic Energy Commission is a subsidiary of the National Development Ministry why was this ministry given inflated committee membership when the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts was excluded.
  7. Why were conservation groups not included in the membership of the committee in view of the excessive mineral interest representation.

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

  1. to (7) A Working Committee, chaired by a senior officer of the Department of the Interior was set up, not to conduct a public inquiry, but to advise the Government and the mining and exploration companies on the scope, objectives and likely order of cost of an environmental study in the Alligator River area.

The Committee included a wide range of scientific expertise in conservation and land use and obtained advice from sources both inside and outside Goverment circles. Mining interests involved selected their own representatives. As the Committee’s role was advisory only, votes were not taken.

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Northern Territory Administration had already commenced a study related to water quality and hydrology in the area. This will continue as part of the more comprehensive study.

It was agreed at a recent meeting between representatives of the various mining companies and Commonwealth Departments and authorities involved to proceed with an environmental fact finding study along the lines recommended by the Working Committee. Details of the study were given in a Press statement issued by the Minister for the Interior, a copy of which has been made available to the honourable senator. The cost will be shared equally between the Government and the mining industry.

The study will be managed by a 6-member executive committee, chaired by a senior officer of the Department of the Interior. The Committee will comprise representatives of interested Government bodies and the mining industry. A person prominent in the field of conservation would also be invited to join the Committee.

page 142

CROATIAN PASSPORTS

(Question No. 2042)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of the diplomatic ties between Yugoslavia and Australia, what action has the Australian Government taken to bah the issue of Croatian passports emanating from 1 King Street, Deepdene, Melbourne.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

The Australian Government does not recognise Croatian passports. No action has been taken to ban their issue as the matter has only recently come to the Government’s notice, but it is being investigated and appropriate steps will be examined.

page 142

CROATIAN PASSPORTS

(Question No. 2044)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Has the Minister investigated the sale of Croatian passports from the Melbourne address of 1 King Street, Deepdene; if so, are such sales permissible having regard to the Migration Agreement with Yugoslavia.

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

Article i of the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the residence and employment of Yugoslav citizens in Australia defines a Yugoslav citizen as a person possessing Yugoslav citizenship in accordance with the laws in force in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslav citizens approved for entry to Australia travel here on Yugoslav passports and those issued in the name of Croatia will not be recognised. I am aware that a number of passports purporting to be Croatian passports were discovered recently at premises 1 King Street, Deepdene, Victoria. Investigations into this matter are being made.

page 142

COMMONWEALTH ABORIGINAL STUDY GRANTS

(Question No. 2064)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. When were Commonwealth Aboriginal Study Grants introduced.
  2. What has been the annual value of such grants to each recipient and the total annual value for each year since inception.
  3. What will be the value to each recipient and the total value for the present year.
  4. Is there a different value in the grant to an Aboriginal student attending a High School to qualify for a Leaving Certificate, when compared with a student attending a College of Advanced Education or a University.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The first Study Grants were made at the beginning of 1969.
  2. (a) The benefits paid to Study Grant holders in 1969-71 comprised compulsory fees and, in addition, the following allowances - for full-time students

    1. a living allowance at the rate of $1,100 a year:
    2. dependants’ allowances - $7 a week for a dependent wife and $2.50 a week for each dependent child;
    3. a textbook and equipment allowance of up to $100 a year; and
    4. an establishment allowance, paid when a student first receives a Grant. Students who must live away from home received $75, with a further $25 for a dependent wife and $20 for each dependent child. Students who did not need to change their place of residence received $30. (These rates date from the beginning of 1971.) Full-time students who had to live away from home to take their course also qualified for certain travel costs, for themselves and their families between their home and the centre in which their place of study was situated. For part-time and correspondence students, an allowance of up to $100 a year was payable towards the cost of textbooks and equipment and other expenses connected with their course. For correspondence students, the cost of travel and accommodation associated with residential schools arranged as part of their course was also paid as part of the Grant.

There was also provision for the payment of additional assistance to any Study Grant holder, in appropriate circumstances.

  1. The total expenditure on Study, Grant benefits each year has been:

1969- $117,065

1970-$270,540

1971-$372,574.

  1. (a) The benefits available to holders of Study Grants in 1972 are the same as those for earlier years except that dependents’ allowances have been set at $8 per week for a dependent wife and $4.50 per week for each dependent child since the beginning of 1972.

    1. The estimated total expenditure on benefits in 1972 is $520,000.
  2. There is provision for the payment of Study Grant benefits to students aged 21 and over who are taking secondary courses leading to a Leaving Certificate or matriculation level examination. These students receive the same benefits as all other Study Grant holders. School pupils aged between 14 and 21 years receive assistance under a different scheme, the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme, for which different rates of benefits are payable.

page 143

ABORIGINAL STUDY GRANTS

(Question No. 2065)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. What are the necessary requirements for a Study Grant to be given to an aboriginal or a person of aboriginal ancestry.
  2. Prior to the Commonwealth making available Aboriginal Study Grants was the State of Victoria making such grants to a value of $1,352 per annum per aboriginal student studying at High School for a Leaving Certificate.
  3. What is the value of a Study Grant to an Asian or African student studying in Australia under the Colombo Plan.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Study Grants are available to any person of aboriginal descent who gains admission to his proposed course and is considered by the authorities conducting the course to be likely to benefit from it.
  2. My information is that a grant carrying these benefits was made by the Victorian State authorities to one student only. It cannot be said that a formal scheme was in operation.
  3. The principal benefits payable to Asian and African students studying at undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Australia with Colombo Plan, and similar aid scheme awards, comprise -

    1. all compulsory fees;
    1. a living allowace of $1,910 per annum for an undergraduate, and $2,455 per annum for a postgraduate student;
    2. an establishment allowance of $85 and a clothing allowance of $124, paid on arrival in Australia;
    3. the payment of expenses on items such as textbooks, essential medical costs and university college residence, where these costs exceed the following stated amounts:

Textbooks and equipment- $121 per annum

Essential medical and optical expenses - $35 per annum

Residence charges in a university college - $18.50 per week for undergraduates, and $24.50 for a postgraduate student.

  1. the payment of travel allowance to meet additional accommodation costs where a student’s training involves journeys within Australia, and
  2. Economy class air fares to’ and from Australia at the commencement and on the completion of training, and return economy air fares after 3 years study in Australia to enable students to travel home for the long vacation.

page 143

COMMONWEALTH STUDY GRANT

(Question No. 2066)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

Has Mr David R. Anderson, the Aboriginal representative for the Mallee Region on the Aboriginal Affairs Advisory Council, been accepted by the Professorial Board of the University of Melbourne for admission to the course for the Degree pf Bachelor of Laws; if so, (a) has Mr Anderson applied for a Commonwealth Study, Grant to undertake this course at the University of Melbourne, (b) has such a grant been approved, and (c) if the granthas not been approved what are the reasons for the approval being denied.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

It is correct that Mr Anderson was accepted by the University of Melbourne into a Law degree course.

Yes.

Yes.

Does not apply.

Since the offer of a Study Grant to Mr Anderson for the Law degree course, and his acceptance of it, he has been granted admission to the Bachelor of Arts course at Monash University. His Grant has been transferred to cover his studies in this course.

page 144

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS

(Question No. 2072)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Have there been disputes and discussions between the Rehabilitation Section of the Social Services Department in New South Wales and the Repatriation Department resulting in the Social Services Department doctors insisting at all times on total control of their patients and personal checks on all their final fittings.
  2. Does this arrangement apply in any other State, or is it normal for the control of such patients and the checking of their final fittings to be done by the Repatriation Department.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. There has been discussion between the Departments of Social Services and Repatriation concerning the relative roles of the Senior Medical Officer, Department of Social Services, and the Limb Fitting Specialist, Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre, in the prescribing, manufacture and fitting of artificial limbs and appliances for patients under the care of the Rehabilitation Section of the Social Services Department. Recent discussions have resulted in an arrangement for consultation between the Senior Medical Officer and the Limb Fitting Specialist in relation to the prescribing and fitting of limbs and appliances, and for attendance at the Rehabilitation Section or the Limb Centre as necessary to advise on individual cases and discuss them.
  2. The policy and basic procedures outlined above have general application to all States, although there may be some variations because of local circumstances.

page 144

JERVIS BAY NUCLEAR POWER STATION PROJECT

(Question No. 2083)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

What has been the total expenditure to date on the now deferred Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Station Project, and will the Minister provide a breakdown of this expenditure.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

A total of $3,164,052 was expended to 31st March 1972, on the Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Station Project Details are:

Outstanding commitments estimated at $24,125 will be met by 30th June 1972.

Twelve cottages were constructed by the Department of the Interior at a cost of $203,865 for use by the staff of the Station. These are now being utilised by other Departments operating in the area.

page 144

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS

(Question No. 2086)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for” Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. In view of the fact that the Minister, in a letter to Senator Cavanagh of 1st March 1972, expressed the belief that the Independent Committee of Enquiry into the Repatriation Act had power to consider the limb-making activities of the Repatriation Department, and that a letter of 13th January 1972 from the Secretary of the Committee, Mr Williams, to Mr Jones of Appliance and Limb Centre Proprietary Limited, would appear to deny this power,’ will the Minister inform the Senate of the correct interpretation of the Committee’s terms of reference.
  2. If the terms of reference do not give the Committee this power, will the Minister amend those terms to include such power.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. In replying to Senator Cavanagh I expressed the personal opinion that the provision of artificial limbs to persons eligible under Repatriation legislation would be within the terms of reference of the Enquiry being conducted by Mr Justice Toose. This is in fact the case. However, I also made it clear that the decision as to whether any particular aspect of the matter was within the terms of reference was a question to be decided by His Honour.

At the time I was not aware that Mr Jones had made a submission to the Enquiry. Accordingly, I had no knowledge of the nature of the submission, which related to the provision of limbs for civilians, nor of the reply to Mr Jones. I understand that the general principle is that, in circumstances such as those raised by Senator Cavanagh, where a question arises about the matter being within the terms of reference of the Independent Enquiry, Mr Justice Toose is prepared to hear argument from the person concerned.

  1. The terms of reference for the Independent Enquiry were settled by the Government after very careful consideration, having regard to the needs it saw for the Enquiry. Any variation in those terms would be a matter for Government consideration when reasonable cause for further alteration is shown.

page 145

HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN

(Question No. 2089)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is it true that an unmarried full-time student between the ages of 21 and 25, who is not earning a taxable income and whose parent or parents receive a pension, must pay full medical benefits contributions to be completely covered; whereas students of parents earning a normal income are fully covered by their parents contribution until they reach their 25th birthday; if so, (a) why is it that students in the circumstances described in the first instance, are offered no assistance by the subsidised Health Benefits Plan because they do not constitute a family unit, and (b) will the Minister act with some degree of urgency to extend the age limit from 21 to 25 for the students allowance of pensioner parents in order to eliminate this gross injustice.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

An unmarried full-time student who is over the age of 21 years and whose parent or parents are entitled to benefits under the Pensioner Medical Service, can only qualify for medical and hospital insurance benefits by paying contributions at the rate applicable for single persons to a registered medical and hospital benefits fund.

The conditions of membership of health insurance organisations provide that a contribution at the family rate covers for benefits student dependants up to 25 years of age. The Subsidised Health Benefits Plan does not provide assistance to single persons in the low income category unless they are in receipt of an unemployment, sickness or special benefit under the provisions of the Social Services Act.

The question of extending the age limit for the students allowance of pensioner parents is a matter that comes within the province of the Minister for Social Services.

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a press release by the Press Officer of La Trobe University, Mr Robert Seagrave, in which it is stated that most campus flats are occupied by unmarried couples and that it is believed that a similar situation will arise in relation to the $3m housing project which will be commenced next April.
  2. Can the Minister ascertain whether the money provided for this housing project will be loaned from University funds to a non-profit company managed by representatives of various University authorities and students; if so, what terms of repayment are usual for such a loan, or are the buildings to be retained by the University and only the current expenses raised by the company.
  3. Does the Federal Government approve of portion of the Commonwealth grant to the State of Victoria for education being used to provide housing for the purposes outlined by Mr Seagrave.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has providedthe following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. From information provided by La Trobe University, I understand that the’ Information Officer did not issue a press release but, in answer to a telephone inquiry by a Melbourne newspaper, expressed some personal views about the campus flats and indicated that his views were not for publication. Despite this, an article on the subject appeared on the following day in the newspaper concerned and gave an inaccurate account of the personal views which Mr Seagrave had expressed on the telephone.
  2. La Trobe University Housing Limited is an independent non-profit making company incorporated under the Victorian Companies Act to operate and manage all non-collegiate accommodation for university staff and students situated on and off the university campus. The sum of $3m to finance the new housing project referred to in the newspaper article will be obtained by loans from public lending institutions and not from university funds, and the Company will meet the full costs of servicing the loans and maintaining the residences.
  3. No funds provided by either the Commonwealth or State have been used for the new housing project or for the construction of the campus flats referred to in Part (1) of the honourable senator’s question.

page 145

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY COMMISSION

page 145

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 2093)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Has the Minister seen the statement made yesterday by Brigadier Eldridge, the retiring Joint Force Commander in Papua New Guinea, in which he called for the handing over of control of the armed forces before the granting of independence to the Territory; if so, can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government has determined any timetable for the handing over of control of the Territory’s armed forces to the Papua New Guinea authorities.

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

Further to my reply to the honourable senator to his similar question without notice on 13th April 1972, the Minister for External Territories has advised that the matters referred to by the retiring Joint Force Commander in Papua New Guinea on 11th April are under examination in the Department of Defence in conjunction with other departments. As stated in the recent Australian Defence Review, studies are proceeding on a number of important matters as a basis for future consideration in Australia and in Papua New Guinea. As the Minister for Defence has also said, the Parliament will be advised of decisions as they are made.

page 146

COPPER SMELTER

(Question No. 2094)

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Has the Minister seen a report indicating that Bougainville Mining Ltd is likely to establish a smelter in an European Economic Community country in the near future to process copper mined at Bougainville; if so,
  2. Did this company give an undertaking when granted mining rights at Bougainville that a smelter would be established in the Territory of Papua New Guinea, and
  3. Is this undertaking likely to be repudiated in favour of the establishment of a smelter in Europe.

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. However, in the Second Reading Speech in the House of Assembly it was announced that the company undertook to keep the matter of smelting in Papua New Guinea under objective review so that if it became feasible to establish smelting or refining operations in Papua New Guinea the matter would be properly considered.
  3. See answer to Question 2.

page 146

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS

(Question No. 2105)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What awards of Commonwealth Scholarships were made in 1971 to each of the following Victorian schools: Geelong High School, Belmont High School, Norlane High School, Bell Park High School, Oberon High School, Matthew Flinders Girls High School, Newcombe High School, Geelong Technical School, Geelong East

Technical School, Corio Technical School, Bell Park Technical School, Geelong College, Geelong Grammar School, Morongo Presbyterian Girls’ School, Hermitage Church of England Girls’ School, St Joseph’s College, Sacred Heart Convent of Mercy, Clonard Girls’ School, St Mary’s Technical School and St Margaret’s Girls’ School.

  1. How many applicants were there from each of the schools listed in (1) above.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Statistics of scholarships applicants and winners from individual schools in Victoria are available for those Commonwealth scholarships which are awarded at the end of the fourth form of secondary and technical schooling, namely Commonwealth Secondary scholarships which are open to pupils attending State high schools and non-government secondary schools and Commonwealth Technical scholarships which are open to pupils attending State technical schools. The number of pupils from the schools listed who were candidates for, and winners of, awards first tenable in 1972 under these two schemes are as follows:

Similar information by school’ is not available for Commonwealth University or Advanced Education Scholarships.

page 147

AUSTRALIAN MINING AND MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

(Question No. 2111)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Has the Department of Trade and Industry recently completed asurvey of research and development expenditure in a sample of Australian mining and manufacturing industries; if so, when can publication be expected of the results of this survey.

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

The results of the survey of industrial research and development in respect of companies engaged in manufacturing and mining operations in Australia is in the final stages of printing and should be published within the next few weeks.

page 147

ABORIGINALS AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS

(Question No. 2112)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Is the Commonwealth Government prepared to re-open negotiations with the Premier of Queensland with a view to stating a case for the Commonwealth for the complete abolition of the Queensland Acts covering Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

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

Most States and the Northern Territory retain special legislation for Aborigines, providing among other things for the maintenance and management of Aboriginal reserves and the provision of special assistance to Aborigines. The Government sees no justification for proposing the complete abolition of such legislation in Queensland or in any other State.

page 147

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 2117)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What statistics are available of persons of part non-European descent corresponding to the statistics of non-Europeans in the Minister’s answer to Senator Douglas McClelland’s Question No. 1831, Hansard, 22nd March 1972, page 784.

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

Detailed statistics in relation to admission to Australia for residence of persons of mixed descent were not maintained until 1 April 1965. The following table indicates the number admitted during the period 1 April 1965 to 31 December 1971 cross tabulated by country of former residence:

page 148

ATOMIC ENERGY

(Question No. 2120)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Is Australia currently negotiating with France to arrange a treaty for co-operation in the peaceful use of atomic energy; if so, is it the Government’s intention that the treaty should be in similar terms to that signed in February between Japan and Australia.

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

No. On 16th June 1969, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the French Commissariat a 1’Energie Atomique concluded an agreement to collaborate in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. This agreement between the 2 authorities is considered to be adequate and no further negotiations are contemplated.

page 148

URANIUM

(Question No. 2121)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Is it possible for Australia to enter into a treaty arrangement enabling the export of Australian uranium, if the uranium receiving nation in the treaty, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

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

Yes. It is possible for Australia to enter into such a treaty arrangement.

page 148

AUSTRALIAN PORTS

(Question No. 2123)

Senator BROWN:

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

  1. What was the total number of waterside workers employed in all Australian ports for each year during the period 1960 to 1971 inclusive.
  2. What was the total tonnage of cargo handled in all Australian ports for each year during the period 1960 to 1971 inclusive.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The number of registered waterside workers at the 30th June each year from 1960 to 1971 was as follows:
  1. The tonnage of cargo stevedored by registered employers employing registered waterside workers in the financial years 1960-61 to 1970-71, including tonnages handled by coastal ferries except in the financial year 1967-68, was as follows:

page 148

IMMIGRANTS

(Question No. 2131)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. How many migrants of Turkish nationality have been brought to Australia under the Government’s assisted migration scheme.
  2. How many were tradesmen, and how many labourers.
  3. What percentage of Turks brought to Australia under the scheme are now unemployed.

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

  1. A total of 10,975 migrants of Turkish nationality have arrived in Australia under assisted passage schemes up to the end of March 1972. All of these have arrived since 1963-64 and the total has been distributed as follows over this period:
  1. Statistics are not available to show the occupational composition of the total intake of Turkish nationals under all assisted passage schemes. However, most Turkish nationals who have received passage assistance, travelled to Australia under the assisted passage scheme from Turkey, and the 10,429 people who have travelled under this scheme between its inception in late 1968 and the end of April 1972, comprise the following:
  1. This information is not available. I am advised that the Commonwealth Employment Service does not maintain details of the country of origin of persons registered as unemployed. However it is noteworthy that, in mid-April, a total of 175 Turkish migrants were living in migrant hostels and only one of these was recorded as being unemployed at that time.

page 149

MEDICAL BENEFITS FUND OF AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 2140)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What are the qualifications for membership of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia.
  2. How are the medical members of the Council of the Fund elected.
  3. How are the contributors’ representatives elected to the Council of the Fund.
  4. How many (a) medical practitioners, and (b) contributors’ representatives, are members of the Council of the Fund.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. (a) All legally qualified medical practitioners registered in any State of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Australian Capital Territory and practising or resident within any such State or the Australian Capital Territory are eligible for election as medical members of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited.

    1. Any person resident in any Stateof the Commonwealth of Australia or in the Australian Capital Territory is eligible to become a contributory member of the Fund.
  2. The medical members of the Council of the Fund are nominated by the respective State Executive Committees.
  3. The Council appoints contributors’ representatives to the State Executive Committees (on the recommendations of the respective Committees] and each State Executive Committee nominate! from its members a number of contributors’ representatives to the Council.
  4. (a) 12

    1. 12

page 149

HEALTH

(Question No. 2143)

Senator TOWNLEY:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How long is it since the Department of Health carried out a survey into the nutritional needs of Australians.
  2. Has the Department ever investigated whether people on low incomes are financially capable of buying the food they need, from a health point of view, or are many suffering from malnutrition.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The Department of Health conducted a Commonwealth-wide food consumption survey in 1944.

No large dietary surveys have since been conducted but 3 smaller studies investigating the diets of nurses, young vegetarians, and pregnant and lactating women were undertaken between 1960 and 1963.

  1. No. I would regard the carrying out of surveys of this nature as being principally the responsibility of individual State Authorities. The activities of the Nutrition section of the Department of Health are currently related to certain nutritional problems in Aborigines. I understand that similar surveys are being carried out in some States.

page 149

GIMBAT STATION

(Question No. 2145)

Senator POKE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will the Government take urgent action to prevent the proposed sale of over 1,200 square miles of the Northern Territory by. Gunn Development Pty Ltd, the family company of Sir William Gunn.
  2. As the prospectus for this sale is aimed at American investors, will the Government initiate action in the Senate to have the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control give this question urgent consideration.
  3. Is Sir William Gunn, as a Board Member of the Reserve Bank, Chairman of the Australian Wool Board, the International Wool Secretariat and the Wool Bureau, using his powerful positions to act as a salesman of Australia’s heritage.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I am advised that the question appears to relate to the proposed sale of Gimbat Station. I am also advised that the present owners have publicly stated that the property will initially be offered for sale to Australians, so that the basis for the statement that ‘the prospectus for this sale is aimed at American investors’ is not known. Any sale of the property would involve the transfer of the interest of the present owners in the leasehold only, of the land. Neither lease conditions nor the Territory ordinances concerned contain restrictions on the transfer of the property to nationals of other countries.

As to consideration of this matter by the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, the Committee’s terms of reference appear to allow it to deal with this subject.

  1. There is no evidence to support the suggestion made in the honourable senator’s question. If the Wool Bureau referred to by the honourable senator is the Australian Wool Bureau, I would point out that this body was replaced by the Australian Wool Board in 1963.

page 150

SIR PHILLIP BAXTER

(Question No. 2148)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Has the former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Sir Phillip Baxter, been retained by the government in any consultative or advisory capacity subsequent to his retirement.

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

Sir Phillip Baxter is a member of the National Radiation Advisory Committee. He is not engaged by the Commonwealth Government in any other consultative or advisory capacity.

page 150

PETROV ROYAL COMMISSION

(Question No. 2152)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Can senators have access to all documents presented to the Petrov Royal Commission, including the written submissions of Dr John Burton (vide Canberra Times, page 2, 23rd March 1972), which Dr Burton was unable to give in public testimony.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

I am advised that the ‘Report of the Royal Commission on Espionage’ dated 22nd August 1955, has been available to senators and to the public since that date, as has the more detailed transcript of evidence given at the proceedings. The Royal Commission decided that the material referred to in the honourable member’s question should not be published. The Government sees no reason to depart from that view.

page 150

INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION

(Question No. 2153)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What details does the Minister have of the extent of investment in Australia by the giant International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation of the United States of America.

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

The following information on the extent of investment by the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (ITT) in manufacturing industry in Australia has been taken from the latest edition of the ‘Directory of Overseas Investment in Australian Manufacturing Industry’, published by the Department of Trade and Industry.

page 151

TAXI CABS:

page 151

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 2157)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Which authority controls the operation of taxi cabs in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. How many taxi registration plates are in existence at present, and when was the number fixed.
  3. Is the Minister satisfied with the availability of taxis for persons leaving Parliament House between S.45 p.m. and 6.45 p.m. if not what action is being undertaken to increase the number of taxis in the Australian Capital Territory.

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

  1. and (2) The Department of the Interior controls the operation of taxi cabs in the Australian Capital Territory and there have been 79 taxi plates since January 1970.
  2. The hour from 5.45 p.m. to 6.45 p.m. represents a peak time in taxi use and it is not economically feasible to have sufficient licensed cabs to obviate all potential delays. The matter of increasing the number of plates will be examined by the Taxi Council when established shortly.

page 151

LIBRIUM CAPSULES

(Question No. 2164)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister inform the Parliament why Librium capsules, which are prescribed for many aged pensioners, have been taken off the free medicine list.
  2. Is the Minister aware that a small bottle of Librium capsules costs in excess of $6 and is therefore not within the reach of a pensioner’s income.
  3. Will the Minister investigate the possibility of restoring Librium capsules to the free medicine list.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Librium, a minor tranquilliser, has never been listed as a pharmaceutical benefit either for pensioners or for non-pensioners. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has, on a number of occasions, considered requests to make librium available as a benefit but has not, to date, been prepared to so recommend. The Committee is not required to provide reasons for its decisions but the honourable senator may be assured that it arrives at its recommendations only after thorough consideration and evaluation of the drug concerned.
  2. Yes. There is, however, an alternative minor tranquilliser listed as a benefit. This may be prescribed as a pharmaceutical benefit for pensioners, for any disease or condition.
  3. In view of the honourable senator’s question, the matter will be referred to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for further consideration.

page 151

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1940)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Can the Minister inform the Parliament if damage caused by sonic booms to persons, property and livestock along the flight-path of the Concorde aircraft, if and when it visits Australia, will be paid for from Commonwealth funds.

Senator COTTON- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

I have been advised that the Commonwealth Government would not be under any legal liability to pay for any damage sustained on the surface to persons, property, or livestock by reason of the sonic boom from the recent flight of the Concorde aircraft over Australia. The liability to pay compensation for any such damage is imposed on the operator of the aircraft.

page 151

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING ) CONTROL BOARD

(Question No. 2052)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What proposals have been received by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board from educational bodies for radio and television services for tertiary educational purposes.
  2. What information has been obtained by the Board on the likely requirements of other university and educational institutions in the areas concerned for radio and television services for tertiary educational purposes.

Senator GREENWOOD- The PostmasterGeneralhas provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. As indicated in my reply to the honourable senator’s Question No. 2056, Senate Hansard of 1st June 1972, pages 2482-83, there have been 11 proposals from educational bodies to provide broadcasting and television services for educational purposes.
  2. Discussions have taken place between the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, Department of Education and Science, Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, the

Australian Universities Commission and my Department on the questions which arise in connection with proposals for educational broadcasting and television on an institutional basis in the various States. However, the question of educational broadcasting services is to a considerable extent dependent on the Government’s consideration of the report by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on its studies of whether or not frequency modulation broadcasting services should be introduced to Australia.

page 152

EDUCATION- THE GREAT DEBATE

(Question No. 2110)

Senator GAIR:

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

  1. What was the cost of producing the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s recent television programme ‘Education - The Great Debate’.
  2. Is it true that technical facilities alone, including Postmaster-General’s cables for sound and vision, cost $30,000.
  3. Did the showing of this programme tie up the whole of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s national network.
  4. What was the estimated size of the programme’s viewing audience.
  5. Would the Minister agree that the programme’s contribution to the solution of Australia’s real educational problems was a minimal one, which did not justify this enormous amount of public expenditure and inconvenience.

Senator GREENWOOD- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The direct production cost was $12,806.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
  4. Approximately 2 million people watched the programme.
  5. I understand the aim of the programme was to provide a forum for a nation-wide discussion on secondary education in Australia. It was not designed to provide solutions to whatever problems may exist in the field of education. The Australian Broadcasting Commission was very pleased with the result.

page 152

TELEPHONE LINK: AUSTRALIACHINA

(Question No. 2214)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Has the Postmaster-General seen a report that the New Zealand Government is making arrangements for a telephone link to be made between New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China.
  2. What telephone link exists between Australia and the People’s Republic of China; if none, what arrangements are being made for such a link.

Senator GREENWOOD - The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. At the time that this question was placed on the Notice Paper negotiations between the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the telecommunications authorities in the People’s Republic of China to establish a telephone service between Australia and the People’s Republic of China were just being concluded. A service by 2 alternative routes was established on 1st June 1972, the same date on which a single route service was established between New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the

Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Broadcasting Commis sion been engaged in producing an Australian situation comedy, entitled ‘Our Man in Canberra’, the star of which is Mr Jeff Ashby, a well-known Australian actor.
  2. How much has been spent to date on the production.
  3. Does the production state at the commencement of the programme that The Parliament depicted in this programme bears no resemblance to any Parliament, living or dead*.
  4. Has one episode of the series already been shown by the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  5. Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission suddenly decided to stop the production.
  6. Who determined that the production should not be proceeded with, and what is the reason for its cancellation.

Senator GREENWOOD- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Production costs to date are $14,867.
  3. No. It was proposed to make a statement which indicated that the series was fictional and did not purport to represent any Australian Parliament past or present.
  4. No programme in the present series has been shown.
  5. The production has been deferred pending clarification of the legal issues involved.
  6. The Commission determined that the production should not be proceeded with for the reasons outlined in (3) above.

page 152

OUR MAN IN CANBERRA

(Question No. 2231)

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 August 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720816_senate_27_s53/>.