Senate
11 October 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1149

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: CORRESPONDENCE

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, partly in that capacity and partly in his capacity as Attorney-General. It relates to an answer Senator Cavanagh gave me yesterday in which he stated that he had been in communication with Mr Dexter and that as a result he, Senator Cavanagh, could give an absolute denial of allegations concerning interference by officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, particularly Mr Dexter the head of that Department, and Dr Coombs possibly deceiving the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the Government not agree that the letter allegedly written by Mr Dexter to Dr Coombs and published in today’s Press indicates that there was an apparent conspiracy to keep information from the Parliament? Further, does the Leader of the Government not agree that this warrants more than a departmental inquiry?

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not had a chance to read what is reported in the newspapers. I have in front of me a slip of paper which makes reference to, as the Leader of” the Opposition said, an alleged letter. I do not think it is satisfactory that I should make comments on what appears from something which is printed in a newspaper and which is alleged to be part of a correspondence. As the Senate was informed, I think some time the other night, this matter has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and also was brought to my attention. Some little time ago the Prime Minister had the matter put under investigation by the Special Minister of State. Obviously there are matters here which, if correct, are matters of some importance.

Senator Withers:

– I said ‘ alleged ‘.

Senator MURPHY:

– The Leader of the Opposition interjects and says that he only said ‘alleged ‘, and that is correct. The Government will do whatever is proper in the circumstances to deal with the matters which have been raised.

page 1149

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: CORRESPONDENCE

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, concerns the letter to which the Leader of the Opposition adverted in his question. Has the Minister seen the Press reports alleging that such a letter exists? Does such a letter exist? If it does, will he table it forthwith so that all honourable senators can see it?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I have seen the article in the ‘Australian’. I have seen the letter. Such a letter does exist. It was a private letter from Mr Dexter to members of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs as to the evidence that they would be giving before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I would be hesitant to table a private communication between Mr Dexter and his colleagues on the Council. Although the letter was placed in the departmental file for future reference, I would still preserve the confidential nature of the correspondence.

page 1149

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: CORRESPONDENCE

The PRESIDENT:

– Very well, if it is supplementary to Senator Greenwood ‘s question.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I appreciate the concern of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs about the contents of a private letter, but would not he acknowledge that since a national journal can refer to the letter it is in the interests of the correspondents that the letter be made public and that it can no longer be regarded as a private letter?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-The journal did not publish the letter. It published reported extracts from the letter, that is all.

page 1149

QUESTION

CONFERENCE OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENT MINISTERS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the

Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that some State Premiers today will seek a special Premiers Conference to consider ways to fight inflation? Is it a fact that at the Premiers Conference last May a working party of Federal and State Treasury officials was set up to devise anti-inflation methods and that no further meeting was held to consider the proposals? Would not an early special conference of Premiers be the most likely way to get a satisfactory plan and, with it, the necessary nation-wide co-operation to launch an anti-inflation attack?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The Prime Minister is conferring with the Premiers right now in the Cabinet Room. But for question time I would be with them. The Prime Minister has a number of important matters to discuss with the Premiers, including important financial questions. I think the Leader of the Country Party in the Senate can be assured and confident that the Australian Government and the Prime Minister are taking all the steps available to the Government under the Constitution and under the law to deal with any of the financial problems which are confronting the nation.

page 1150

QUESTION

LOCUST PLAGUE: AERIAL SPRAYING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Primary Industry indicate the powers which the Commonwealth Government can exercise, or the guidance which it can give, to avoid the over-use of pesticides in aerial spraying to combat locusts in the western division of New South Wales?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

– There is a problem of plague locusts in New South Wales at present. This matter was discussed at the last Australian Agricultural Council meeting. The control of the use of insecticides and the protection of the environment from the over-use of such chemicals are really the responsibility of the State governments, not the Australian Government. I understand that only one chemical has what are termed persistent qualities with a reasonable toxicity rate. I think it is a chemical called lindane and it is not used for aerial spraying purposes. The experience of the New South Wales authorities is that the use of these chemicals in the past has not created any environmental problems.

page 1150

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL COMMUNICATIONS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I wish to give a brief preface. The question refers to communications between departmental heads and ministerial advisers. These people have become prominent and plentiful under this Administration. Can the Leader of the Government state unequivocally, now or in the very near future, whether rules or guidelines have been laid down to indicate whether heads of departments have the right to communicate direct with ministerial or departmental advisers without reference to the Minister concerned? Conversely, can the advisers communicate direct with departmental heads without reference to the Minister?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Trying to do the best I can at the moment, I take into account what the honourable senator has said. Perhaps the question might be answered later. I suppose that this is a matter involving some common sense. In many matters, if it were convenient and acceptable to the Minister concerned, I suppose that there might be communications between advisers and departmental heads because this might help to relieve the Minister of a great deal of detail and enable him to attend to other matters. Of course, one would think that this would be done with the concurrence of the Minister concerned. Some system would be laid down under which this would be done. If the honourable senator is asking whether this would be permissible in some way against the wishes of the Minister of course not. It is unthinkable that communications could take place in some way without the general concurrence of the Minister concerned. I imagine that a great deal of communication takes place between ministerial advisers, the heads of departments and other members of departments in order to promote the efficiency of government. In many matters of more or less detail this is occurring constantly. It would have occurred under the previous Government as well as under this one. It is basic to any such system that it have the concurrence of the Minister and be directed towards advancing the policies which are being pursued by him.

page 1150

QUESTION

REFERENDUM ON EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the long-standing difference of opinion of wool growers and others regarding the export of merino rams, can he say whether a date has yet been fixed for voting in the merino ram export referendum? Can he say also how many persons will be eligible to vote in the referendum?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I hope to be issuing a statement on this matter today or tomorrow. I can say in brief that a poll will be conducted between the 22nd of this month and the 22nd of next month. About 120,000 persons are eligible to vote, all of whom will receive postal ballot papers and the arguments for and against the referendum proposal. I hope to be spelling out more details in the Press release that I will make today or tomorrow.

page 1150

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES LEGISLATION

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. It concerns the incidence of trade practices legislation on certain areas of industry. Irrespective of the outcome of the prices and incomes referendums. I point out that, there are States which now exercise, and I presume will continue to exercise, price control. Is it intended that the provisions of the trade practices legislation will apply to those industries engaged solely in the production of goods the prices of which are detetmined by State price control authorities, or does he consider there is sufficient restraint in such control to render the application of the trade practices legislation superfluous and unnecessary in those cases?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Of course the trade practices legislation extends beyond mere matters of price. It extends to a great deal of other matters. The honourable senator mentions the price control being exercised by some States. I think that the simple answer to the question is that the legislation would extend to industries in respect of the other matters. I think that it probably would be unsatisfactory for me in question time to try to spell out the effect of the provisions of the legislation which will be debated shortly in the Senate. In any event, I will communicate with the honourable senator before then and give him an answer in more detail.

page 1151

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES POWER DISPUTE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate inform the Senate whether the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, offered to make available to the Premier of New South Wales a presidential member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in order to bring together the parties in the New South Wales power dispute? Did the Premier of New South Wales refuse this offer? Did he also refuse the offer of a compromise of a thirty-seven and a half hour week? Did the New South Wales Electricity Commission refuse to take available power from the Snowy Mountains Authority over the long weekend of 29 and 30 September and 1 October? Did the New South Wales Electricity Commission plunge the people of New South Wales into blackouts by ordering that generating plants stand idle? Has not this pattern of action that has been demonstrated by the New South Wales Government been part of a campaign to ride back to power on the sufferings of the public of New South Wales?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think we can safely say that the answer to practically all the questions asked by the honourable senator is yes. I am not sure about the question regarding the availability of power during the long weekend, but in regard to the other questions, certainly there was an offer of the use of a member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and in view of the immense difficulty, disruption and cost that this dispute was causing to the people in New South Wales, with its flow-on effect to the people of the rest of Australia, one would have thought that that offer ought to have been accepted.

There is very little doubt- and this is becoming obvious to the people in New South Wales and elsewhere- that that industrial dispute in New South Wales is being prolonged for political purposes. A State election is coming up in New South Wales, and the New South Wales Government, if it wanted to do so, could do a lot more to settle that dispute. It could do more but it does not choose to do so because it seems to think that the people are foolish enough not to realise what it is doing, that it can have industrial disruption, point to it and say: ‘Here are strikes going on’. The New South Wales Government seems to think that that will help it in the election. But I think that the people of New South Wales can see through this manoeuvre, and we hope that the promotion of industrial disputes by government, as a political tactic, will cease.

page 1151

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES POWER DISPUTE

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

- Mr President, I wish to ask a question which is supplementary to the question asked by Senator O ‘Byrne. It also is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the serious and protracted electric power dispute in New South Wales and specifically to 2 significant statements made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Mr Hills, directed primarily to the trade union movement. One statement was that he could not condone the power workers’ restrictions of output, and the other was that the Snowy Mountains Authority was not holding back power from the Snowy Mountains scheme for political reasons. I ask: Since these statements by a State Labor leader reject and demolish the arguments advanced by the Minister for Minerals and Energy and all other Government members and those enunciated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate a few moments ago. does the Government reject the statements of Mr Hills as being fundamentally wrong, or is it now to recant on all its previous arguments?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The answer to that question is clear. The members of the Labor Party in New South Wales, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hills, want to end that dispute, irrespective of the forthcoming election and the politics involved. Mr Hills is turning towards the people on the Labor side and in the trade unions and he is doing whatever he can by exhortations and by trying to use his influence in that direction in order to stop the industrial dispute. The Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin, does not concern himself with that. He thinks that the longer the dispute continues the more it will assist him in politics. Fancy a Premier of a State rejecting the offer of the Prime Minister to make available one of the distinguished members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to do something to assist in the settlement of the dispute. It is evident that those on the side of the Australian Labor Party, whether federally or State, are doing whatever they can to get some amicable settlement to this dispute and that the Premier of New South Wales is content to let the dispute go on in order to get some supposed political advantage.

page 1152

QUESTION

CONSTABLE SANDEMAN

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware of a report in today’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ which states that Mr Kilgariff alleged in the Northern Territory Legislative Council yesterday that the hero of the Alice Springs hijacking, Constable Paul San.deman, was being treated shoddily. What compensation, if any, has been offered to Constable Sandeman? Have representations been made to the Attorney-General about the constable? If so, what has the Attorney-General done to recompense Constable Sandeman who still has 2 bullets in his body and who, as a result, will not be promoted because doctors say that he is only 50 per cent effective? If no representations have been made will the Attorney-General have the matter investigated and report back to the Senate?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Constable Sandeman is a hero of that hijacking. He does have the bullets still in his body. Representations have been made to me by Mr Nelson, formerly a member of the House of Representatives and now Mayor of Alice Springs, and by Senator Bishop, the Minister for Repatriation. Those representations were made first, I think, about a month or 6 weeks ago at a time when I was in the Northern Territory in Darwin and when they were in Alice Springs. I immediately spoke to the Commissioner of the Northern Territory police about the matter and also about another constable. I have since spoken to the Commissioner when he was in Sydney about 10 days or 2 weeks ago. I have asked that everything possible be done for

Constable Sandeman not only in relation to protection in his position so that he will not be disadvantaged, but also that, if necessary, special provision be made for his retraining. I have asked that he be brought to some other centre, if necessary, and retrained for some other position which might enable him to advance without any loss in the police force. I have asked that this information be conveyed to him personally by the Commissioner. I understand that he has been seen by a superintendent. I assure the honourable senator that the representations have been acted upon. I am doing everything that the honourable senator would wish to be done in the case of Constable Sandeman

page 1152

QUESTION

AIRLINE PILOTS: STRIKE ACTION

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation seen reports that the airline pilots are considering going on strike because the Government is insisting that Ansett Airlines of Australia sign an agreement? If there is such a strike will the Minister ask the Minister for Civil Aviation to request that the pilots continue flying to Tasmania because that State is so dependent upon airline travel?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I have seen the report in the ‘Australian’ on the airline strike. The Minister for Civil Aviation has no information further to that which is in the Press. He understands that the Australian Federation of Air Pilots has convened a meeting for 2.15 p.m. tomorrow with the Australasian Airline Flight Engineers Association, the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, the Federated Clerks Union of Australia and the Transport Workers Union of Australia to consider this question. The action that various unions will take is yet unknown. It is not known whether there will be a strike. I can put this matter to the Minister but I do not know whether he will make special representations to see that the objects of the industrial organisation are weakened somewhat in order to provide transport for Tasmania when the rest of Australia goes without transport.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– What about Kangaroo Island?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I can ask him to extend his representations to include Kangaroo Island. This is not something which is in the hands of the Minister; it is something which is in the hands of the industrial organisation concerned.

page 1153

QUESTION

ONIONS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government recognise that the prices of meat, onions and potatoes have a considerable influence on the consumer price index and inflation? Is the Minister aware that according to the New South Wales Department of Agriculture the official price of Queensland onions on the Sydney market rose from $3.60 a 45 lb bag on 3 September 1973 to $11 on 8 October 1 973- some 5 weeks later? Did he, in his capacity as Minister for Customs and Excise, approve an import licence for New Zealand onions in the belief that the importation of those onions would result in the lowering of the price to the consumer? Does he know that onions landed in Australia a fortnight ago at $5 a 45 lb bag were sold on the Sydney markets at the $ 1 1 level? Does the Government regard that as being excessive profiteering? Have market manipulations and profiteering recently robbed consumers of millions of dollars? In the circumstances, will the Minister give favourable consideration to approving the importation of large quantities of American onions, which are available at a very competitive price, thereby protecting the interests of consumers from the manipulation and greed of growers and wholesalers?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not sure of the details referred to by the honourable senator in his question. I have indicated previously that, certainly for manufacturing purposes, there is a procedure whereby if there is a short fall of commodities in Australia application may be made for by-law entry so that the commodities concerned can come in free of duty. This procedure can be availed of when there are shortages. Other matters, such as the quarantine regulations, also have to be taken into consideration in the case of the importation of primary products. I am also disappointed that often the benefit derived from commodities being brought in cheaply by reason of these provisions of the law does not seem to be passed on to the consumer. It may well be that other steps will have to be taken to see to it that the differential which might exist between the local price and the price of the imported commodity does not simply find its way into the profits of those who do the importing, and that the desired effect upon retail prices in Australia is not thereby brought about. 1 will look into the matter that the honourable senator has raised and see whether I can give the Senate further information on it.

page 1153

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES POWER DISPUTE

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the power strike in New South Wales. In answer to a previous question the Leader of the Government referred to the Prime Minister’s impertinent and unauthorised intervention in the dispute by suggesting the intrusion of a federal judge to subvert the decision of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales.

Senator Murphy:

- Mr President, that is not -

Senator WRIGHT:

-The Leader of the Government does not want the question to go over the air, Mr President.

Senator Murphy:

- Mr President, my point of order is that the question clearly contains matters abusive of the Prime Minister. Such matters are bad not only because of that but also because they contain material which is a personal reflection and is contrary to what ought to be contained in a question. The information that the honourable senator is seeking- if he is seeking information- can be sought without reflections being cast upon and abuse being directed at the distinguished Prime Minister.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am sure that Senator Wright, Senator Murphy and I understand the Standing Orders relating to the asking of questions. I call Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I refer to the power strike in New South Wales and to that part of a previous answer by Senator Murphy in which he said that one of the activities of this Government was a suggestion by the Prime Minister that a federal judge should intervene in the dispute, which has already been before the Industrial Commission of New South Wales for 18 months and in relation to which a reconsidered decision has been given. I ask the Minister whether he does not consider that intervention an impertinent and unauthorised intrusion to subvert State jurisdiction. I further ask him: Insofar as this Government has proper authority through the Snowy Mountains Authority and the Minister for Minerals and Energy has directed that its provision of electricity be reduced so as to intensify the severity of the power strike in Sydney, will he give an undertaking that for not one hour after this question time will Mr Connor’s direction to reduce that supply of power remain in force?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Murphy, you have the protection of the Standing Orders.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The question asked was whether the suggestion made by the Prime Minister and his offer were an impertinent intrusion -

Senator Wright:

– And unauthorised.

Senator MURPHY:

-. . . and unauthorised intrusion into the New South Wales jurisdiction. The answer to that is no. As early as the making of the Constitution the people of Australia recognised that industrial disputes sometimes go beyond the borders of States and affect the whole of the community. Although the constitutional provision is extremely technical in that it refers to industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State, it is clear that in this case the effects of the industrial dispute are spreading beyond the borders of one State. When New South Wales is affected as it is, the nation also is affected. The Prime Minister is quite right in saying in substance that if a dispute cannot be solved in New South Wales after 1 8 months, and particularly in the last few weeks in view of the disruption that has been caused, it is enough to concern the nation as a whole.

The Prime Minister showed great responsibility in his offer to New South Wales to try some other means. After 18 months of failure to resolve the matter, perhaps it was not unreasonable that a suggestion should be made that the highest arbitral body in the community be asked to provide one of its distinguished members in order to reach a solution of the dispute. I see nothing impertinent, nothing unauthorised and nothing improper in that. The way the Opposition approaches these matters- everything that is done, including an offer by the Prime Minister, is characterised in this way- is a reflection of the Opposition ‘s viewpoint.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator MURPHY:

-What Senator Wright has said about the actions of the Minister for Minerals and Energy discloses that he has failed to read the Hansard report of the proceedings in the other House and the correspondence and statements provided, which completely repudiate his attack upon the Minister for Minerals and Energy.

page 1154

QUESTION

SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS: INTEREST RATES

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can he inform the Senate of the total amount of money held by the Commonwealth Savings Bank and other banks in school savings accounts and money box banking schemes for children?

As it is unlikely that any of these accounts exceed $4,000, does the Treasurer’s agreement with the banks to maintain the increase in interest rates on housing loans at one per cent mean that these savings are subject to the 3.75 percent maximum interest on savings accounts which was agreed upon? With a rate of inflation exceeding 10 per cent and with other interest rates exceeding 9 per cent, does not this paltry return of 3.75 per cent on children’s savings really mean that the Government is robbing the children’s piggy banks in order to finance its programs, since this interest rate does not nearly compensate for the lost value of the savings?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I do not know, but it may well be possible to ascertain the amount of money deposited in school bank accounts with the Commonwealth Savings Bank. I will endeavour to ascertain whether that information can be obtained for the honourable senator. As to the other question I have been advised that in respect of deposits under $4,000- the relatively small amounts that have been referred to by the honourable senator- the Commonwealth Bank makes no profit at all. In fact, these accounts run at a loss. There is apparently a great deal of movement out of the various small accounts and the servicing of those accounts means that in fact the Commonwealth Bank does not make any money at all out of them. They are operated, if not at a loss, then without any profit to the Commonwealth Bank. I cannot be certain of the details of this but my understanding is that this is balanced by the moneys which the Commonwealth Bank makes out of larger deposits. However, I will check on the details for the honourable senator, if he would like me to do so.

Senator Little:

– Then, you agree that the children are losing money while inflation continues?

Senator MURPHY:

-I would assume that the provisions would be made by the Treasurer in the most just manner that he could make them and certainly would not be directed towards harming the children of this nation, for whom he has a very high regard.

page 1154

QUESTION

SAVINGS BANK INTEREST RATES

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and refers to the announcement that depositors in savings banks with more than $4,000 on deposit will receive an increase in interest rates on their deposits whilst depositors with deposits of $4,000 and less will not receive any increase. Does the Minister not consider this is a shabby deal to the smaller depositors? How can he reconcile this treatment of the smaller people by the Labor Government in the light of its oft repeated claim that it is a government for the smaller people?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I have indicated already in part of my answer to Senator Little what I understand to be the reasoning behind this policy. The honourable senator’s question contains one accurate piece of information and that is that the Australian Government is the government which endeavours in all ways to look after people on lower incomes and those who may need special assistance. It is all very well to criticise the Government because at a time of inflation steps have to be taken which would have an effect on the economy overall. One thing is quite obvious, that steps may need to be taken to tighten liquidity in the community and this creates problems right across the board. Who would say that the Government ought not to do something about that? The honourable senator knows that. When a government has shown that it is making provision for pensions, that it is helping school children by providing massive amounts for the education of our young people and is providing massive amounts for hospitals, it is not right then to say to that government: ‘If you are taking the steps which you consider are important to balance the finances at a time like this, we will say you are to be criticised because this in some way has an adverse effect on some people in the lower income groups.’ Overall the Government is doing everything it possibly can to help the children, the lower income earners, the pensioners and those in our community who need assistance.

page 1155

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

The PRESIDENT:

– I am conscious of the fact that in another place- and the disease seems to be spreading to this place- propaganda type questions are being asked and that replies are being turned into matters of debate. Questions are to be asked for the purpose of seeking information and extra verbiage can be used in posing a question only to make the question intelligible. Ministers are expected to give short and succinct answers. I would be grateful to Ministers and honourable senators if they would follow that principle.

page 1155

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Has the Minister for Customs and Excise noted page 2 1 of the report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which indicates that there is not competition between kangaroos and sheep for pasture land? Does that report not vindicate the Minister’s policy?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I thank the honourable senator for his reference to page 2 1 of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation report. I regret that I have not had time to read page 2 1, but I assure him that I will read it. I am sure that our policy on kangaroos has been vindicated by the passage of events and by scientific evaluations. It is pleasing to know that work is being done to evolve a comprehensive program for conservation and we would hope that that program would be implemented as soon as possible.

page 1155

QUESTION

AIRLINE OPERATORS: COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Why is the Government insisting that the airline operators sign an agreement not to negotiate separately in any industrial dispute? Is the Government carrying out a policy of compulsory unionism amongst airline operators, of whom the Government controls a majority?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I refuse to answer most of the points contained in Senator Lawrie ‘s question because they relate to Government policy. The whole matter concerns an insistence on united action by the airline companies in their approach to disputes. This has nothing to do with compulsory unionism. I think the question is one of company control rather than of union control.

page 1155

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: OVERTIME BAN

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, have you seen in this morning’s Press the headline: ‘Snap Strike Turns Off the ABC? Did you know that some stations last night were off the air for some 30 minutes? What effect will the overtime ban by the technicians of the Australian Broadcasting Commission have on the broadcasting of the proceedings of this Parliament?

The PRESIDENT:

– I will answer the question at the end of question time.

page 1155

QUESTION

SENATE RESOLUTION TO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– Does the Leader of the Government recall the advice given to the Senate yesterday by the President that he had referred to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations the unanimous Senate resolution on the abrogation of the civil right of Soviet dissidents? Does the Minister recall that the President also indicated that the Human Rights Committee received some thousands of resolutions every year. In view of the universal support given to this resolution by the Senate- it was a unanimous vote- will the Minister arrange for the Government to direct our ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Lawrence Mclntyre, to press this resolution as a matter of extreme urgency?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I will refer the question and the honourable senator’s request to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1156

QUESTION

FRUITGROWERS: REVALUATION COMPENSATION

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry and relates to the interests of fruitgrowers. In regard to the Government’s assured compensation to fruitgrowers announced in January of 1973 on the basis of a limit of $ 1 ,500 per person, can the Minister advise how many growers have not been paid and when those growers may expect payment? Further, has the Canned Fruits Board submitted a case for compensation due to losses incurred by currency revaluations in 1971 for which compensation was claimed in 1972? Can the Minister say when a decision will be made by the Government regarding that compensation?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Taking the latter part of the honourable senator’s question first, the Canned Fruits Board has submitted an application in respect of the devaluation of the American dollar in December 1971. The Government does not feel that the effects of these decisions should be carried on indefinitely. We have indicated in the case of our own revaluation decision of 1972 that compensation or adjustment payments would be made to the canned and fresh fruit industries in this year only. If there is a need for further adjustments to be made, they will be made in the light of the conditions which obtain at that time. We will observe the same principle in regard to previous revaluations.

As to the earlier part of the honourable senator’s question, it is true that some of the growers still have not been paid, mainly because of the difficulty of ensuring that growers are not paid twice. Many of the growers have been in partnership with members of their own families, and in certain cases it has been very difficult to distinguish between a grower who is operating in his own right and a grower who may be the recipient of 2 payments of $1,500. As a result, there have been some hold-ups while individual cases have been clarified. I am not sure of the precise figures, but the great majority of growers, both in the fresh fruit industry and in the canned fruits industry, have been paid. In response to the honourable senator’s question, I shall obtain the precise figures for him and let him know.

page 1156

QUESTION

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES: GOVERNMENT POLICY

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation confirm the announcement appearing in today’s Press that the Federal Government has approved a new national water resources policy? If so, can the Minister say whether the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution were taken into account in the preparation of this policy? Is the Minister aware that the references made so far are almost identical with the first 2 recommendations contained in the Senate Committee’s report? Will the Government take the opportunity to make public recognition of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution in the same way as the Prime Minister publicly recognised the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts following its inquiry into frequency modulation radio?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I know that the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution has been under continuous consideration by the Department of the Environment and Conservation. I believe that the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, will be making a statement on the water policy of the Government. I suggest that the honourable senator put his question on the notice paper and I will obtain a detailed answer for him.

page 1156

QUESTION

PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As he has expressed his continuing concern about Croatian terrorism in Australia, has his attention been drawn to the reported threat by an Arab resident in Australia, one Mr Alittat, that Palestinian terrorists will strike against Australiawhich action will have his support- if Australians support the Israeli cause? If the report be confirmed as being correct, what action will the Government take against this gentleman? Will the Minister give a complete assurance that the Australian Government will not surrender to blackmail by Arab terrorists?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The Government has already made clear its attitude on terrorism and violence of any kind in Australia. I will give a further answer to the honourable senator in relation to the precise incident to which he refers.

page 1157

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows upon the one asked a short while ago by Senator Mulvihill. Will the Minister read the whole of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation report and not merely page 2 1 , which was mentioned by Senator Mulvihill? Is the Minister aware that a Western Australian Government instrumentalitynamely, the vermin board- found it necessary to poison kangaroos because of the menace of overgrazing of pastoral lands in the north-west of Western Australia?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Yes, I will read the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation report. The honourable senator will realise that there are a number of other documents which I also need to read, but I will read that document. Further than that, I will have it studied by my Department, and I am sure it will be studied by others. I am aware of what is being done in Western Australia by way of endeavouring to implement a policy directed towards the conservation of the kangaroo. I am also aware of the failure of the State which has the largest number of kangaroos to follow the example which has been set by Western Australia. In Queensland there is large-scale killing without measures of the kind which were deemed by Western Australia to be absolutely essential if there is to be a wise conservation program. I would hope that all States would agree to work out a co-ordinated conservation program. All agree that this is necessary if there is to be a proper approach to the matter. The sooner that is done and implemented, the sooner everyone will be satisfied- the farmers, the conservationists and the whole nation- that this is the proper way to do it.

page 1157

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, by stating that many of my constituents have expressed concern at what seems to be a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money being spent to publicise the Government’s national health scheme. Will the Minister inform the Senate why the Minister for Social Security has found it necessary to conduct what appears to be irresponsible spending of taxpayers’ money? Will he also inform the Senate of the amount of money which has already been spent on this campaign?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is usual and necessary for governments to explain the policies which they are undertaking, especially if those policies affect people who are in receipt of social service benefits. This has been done over the years. Pamphlets have been issued. Advertisements have been put in newspapers and ‘so forth. This has been done by previous governments. It has been done to explain how policies work and what the benefits are. It is especially the right and the responsibility of a government to bring those policies home and to explain to the people exactly what is envisaged when the policies are being distorted, as they are in this case, by a campaign undertaken by a section of the medical profession. That campaign has been roundly condemned by other sections of the profession as being improper and unethical and as distorting what is proposed to be done for the people of Australia. I cannot tell the honourable senator the exact amount. That can be ascertained for him. Have no doubt about it, the Government considers that it is proper and that it is its responsibility to advertise to bring home to the people the truth about the national health scheme.

page 1157

QUESTION

BAN ON RHODESIAN DELEGATES

Senator WITHERS:

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, concerns the ban which has been placed on the Rhodesian delegates of mixed racial origin who wish to attend the fourteenth triennial conference of the Associated Country Women of the World which is to be held in Perth in 1974. Considering the fact that after a thorough investigation by the United Nations the Associated Country Women of the World still retains its status with that organisation and works in close harmony with its specialised agencies, does the Government’s refusal to allow the mixed racial Rhodesian delegates to the conference to enter Australia contravene the United Nations General Assembly’s resolution of approval?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I am unable to answer that question in detail. I would be astonished, and so would everyone else, I think, if Australia’s actions in regard to the proposed visit were in breach of the United Nations resolutions. The reference to its being a mixed delegation is, I think, no answer to the problems that are raised. It is much the same as the policy in regard to South Africa. As I understood it, the resolutions against the cultural, sporting and other ties were directed against these ties while the government there practised a policy of apartheid. It was immaterial whether the persons coming were black, white, or any other colour. The policy was directed to dissuading South Africa from pursuing those policies. 1 assume that much the same reasoning is behind the decision made in the particular case referred to. I am not sure whether this is so, but I will look into it, and if it is not I will inform the Senate.

page 1158

QUESTION

CLOSURE OF SPACE STATIONS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply. Is it a fact that the Government intends closing the space station at Woomera in South Australia? If so, when will this take place? How many people are likely to lose their jobs as a result of this action? What does the Government intend to do to rehabilitate them? Is the Minister aware that senior research scientists have described this as a short-sighted move which is a blow to Australian space research and to the cause of fundamental scientific research?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not conversant with the facts outlined by the honourable senator. I will have to refer them to the appropriate Minister and obtain a reply.

page 1158

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S SPEECH: POWER BLACK-OUT

Senator O’BYRNE:

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media. Can the Minister obtain for me information on how many radio and television stations were involved in the 10-minute blackout on Sunday, 30 September? Was it pure coincidence that the blackout occurred on almost all radio and television stations in the metropolitan area of Sydney for 10 minutes on Sunday, 30 September, while the Prime Minister was making his 10- minute address on the proposed referendum?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I do not know how many radio and television stations were involved, but I understand that it was a substantial number. It is true that the blackout occurred in such a way as to interfere with the Prime Minister’s address. The disposition of electricity is under the control of the Government of New South Wales. I do not know whether the inference which may be contained in the honourable senator’s question is right but it was singularly unfortunate that New South Wales should so arrange its outlet of power as to cause the Prime Minister’s important speech to be interrupted.

page 1158

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will he be reminded that on Monday and Tuesday of this week the transfer or removal of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Bryant, was headline news? Will he be reminded that during the Prime Minister’s Press conference on Tuesday the Prime Minister was given an opportunity to explain the reasons for Mr Bryant’s removal or transfer in the form of a question as follows:

Are you prepared to make any comment on the report that Mr Bryant gave up his portfolio only very reluctantly?

To this the reply was:

No, of course not.

In view of the subsequent disclosures of the Government nominee on companies engaged in turtle farming and marketing operations, in relation to which Government funds amounting to $457,000 for one company and $100,000 for the other were arranged, so that the one, a subsidiary of the Government, could purchase turtles from the other- an appalling concept, in the language of Senator Georges, who also used the phrase Shades of Alexander Barton’- I ask the Minister whether the absence of disclosure of this extraordinary operating concept and the operations of companies which create shades of Alexander Barton was not an exceptional attempt at concealment inconsistent with the traditional parliamentary practice that when a Minister is removed from office an explanation of the circumstances is given to the Parliament?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-In answer to the honourable senator’s speech -

The PRESIDENT:

– I say this quite frankly to both Senator Wright and yourself, Senator Murphy: You take a long time to ask questions and to answer them.

Senator MURPHY:

-In answer to what the honourable senator has said, I say that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable Gordon Bryant, was not removed in the sense in which the honourable senator puts it. In accordance with the procedures, he resigned and was appointed to another post. The suggestion, as the honourable senator would put it, that this is comparable to the Minister being removed because of some default on his part is of course nonsense. If this were so the Minister would not be back in the Ministry. This is a transfer of ministerial posts.

In regard to the other matters raised, the Prime Minister spoke at a Press conference, and I do not see how the honourable senator can relate that to the parliamentary matters to which he referred. I have indicated here that, in respect of this issue concerning the turtle farms, the matter was raised and it is being looked at by the Prime Minister. Some inquiry was instituted through the Special Minister of State. I also indicated that at some stage this matter was brought to my attention as Attorney-General. The honourable senator is trying to raise some kind of cloud of suspicion, I suppose it is, about the former Minister, Mr Gordon Bryant, who is highly regarded. He is one of the most respected members in this Parliament, and he is highly regarded as a Minister for his integrity, and let that be clear.

Senator Wright:

– Except the concealment.

Senator MURPHY:

-I am pleased if the honourable senator is making clear that he is not suggesting anything at all against Mr Gordon Bryant.

Senator Wright:

– Except the concealment.

Senator MURPHY:

-As I understand it, the honourable senator is not suggesting anything against the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and I hope that that would be the attitude of all.

page 1159

QUESTION

BROADCAST OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier today Senator Young asked me a question in the context of a newspaper report that parliamentary proceedings were not broadcast at a certain period last night. I made inquiries and later had a discussion with Mr Speaker to discover what in fact was the situation. Mr Speaker and I left it for further discussion, if necessary, this morning. I was informed when I came into Parliament House this morning that the broadcasting and the sound reinforcement system in Parliament House will not be affected by a ban placed by the technicians of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

page 1159

PRICES JUSTIFICATION ACT

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– In accordance with section 18 (6) (a) of the Prices Justification Act I present the report of the Prices Justification Tribunal on the price increases for certain iron and steel products proposed by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd.

page 1159

NATIONAL LIBRARY ACT

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– Pursuant to Section 27 of the National Library Act 1960-1967, 1 present the twelfth annual report of the Council of the National Library of Australia for the year ended 30 June 1973 together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 1159

MIGRANTS

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the initial report of the Migrant Task Force Committee of Western Australia. I present also the report on the survey of interpreting and translating needs in the community dated October 1973.

page 1159

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of Qantas Airways Limited for the year ended 31 March 1973, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.

page 1159

AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a transcript of the minutes of the 15 th meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held at Hobart on Friday, 27 July 1 973.

page 1159

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Withers moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate

– I move:

For the information of honourable senators I point out that notice of motion No. 12 is in the name of Senator Drake-Brockman and it relates to the Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Act and No. 13 is in the name of Senator Kane and it relates to the Middle East war.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1159

QUESTION

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

While I am on my feet I remind honourable senators that Estimates Committees D and E are scheduled to meet on Monday next at 2 p.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 11.9 a.m. to 8 p.m.

General Business Taking Precedence of Government Business

page 1160

QUESTION

ACQUISITION OF LAND IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I move:

Notice of this motion was given on 27 September 1 973. It was on 7 June of this year that the Senate last debated this issue. On that occasion Senator Prowse, on behalf of the Opposition, moved that the notice of acquisition be declared void and of no effect. During the debate on 7 June it was brought to the notice of the Senate that acquisition was sought by the Federal Government of some 32 square miles of land to the south-east of the city of Darwin in the Northern Territory. That is a considerable area of land. One of the points raised during the debate was whether 20,480 acres of- land were required for further development of the city and its environs. The land in question is freehold. It is at present occupied by a considerable number of small landholders. The land also encompasses several large holdings.

It was pointed out in the Senate that about a quarter of the land, at least, would be available to the Government for its purposes subject to mutually agreeable negotiations. Further, it was pointed out that there had been vehement protests by the small block holders in the area. It was also brought to the attention of the Senate that a petition had been presented in this House on 29 May requesting disallowance of the acquisition notice. That petition contained the signatures of 346 Australian citizens. Some of them were landholders in the Northern Territory; others were landholders in other areas of Australia who appreciated the problems associated with this acquisition. That petition was presented in due form to the Senate. It was obvious that the objections to the acquisition were many and varied. It is to be recorded that on that day the Senate endorsed the view that the notice should be declared of no effect.

It has been argued that the manner in which the Government sought to acquire the land appeared to be unreasonable and that there appeared to be a complete lack of information regarding the consequences to the landholders of the acquisition of this land. There appeared to be no proposed basis of compensation for those who already held the land. There was opposition to the arbitrary nature of the proposal made by the Federal Government. There apparently was a complete rejection by the Labor Government of the expressed opinion of the local legislative body, the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory. The Labor Government apparently was not interested in hearing the opinion of the local people or of the people whose land was to be acquired.

The matter was well debated in the Senate. Honourable Senators from both sides of the chamber who took part in that debate showed much knowledge of the area. As I mentioned, Senator Prowse led for the opposition in that debate. His contribution, along with that of Senator Jessop from South Australia, indicated that they were well aware of the views of the people who had sought freehold land and had assisted in the development of areas around Darwin in the Northern Territory. The Senate, by a substantial majority, on 7 June disallowed that notice of acquisition. The report of that debate commences on page 2487 of the Senate Hansard.

I refer now to one of the main points which I want to bring to the attention of the Senate. I have mentioned that it was on 7 June that the Senate disallowed that notice. The Senate may recall that 7 June was a Thursday. By 15 June, which was the following Friday, the Minister for the Capital Territory, as he then was- now the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby)had already had published in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’ of 15 June a regazettal of the notice which we had rejected.

Senator Wright:

– He was very cunning.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Wright may be using strong words in this regard.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Hello; there is a split in the camp.

Senator WEBSTER:

-However, I think the point is well made. I hear honourable senators protesting at the action that was taken within several days of the decision of the Senate. I would say that, for the regazettal to be printed in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’ of 15 June, there must have been hurried action on this matter.

Senator McAuliffe:

– We are just upset that you and Senator Wright have fallen out.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator who is interjecting may believe that it was an appropriate action for a Minister, in a fit of pique, after this Senate had disallowed a notice, immediately to regazette the notice; but it is something that I do not accept and I think that, in general, those who have any regard for the reputation of the Senate will agree with me on this matter. That is a vital point in the issue which I put before the Senate at this time.

Senator Wright:

– The ministers have been removed.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I again note Senator Wright’s words. The outcome of these issues often has a very dramatic effect upon the individuals who act against the interests of the Senate. I have been advised by one member of the Legislative Council in Darwin that Mr Enderby was in Darwin shortly after the notice was disallowed by the Senate. He was particularly upset about this matter. His immediate action to have the notice regazetted clearly demonstrates the lack of interest which he shows in the desires of this House of the Federal Parliament.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is it true that he signed the order within minutes of the Senate’s disallowance?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not able to say whether it was within minutes but if somebody has information along that line they might put it foward because that would indicate an even greater rejection of the wish of this Federal Parliament. However, I do make the point that Mr Enderby who was in Darwin at the time apparently was most upset by the Senate’s disallowance. His behaviour was observed and his action, on hearing the news and without any particular waste of time, of immediately signing the regazettal is perhaps an action which no Minister of the Crown has ever taken in the history of this Federal Parliament.

Senator Wright:

– No. This issue was all heard in 193 1 on regulations. He has chosen only to be cunning on acquisitions. There was a terrific constitutional uproar and that is why we have the Regulations and Ordinances Committee today.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Wright’s knowledge of that aspect is quite vast. He has added the point that this has occurred previously. I imagine thai it is a most unusual procedure for a Minister and I think all honourable senators would be concerned about this matter.

Since the date of the regazettal of the notice, those who were joyed that the Senate had rejected the notice so that some consideration could be given to the individuals who hold land in the area and who had an argument to present in this matter, have formed a committee of freehold landholders. The committee was elected at a public meeting at which, incidentally, many of the residents of Darwin were present. They met then to see whether some compromise solution could be found. I am informed that they asked in particular that an undertaking be given that a number of the smaller landholders would be left basically on their allotments as they were not in the path of the foreseeable development.

If one can imagine the extent of a 20,000 acre land grab one could well imagine that there would be no development on much of that land for a very lengthy period. In fact it can be pointed out to the Senate, as was pointed out to it in the previous debate, that there was much land in the Darwin area available in some of these newer suburbs which were developed under the previous Administration and certainly under the present Administration. There were many blocks of land available to cope with the expansion of the present population of 50,000 people in Darwin. Of course, there was Commonwealthcontrolled land in the area near Darwin. There was land which was held by various defence units and it was considered that for the reasonable development of a city such as Darwin and in the best interests of the people and the community generally some of these installations should be moved. Although I do not say it authoritatively, I recall being advised when a member of the Public Works Committee that there would be some movement of some of the Defence Department establishments into more remote areas of the Northern Territory. Certainly that would have enabled a greater expansion of housing development which would have been more congenial to the environmental development of Darwin than the land grab of some 20,000 acres.

I have mentioned a number of those who participated in the debate but I think it is fair to say that Senator McLaren led for the Government in this debate. It is reasonable that some of the arguments which he put forward in strong terms against the Opposition should be mentioned. It was his view- and he expressed the view of the Government- that under no circumstances should this notice of acquisition be objected to. Senator McLaren on a variety of points indicated why he thought the argument of the Opposition was unreal. In the first instance he referred to the petition which had been tabled as a bogus petitionand that was a rather strong term. At page 25 1 1 of Hansard he is reported as saying that it was loaded with signatures of people who had no interest in the matter’. I accept Senator McLaren’s point to the extent that it may have been made because he was thinking only of the individuals who are perhaps in the 20,000-acre category. But I think Senator McLaren may go a little way with me in seeing that the interests of the people throughout the Darwin area are certainly those of the people who are interested in this matter. I understand that the petition was never suggested to be one signed only by people who live in that 32-square mile area. Indeed, the opening words of the covering letter to the petition were these:

We the undersigned landowners and occupiers in the Northern Territory . . .

It was not intended that it should be confined to the people within that 32-square mile area. As we know, the Minister for the Northern Territory at the time had said on 9 March of this year:

Further acquisition of freehold land on the outskirts of Darwin may be considered in the near future.

Senator Keeffe:

– Who was the Minister?

Senator WEBSTER:

-As you know, Senator, the Minister was Mr Enderby. So it is quite likely that the people in the area of Howard Springs and Humpty Doo would be in the firing line for acquisition of their land. But of course, as I will show later, this proposition extends much further than that. No senator would object to the fact that a Federal government or a State government should have the right to acquire land for the interests of the community it serves- and I emphasise that point- the community it serves. Perhaps honourable senators could envisage what I see as the great danger from the Government now in power. The desire of this Government, as I see it, is to do away with freehold titles in Australia. That is a harsh comment and I hope that members of the Government including the Minister at the table (Senator Cavanagh) will indicate that it is a wrong assumption. But the people generally throughout Australia, noticing what has happened in the Northern Territory and being alerted that they may have to follow in the footsteps of those in this area to the southeast of Darwin city, are particularly concerned that at any stage the socialist Labor Government, purporting to act in the interests of the community, may acquire great tracts of land. Indeed we have seen in the 9 months in which this Government has been in office that that is the attitude of the Government. We have seen that its offer of financial assistance for the development of cities beyond the great metropolises that we know at the moment is made only on the basis that either State governments or the muncipalities with which it is entering into agreements will, for the development of their areas, first acquire the land. Having acquired the land, they will then lease it only to those who may be interested in obtaining their own blocks. I do not think I am saying anything the Labor Government does not know when I say that the average Australian would object to an area of 20,000 acres of freehold title in the Northern Territory being acquired from individuals with the object of leasing it back to other individuals. I have emphasised that the type of operation into which this Federal Government has entered throughout Australia is perhaps a sign of what a socialist government really believes is in the best interests of the community. It intends to impose upon private individuals, without consulting them in relation to the matter, what it believes is in the best interests of the community.

The people concerned with drawing up this petition were not only the landholders who were involved but also landholders in the area who thought that this matter of acquisition might concern them at some future date. Indeed, people throughout Australia put their names to this petition, although those who were not directly concerned with the area numbered only one or two. Senator McLaren suggested that the Australian Labor Party was simply putting into effect what the Minister for the Interior attempted to do in July last year. It is particularly interesting that Senator McLaren apparently has access to some private papers or some recommendations of a Minister to Cabinet. As I know that Senator McLaren is a fair person, I think he will agree that recommendations of Ministers to Cabinet should be regarded as private and basically should not be discussed in this forum. As Senator McLaren will know, the fact is that, whatever that Minister advocated to Cabinet, it was unacceptable to Cabinet and was never proceeded with. So the private information that someone apparently gave Senator McLaren for the purpose of putting it forward was simply the private recommendations of a Minister to Cabinet.

Senator Wright:

– Who was the Minister?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr Hunt. Apparently Senator McLaren believes that Mr Hunt suggested to Cabinet that the acquisition of some particular areas of land should take place.

Senator Prowse:

– I can assure you that he did not.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have it from Mr Hunt and I have it from Senator Prowse, who has just interjected, that the information is false and that Mr Hunt did not make that recommendation to Cabinet. But I take Senator McLaren’s word that he has seen some private paper- perhaps taken out of context and used in that manner- which has indicated that Mr Hunt did so. The Northern Territory Legislative Council has requested that the private papers to which Senator McLaren referred be tabled in the Legislative Council. It is interesting to note that this is not being done. Apparently the request made by the Northern Territory Legislative Council has been rejected and the Council will not have the access to the great secret information which Senator McLaren has had.

In his speech Senator McLaren indicated that no more land would be made available for housing- I imagine he meant for housing- for business or for public utilities. He made that reference on pages 2512 and 25 13 of his speech, as it is recorded in Hansard. The landholders in the Northern Territory have estimated that land for at least 20,000 houses is still available in the Sanderson and Thorak areas within the present boundaries of Darwin. By moving certain Government installations, at least 20,000 to 30,000 blocks could be approved. How stupid it is for a man to state that no further land is available. Senator McLaren would know, because he has travelled to the Territory on a regular basis and on a number of occasions, that many areas of land are available. He also said:

However, are we to be at the mercy of private developers when we want to acquire land in the Darwin area to enlarge our defence areas. . . .

That statement appears at page 2514 of Hansard. I do not think that anybody in his right mind would suggest putting more defence areas into the middle of a city of 50,000 people. It is quite clear, and it is agreed to in principle, that certain defence installations will have to be relocated so that they are mutually compatible with the several ways in which the civilian sector intends to develop. Senator McLaren made a very unworthy comment about the link which he saw between the speculators and certain members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council.

Senator McLaren:

– I never said that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If one reads page 25 15 of Hansard one could get that impression. I suggest to the honourable senator that any elected member of the Northern Territory Legislative Council has a right to listen to arguments and advice of individuals, no matter which section of the community they are in, and to put that view to the Council.

Senator Jessop:

– Was the Council unanimously opposed to the acquisition?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I did not find in Senator McLaren’s speech, in which he was willing to advise the Senate, a statement that those elected members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council who are of the same political persuasion as Senator McLaren voted unanimously that the notice of acquisition should be objected to. I find it hard to believe that a Labor man such as Senator McLaren would argue in this place against his colleagues who live on the spot and who know the desires of the people there. But that is what I found, and it is quite regrettable. The individuals who will be harmed are the small landholders, the landholders of modest means in this area. One man may have a large holding, but his objection would be outweighed if the small landholders were in agreement with the notice of acquisition.

Senator Jessop:

– This seems to be ignoring the civil rights of small people.

Senator WEBSTER:

-That could be so. Senator McLaren also said that the acquisition will benefit many people without title who were illegally sold unauthorised subdivisions. That statement shows that a little knowledge can be particularly dangerous so far as this matter is concerned. It has been said that Country Party members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council have criticised actions of the previous Government. That may be so, and I hope that they will continue to do so. Many cases were referred to in the previous debate. The majority of those are small landholders. I think that those individuals who have attempted to get out on their own and to do something for the development of the Territory should not have this arbitrary decision thrust upon them.

I understand that landholders have been granted a further 3 months in which to lodge claims for compensation arising from the acquisition. This is very recent knowledge so far as I am concerned. I believe we have here the type of socialist philosophy which we may see occurring throughout Australia. The Senate should be alerted to this. In this instance, I have seen the cost of the scheme estimated at some $20m. This seems to be of little concern to the Government. Again, the rights of the little people in the area appear to be of no concern to the Government.

At the present time, there is no particular plan for the development of this area. It is an amazing proposition. At this moment the Federal Government has no knowledge of what it intends to do with this 20,000 acres of land, although there have been one or two reports. When I was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works, at a meeting held in Darwin, the Committee sought copies of the Pak-Poy report which was to indicate something of the development of Darwin. It is only recently, under the Labor Government, that this report has been made available. But the action of the Government has not been ethical. It has violated the rights of the various individuals in that area. I believe that a study of the history of leasehold operations not only in the areas of the Northern Territory, but certainly in Queensland, and also in other parts of Australia will show that where the Federal Government has connived with State governments to go into leasehold operations, this has had a reaction and created a sterile atmosphere for the development of areas which are under the control of private individuals.

I mentioned that there had been criticism and opposition to this matter from all over Australia. I wish to quote from one or two letters that I and others have received. Firstly, I will indicate the type of individual who is concerned in the Darwin area. This letter is from a young couple who apparently live in the suburb of Winnellie in the Northern Territory. They write:

We are a young couple affected by the Notice of Acquisition of 32 square miles south of Darwin. We are extremely distressed at the thought of losing our small property, on which we were planning to settle and help the Northern Territory’s development in our own small ways. Our hopes and plans have been destroyed by the Labor Government’s high handed attitude of ruling the Northern Territory.

The Senate and its members are our only hope of overcoming this merciless move.

The letter calls on the Senate to support the vote.

Senator McLaren:

– Who signed the letter?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator would be asking for the name of the individual only so that he could take some action against him. Why would he be wanting to know the name?

Senator McLaren:

– Because I want to know. The honourable senator should be prepared to tell us. He was prepared to read the letter. He could have fabricated the letter.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will tell the honourable senator. He may write down the name so that he can find out whether the people are members of his Party. Their names are Barry and

Juliette Chester. I will give the honourable senator their addresses so that he may write to them. It is Post Office Box 39826, Winnellie. I only hope that the Labor Government does not take any action against them.

Senator Little:

– The names are Barry Michael and Juliette Marie Claude Chester.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If the honourable senator would repeat that for Senator McLaren, he may care to visit them when he goes to the Northern Territory. I quote from another letter written by a Dr Gorman in the Territory. He says inter alia in his letter:

For the most pan, the landowners are antagonistic to the takeover, but it is unlikely that they will be able to avert the tragedy unless helped by the rest of Australia. It is quite apparent in the Northern Territory that the person most discomforted by leasehold land tenure is the individual with initiative. The big companies flourish in a situation which stifles the small business by excessive land costs and building convenants.

Dr Gorman says that the small individuals are the ones who are concerned, and then he goes on to state:

I hope other Australians will realise what is being debated at this time, and that it affects the country as a whole andnot just a few landowners in the Northern Territory. While it is our immediate distress, it will be a sorry day for the country as a whole if the Senate is not made aware that this Bill is extremely significant to the ordinary taxpayer.

I think honourable senators can see from that that this matter is not confined to the Northern Territory; it goes far beyond the Northern Territory. I have from somebody in the State of South Australia a letter which honourable senators who are interested in this debate may care to note. It is headed ‘Darwin Land Grab’. Again I will not read the whole of the letter, but in it the writer states:

Apart from the obvious socialistic overtones, the Bill does not affect me personally My concern is for my daughter who resides in the area. She went to Darwin about 5 years ago as a nursing sister, after graduating from the Adelaide Children’s Hospital, and subsequently became engaged to and married a Darwin businessman. As they could not afford to pay the prevailing prices for a dwelling or a flat, they decided to invest what cash they had in a 5-acre scrub block at the 13 Mile and a oneroomed hut. They lived in this for 2 years, during which time they gradually built their home as funds became available from their earnings.

The land has now been paid off and a very attractive 2- bedroom home erected.

The letter goes on to state how sad they are that this acquisition should take place. Are not honourable senators concerned about this?

Senator McLaren:

– Who wrote that letter?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not going to give Senator McLaren the name of the person who wrote that letter because I do not doubt that he would harass that person in South Australia if he had the opportunity. Then an individual in my own State of Victoria, using a variety of words and indeed writing a long letter which I will not read in full, charges this Government with a number of things. Firstly he states- and I emphasise these words:

I resent the acquisition for its arrogance. … In this case the land is acquired first and then compensation is discussed afterwards.

He criticises the Government for its duplicity. He then states:

You will notice that Mr Enderby in his letter . . . stated that the acquisition was for a public purpose. In fact, much of this land will be resold on a leasehold basis.

He goes on to criticise the acquisition for its conceit and then states:

What makes the Federal authorities so confident that they can develop this area better or more economically than private enterprise?

He criticises the acquisition for its stifling effect and says:

I believe that the acquisition, the associated controlled development leasehold land tenure are very expensive in terms of Territory enthusiasm. . . .

He says that he thinks the acquisition is most inappropriate and then he continues:

The Government is spending money lavishly and I believe this must deflate its value. The projects financed involve people and the money gets ultimately into their pockets giving greater spending power and hence the circle goes on.

I believe that there is a lot to be debated in the point that the Government’s action could have an inflationary effect.

Senator McLaren:

– Who signed that letter?

Senator WEBSTER:

-As Senator McLaren is not likely to come to Victoria, I will tell him that the letter is signed by Mr John Pinkney of 24 Duggan Street, North Balwyn 3104. Senator McLaren might care to write to him and ask him for his views on Senator McLaren. I have another letter from a James W. Clarke of Lot 5, 1 3 Mile. Undoubtedly he is an individual acting on his own behalf. I think that this would concern Senator Murphy if he has any interest in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the letter this individual states:

May I quote Article 17, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1 948, to which Australia has fully subscribed.

Everyone has the right to own property, alone, and in association with others.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his. property. ‘

End of quote.

I think that the interests of those who may wish to protect the human rights of individuals in this community are very much lost on a socialist Labor Government. But it is of interest to note that in this instance that there is a basic area of land which is available to the Government. Mr Deputy President, I draw your attention to the fact that the 20,000 acres is under notice of acquisition by the very notice which we are debating. But Mr Deputy President, you quite kindly handed me a telegram which you had received. It was addressed to you from one Albert Albany of Box 39146, Winnellie. The telegram states:

Request you once again reject that Labor Party’s Bill for the compulsory acquisition of freehold land in the Northern Territory it is unjust discriminatory to compulsory acquire freehold land from one citizen to be sold to another citizen -

I hope that the very vocal members on the Government side will take up that point as to whether that is what is intended - who can transact the land so acquired at unlimited profits discriminatory to freeze land value in the area to be acquired yet do nothing in respect to land value in Darwin and beyond the area to be acquired stop Mr Enderby callous public statement about freezing the land value in the area to be acquired only increased values outside this area stop The Government have refused to treat for this land although I have offered them my 4800 acres which represents a quarter of the land involved stop they are trying to use Gestapo and Fascist methods to implement their communist ideals of state ownership of land thank you for your consideration.

So we have this proposition and not only from people within the area which is to be acquired. We have letters from people within the Darwin area, professional people, small people in the area. We also have letters from people in South Australia and from those in Victoria who see the very problem which is posed by a socialist Government at this time. If people will listen I think they will be alerted to the action which the Government has demonstrated by its actions over the past 9 months.

It is my view that the State should exist for the individual. In this instance we see the action of a Government which believes that the individual should exist for the State. It is my view that the Government and the Minister should be alerted to the view of the Senate that the action is distasteful, hasty, ill considered, blatant and callous. The Minister expressed his view by his action in immediately regazetting this notice so promptly after the Senate had once rejected it. I ask the Senate again to reject this attempt which has been made by the Administration which is totally ignoring the formerly expressed opinion of this Senate. I hope that the vote this evening will serve as a warning to the Government that the view of the people of a particular area should not be disregarded; that the opinion of the duly elected legislative council of an area should not be completely disregarded; and that the opinion of this Senate, so recently expressed in opposition to the Government’s action, should not be treated in such a manner as it has been by the previous Minister for the Australian Capital Territory. I conclude by saying that the notice of acquisition of land should be declared void and of no effect.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– As the first speaker for the Government in this debate, I indicate that the Government will be opposing the motion which has been moved by Senator Webster of the Australian Country Party that the notice of acquisition of land be declared void and of no effect. I do not intend to traverse all of what was said in this chamber in an earlier debate on this subject on 7 June 1973. 1 think the pros and cons of the argument were put fully on that occasion. I do not intend to weary the Senate with a repetition of them. I do not intend to read out a whole host of fan mail, as Senator Webster did tonight.

Senator Webster referred to the bogus petition on which I commented in the Parliament on the previous occasion. I had not intended to comment on it again tonight; but, in view of what was said about it tonight by Senator Webster, I think I should. Senator Webster said that the petition had no relativity to the matter under consideration and that there was nothing wrong with people from outside the area involved signing it. When Senator Prowse intiated the previous debate on 7 June he quoted from the petition, which he so kindly tabled at my request. Senator Prowse said:

We also have received a petition signed by some 346 people involved.

Senator Prowse quite clearly pointed out that he was presenting that petition on behalf of the people involved.

Senator Webster:

– I raise a point of order on that matter, Mr Deputy President. My recollection is that you were referring to a petition which had been tabled in the Senate approximately a month prior to the date on which you were speaking, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse)- I do not know whether that is correct. I was referring to a petition which I had in my hand and which I tabled.

Senator McLAREN:

– Thank you for you clarification and support of what I have said, Mr Deputy President. Senator Webster knows full well, as I think every other honourable senator knows, that no petition had been tabled until you read from that petition on that very day. At the conclusion of your remarks I asked you whether you would be prepared to table it. Mr Deputy President. I said at the time, and I repeat now, that you kindly did so and I appreciated your action. Once again we find Senator Webster running off at a tangent and mouthing untruths in this Parliament. I have caught him out on that before.

My revelations in this Parliament about that petition upset the man who is leading the opposition to the acquisition of the land and who is passing information along to people such as Senator Webster. His name is Dr Goff Letts. He is the Country Party member for Victoria River in the Northern Territory Legislative Council. I was able to catch him out on this petition by pointing out that in fact very few people who were landholders in the area had signed the petition. I think only about 33 of all that number were directly involved. I had incorporated in Hansard on the previous occasion a list of the registered landholders in the area. As a result of what happened following the tabling of the petition, Dr Letts became quite upset. On Tuesday, 26 June, in a debate in the Northern Territory Legislative Council on the land acquisition, he said:

When we move on to the debate in the Senate, we find that speaking on behalf of the Labor Party the principal speaker was Senator McLaren. He made a number of points, most of which won ‘t stand up to close examination.

Senator Mulvihill:

-Who said that?

Senator McLAREN:

-Dr Letts. He said that I said that the petition, which was forwarded from Darwin to Canberra just before the Senate debate took place and which gives the lie to what Senator Webster has just said, was loaded with the signatures of people who had no interest in the matter and who came from outside the area. The pertinent point is that after making those remarks Dr Letts went on to say that that part of my statement was probably correct. The man who engineered the whole of this opposition to the acquisition of the land has admitted that what I said about the petition was correct. That appears in the Northern Territory Hansard. Dr Letts went on to say:

However, they certainly were not from people who had no interest in the matter. The people at Howard Springs and Humpty Doo, and anybody down in that area, are vitally interested in the affairs and the future of the 32-square-mile acquisition people because they have been told that they are next on the list.

Who told them that they were next on the list? Nobody I can ascertain. Goff Letts has stated previously and Senator Webster stated tonight that the people in the surrounding areas are to be next, but they have no proof to back up what they say. It is just a red herring to try to frighten the people of the Northern Territory. The whole purpose of this acquisition is to safeguard the people of Darwin in the Top End of the Northern Territory where the available land for housing is fast running out. The people there want to be able to build their homes at a reasonable price. The Government daily is accused in this Parliament- particularly by Senator Webster in his references to it as a socialist government- of creating inflation. The very thing it is trying to prevent from happening in the Northern Territory is what Senator Webster and his Country Party colleagues are trying to bring about, that is, the creation of inflationary land prices in the Northern Territory, which would be detrimental to the people who want to own their own homes in the area.

Senator Webster and his colleagues are endeavouring to bring about a skyrocketing of prices. I intend to quote from some documents I have in front of me to prove what I have said. Goff Letts has backed me up on that statement. In the same debate he also commented on the prices and said:

  1. . within the 32-square-mile acquisition area between 196$ and 1973 the prices are distinctly comparable and fairly level during that period of time. Thus, what has been said in respect to that part of the story is a lot of rot.

Again he has contradicted himself. Dr Letts went on to say:

I won’t deny that, if something is not done within the next 3 to 3 years, Darwin will run out of land and, unless plans are made and a proper program embarked upon, difficulties will arise and prices will go up . . .

The very thing which the Government is endeavouring to prevent is prices going up. On the one hand Dr Letts is saying that we are trying to do something terrible and on the other hand he is admitting that what we are doing is proper because we have to prevent land prices from rising to exorbitant levels. As the Government has announced that, due to an acute land shortage, it intends to acquire the land in question for development and housing in particular, there are certain people who are prepared to put personal gain before the welfare and needs of the citizens of the Northern Territory. Those people have the backing of the Country Party, which is seeking to prevent the Government from acquiring the land in question.

During Senator Webster’s contribution to the debate I interjected several times and asked him whether he had objected to the previous Government’s acquisition of the only piece of land which the Government has available for development in Darwin, that is, the district of Sanderson. Senator Webster would not answer because he knew that if he did he would have to say that he did support the previous Government’s acquisition of that land for development. He has come in here and accused the Government of doing something which is terrible, but it is only something which the Government of which he was a supporter did in days gone by and which it would have done with respect to this piece of land had it been returned to office on 2 December. Senator Webster made some remarks about what I said concerning what Mr Hunt wanted to do. I think that in my speech I gave full credit to Mr Hunt for wanting to do something which he was not able to carry out. As I have said before, the person who is in the forefront of this action in support of the money hungry people I have mentioned is none other than the Country Party member for Victoria River, Dr Letts.

Let us examine the subject of spiralling land prices. I wish to quote from the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures, which is being conducted by Mr Justice ElseMitchell, as Chairman, and Professor R. L. Mathews and Mr G. J. Dusseldorp, who is a fairly large scale developer. I refer to the evidence given to the Commission by Mr Macnamee- one of the people who are opposed to the Government’s acquisition proposals. He was asked by Professor Mathews:

What did you pay for your land?

Mr Macnamee replied:

That is of no consequence.

He was then asked by Mr Wilcox:

Would you oblige Professor Mathews.

Mr Macnamee answered:

About $32 an acre.

Mr Wilcox then said:

And you want to sell at $3,000 an acre. What have you done to deserve the difference? I mean, why should you receive this rather than the community in general, since it is community growth which is responsible for the increased value?

Mr Macnamee replied:

I bought this land, as I said before, for me and my heirs, for the future, and I would let it develop and indeed was about to develop it just recently, until you acquired it. What lam saying is that you say to me: ‘What have I done to develop the land?’

However, if we look further in the transcript we find that, although Mr MacNamee said he was just about to develop that land, he has been in possession of that land or has lived in the Territory for 24 years. The Chairman then said:

Not on the 137 acres?

Mr MacNamee replied:

No. Unfortunately I have not been able to move into the 1 37 acres. This is the biggest problem.

So, there we have a man living in the Territory who paid $32 an acre for land many years ago and who now is asking $5,000 an acre. This is the type of person we find Senator Webster giving full support to when he stands in this chamber tonight. He has done nothing to develop the land.

Senator Webster:

– Do you object to that?

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course I am objecting because the only reason he can value that land at $5,000 an acre is that the Government has announced that it is going to develop the area. That is the only reason why he is asking that price for the land. During his remarks tonight Senator Webster quoted from a telegram sent to him by Mr Albert Albany. I know of Mr Albert Albany and I know where his land is. I know people who have bought land from him in the past. However, I want to refer Senator Webster to an advertisement which was placed in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of Monday, 23 July. There is quite a big advertisement in that newspaper which reads:

Required partner or partners with financial resources and development expertise to develop 8 square miles of freehold land adjacent to Darwin in the Northern Territory. This land is at present being zoned for satellite town development.

That is the basis he is using to advertise that land. The advertisement is signed ‘Contact, write: Land Development, P.O. Box 39146, Winnellie’. This is the person who is capitalising on what the Government is trying to do. It is trying to acquire and sell land to people and to settle people into homes at a reasonable rate. This is the 8 square miles to which Senator Webster referred.

I should like to read from a statutory declaration made by a person who was involved in that land dealing with Mr Albany, who was hawking around a petition opposing the acquisition, trying to get a few people to sign it. I might say that very few people signed that petition. This is a Commonwealth of Australia statutory declaration and it reads:

I, Lawrence Edgar of Lot 7 Sect. 132 Vali Subdivision P.O. 3931 1 Winnellie do solemnly and sincerely declare that about 6 weeks ago Mr A. Albany approached me to sign a petition against acquisition of land. He told me if I signed, and the move was successful and I aligned myself with him I would stand to gain $40,000 for my land. I considered this an inducement to my signing, to gain cash. I refused.

This .was signed by Mr Lawrie Egar in Dawin on 20 September and that was a Commonwealth statutory declaration. This is the type of person Senator Webster is supported here this evening. I think that he should be ashamed of himself when he comes into this chamber and makes accusations against people on the Government side and others who believe in the same things that we do, when we are trying to acquire land and make it available at a reasonable rate to people who want their own homes.

Senator Webster:

– Why did you sell your chicken farm? You made a great profit, but you are not willing to tell the Senate, are you? What did you sell your chicken farm for?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Poke)- Order! Senator Webster, you had the opportunity to make your speech.

Senator McLAREN:

– We again hear an untruthful statement from Senator Webster. It was not so many weeks ago that he accused me of dealing in land in the Australian Capital Territory, and he could not find any proof. Now, he asks me to say what price I sold my chicken farm for. As I have told him before, I still have my chicken farm. It lies empty because when I was elected to this Parliament I gave an undertaking that I would devote my full time to my duties as a member of the Parliament and live on the salary that the electors pay me to represent then- not like Senator Webster, who has outside interests. So, every time Senator Webster opens his mouth he puts his foot in it and tells an untruth.

I am not going to take up too much of the time of the Senate because I know there are other matters of business to be dealt with here this evening. However, I do want to make some comments in rebuttal of what Senator Webster said on some matters. I should like to quote from some notes which I have received from the Department of the Northern Territory and which are relevant and pertinent to the question we are now debating. I point out to honourable senators that the Government’s decision to acquire the 32 square miles of freehold land in Darwin was based on 3 major considerations. The first was the need to have available by 1 976 sufficient serviced land to meet the needs of an expanding population. The second was to control the price of land so that the purchase of residential blocks could remain within the financial capacity of the average income earners seeking to establish a home. As I have pointed out, that is the very reason for this ordinance. The third aspect was the control of the environment against pollution and to ensure development is in keeping with modern urban standards.

To expand on what I have said about escalating prices, I point out that Darwin land prices are reflecting the supply position. At restricted auctions, where purchase of land may be made only by persons who have not held a lease or owned land in the previous 5 years, land prices have risen despite efforts on the part of the Government to hold them at reasonable levels. The most recent auction held on 28 August 1973 resulted in land being purchased at an average price of $4,563 a block compared with an average bid of $2,569 a block in May 1973. So, honourable senators can see that within the space of a few months those blocks in question almost doubled in price. In the unrestricted auction, bids ranged from $9,500-the highest-to the lowest bid of $8,100. As I have said before and as I repeat now, these are the things that we are trying to prevent in the interests of the little man whom Senator Webster said we are trying to crucify. I have already quoted the evidence given before Mr Justice Else-Mitchell in respect of the landholder who bought land for $32 an acre and who now wants to sell it for $5,000 an acre. I also want to inform the Senate that departmental plans have been made for the development of the district of Sanderson. That is the last area of land under Government ownership which is available for residential subdivision. The Government is already developing that land; that is the last area of land it has in the Darwin area.

This Government is trying to do all it can to develop the Northern Territory. Such development has been lagging in the past but we now have a Minister for the Northern Territory to look after precisely that area and the northern area- or, at least, we will have from next week. We are going to develop the area. We want to be able to buy land and sell it again to people at a reasonable price. I think this is only just and something for which we should have the support of honourable senators opposite. Of course, if we look at the time factor we see why we must have this land. We find that the population of Darwin is expected to reach 56,000 in 1 975 and 90,000 by 1980. The 1973 population census gives the Darwin population as being approximately 43,000 persons. There is a need therefore to provide residential and associated facilities for the additional population. The economic figure for development purposes is to work on the basis of 2,000 blocks. Experience with development programs in other areas, as well as in Darwin, shows there is a normal time lapse of 6 years between the decision to develop and the availability of serviced residential blocks.

Senator Webster has said that the people living in the 32 square miles under discussion are opposed to acquisition. Some of them may be, but in the main the biggest majority of them are in support of the Government’s action. They do not want any delay in acquiring this land because some of them have no intention of building there. They want to get the money from the Government, get out and build a house in some other area or even shift away and the longer that this acquisition is delayed, the longer these people have to suffer. The people who have to suffer are the small people; the big man can afford to hang on. I do not want to hold up this debate any longer because I think that all the things that need to be said were said in the previous debate. I just repeat that the Government will not agree to the motion moved by Senator Webster to disallow the ordinance relating to the acquisition of 32 square miles of land in the Northern Territory.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

-The Australian Democratic Labor Party on this occasion is not in favour of the resolution to disallow this ordinance. The ordinance was brought down in June of this year and on that occasion we did lend our votes to its rejection. We studied the matter very deeply in Caucus at that time, as was explained by our then Deputy Leader, Senator McManus. We had examined maps of the area and acquainted ourselves as far as we possibly could with the circumstances of this rapidly growing area and decided at the time that we did not have sufficient knowledge. So we were guided largely by the decision that the Legislative Council made. We have since reviewed the whole matter.

There have been a lot of things said in this debate tonight which I would have thought were unnecessary, for instance that you must be for or against the principle of land acquisition. Of course all political parties have at various times been in a favour of land aquisition. After all, we are standing at this very moment on land which was once acquired. But if the Australian Capital Territory had not been defined and acquired and if the development of Canberra had been left in the hands of private landowners who could reap the harvest of Government developers it is anybody’s guess what some parts of Canberra would have been worth today. My Party has always had a very strong feeling that the defence of this country is of paramount importance. If ever there was an area of Australia which was revealed to have enormous weakness during the last war when Australia became directly involved in conflict for the first time it was the Northern Territory and particularly the area around Darwin with its sparseness of population.

I want to compliment the previous Government on the development at Darwin that it set out to achieve. It did a very good job. Indeed the previous Government did it so well that at the time of its dismissal it was contemplating the very action that is being taken now. Darwin is set upon a peninsula and there is nowhere now for the city to develop other than towards these areas in question. It would appear to me that if today one is in favour of blanketing land areas around Albury-Wodonga to ensure that nobody capitalises on the development planned for that area- and I did not hear too many voices raised in this Parliament over that proposal- one must hold the same philosophy in respect of this area provided one is convinced that it is being followed with reasonable justice. Senator Webster referred to several cases of people who had written to him. They have written to me also. I have a huge file dealing with these people and have noted some of the things that perhaps Senator Webster has missed. It is true, as he says, that one person wrote about a daughter and her husband who acquired 5 acres of scrub country with a hut upon it. They had been unable to pay the high prices which prevailed in the more accessible areas of Darwin and which were brought about by the previous Government developing Darwin in the interests of Australia. People have been encouraged to go there. There has been a scarcity of land and that is why these people had that particular problem. They bought 5 acres of scrub land.

The land is not of high quality and grazes few cattle. This does not seem to be an industry of any significant shape or form because it does not appear that the land is good enough for that industry to be conducted on a real commercial basis. Then one finds that someone had the foresight to acquire 4,800 acres of that land and one immediately says: ‘I wonder what he bought it for.’ I may be wrong but I think he was a very keen fellow and saw the development the Government was making in these areas of Darwin and saw also the potential. I think he will make a very good profit but I do not think he should be allowed to make millions at the expense of the young people whom we are trying to encourage to go to the Territory and settle in areas like Darwin in their own interests and at the same time in the interests of Australia. Something should be done, and not necessarily in the case of this 4,800 acreas only. I can only suspect because I do not know for certain, that there must be some people speculating in this area, otherwise human nature would not be what it is.

Senator Webster:

– I think you are subject to a little speculation every now and then yourself.

Senator LITTLE:

– Of course, and so is Senator Webster. I do not expect from anyone else a virtue which I do not hold. I would have been disappointed if I had been a speculator and found that I was to be restrained in the interests of the rest of the’ community. I would probably have written to Senator Webster and told him of my troubles. But I do not know that that would be in the interests of the people as a whole. If this man was going to lose money, if he was being unjustly treated or was not getting something in return for his business instincts I perhaps would be all the way with Senator Webster. But that would not appear to be the case with 4,800 acres in an area that ultimately must be developed. I remember the development of Housing Commission areas in all the big cities which was made necessary by soldiers coming back from the war. There were areas around Melbourne which had been swamp land for years. Many people speculatively bought the land in a land boom era. Half of the land reverted back to the local councils because of unpaid rates because everything appeared to be so hopeless. Then a blanket was placed over the area and it was acquired by the Housing Commission. Roads were put through, the area was drained and the area was no longer swamp land. Suddenly everybody became interested to find out whether they still owned the land or whether theirs was land sold by the council for unpaid rates. There are stories of enormous injustice. In one of these areas today there is a huge shopping complex. It would never have been built if the Housing Commission had not gone there and developed the area. But I suppose there has been many a small landholder who today would look at the huge shopping complex and say: ‘Gee, my land was worth a million’. His land was acquired by the government of the day. We can all find sad stories in this area.

My Party after researching the subject found that there was an intention on the part of the previous Government to take action in respect of the land in question. Whether it would have been done in precisely the same way or in respect of the same area as a whole would have been a matter for decision by the government of the day. But some action would have been taken even if there had been no change of government. So it is rather foolish to take an entirely political attitude towards this matter. Whatever Government is acting and whatever the Department is advising should be done is surely in the best interests of the whole of the area. And because it happens to be an area where defence and intensification of population are so essential for the whole of Australia it must be done not only in the interests of the development of the city but also in the interests of Australia. In discussions with the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Enderby) on this development we have found that leases are now being issued to those who hold blocks. This will ensure that they have some equity in those blocks in the future. They will be able either to build or further develop a house on that land or they will be given comparable land in the immediate area. Of course one cannot develop a home in the middle of what may be designed at some future stage as a main shopping complex in an area being developed. We cannot allow someone to hang on to one block in the middle of what might be a future Bourke Street.

In those areas where it is decided that there will be development of schools, hospitals! shops and so on certainly the people who own blocks in that area may have to be given a lease over another block on which housing is possible. This is a matter of organisation and of ensuring that justice is done to all the people around the area who are making a contribution to the development of the area by deciding to settle in it.

Senator Webster:

– Are you not overlooking 2 points? I think I am right and you will agree with me that there is no plan for the area.

Senator LITTLE:

– I thank Senator Webster for his help but I will not agree with him there. Can we possibly issue a plan for the whole area and acquaint everyone with what we are going to do? The clamour for increased prices would be enormous. Would Senator Webster sell his block if he saw the plan and discovered that his block was right where the Government was going to build a post office? He would want more for his land. All we would have would be a whole lot of dissatisfied citizens. How can we say to the people that they should have a right to advance knowledge of the plan for the area? Of course, the people who want to acquire blocks will want to acquire them in the most advantageous position. They will want to build their houses close to where the school is going to be. Immediately one would increase the price of land around the school. A certain amount of this will go on as the area develops; that cannot be avoided. But to do it at this stage in an area such as this, I believe, would be unwise. I respect Senator Webster’s intelligence. I think that if he were in charge of this project he would be the first to say: ‘I do not think we should be so foolish’. If one’s land is acquired and one has an assurance from a responsible government agency such as the Department that, if perchance one cannot get the actual block for the reasons I have stated, one will be given a block of reasonable value and development potential for what one is sacrificing, with all things being taken into consideration, that is all right.

A friend of mine had his house in the path of the new bridge across the port of Melbourne and he had to sell it and move. The Government took it over. I did not think that he was dealt with too generously, but certainly one could not accept the principle that four or five houses should hold up a development of that magnitude. He was never quite contented with what he received for his house, but in the development of a project such as that I suppose injustices are always felt by some people while others probably gain more than they would have ever received and are glad to be out of it. One cannot measure these things accurately from individual to individual. When we are in the position of government I think we should err on the side of generosity to people who are inconvenienced in the interests of the rest of the community, because the community is big enough to be generous. I hope that the Department has that in mind in this case. But that generosity should not extend, in the interests of the people who in the future will live in this area and help to develop it by buying blocks, to putting the land on the market at an almost impossible price or the maximum price that can possibly be wrung out of others ‘ pockets so that they then have to build sub-standard houses because the price of the land has been jacked up by speculators.

For these reasons and on the basis of the assurances that have been given to us that these leases are being carefully considered, that a new approach has been taken to them and that better and more acceptable assurances have been given to the people, on this occasion we will not vote for the rejection of the acquisition but will support it. We support it on the lines I have already stated: The absolute essentiality that Darwin must progress and must become a great, major metropolis not only in the interests of the people of Darwin and in the interests of the people who hold this land but in the interests of Australia as a whole.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 24

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1172

QUESTION

HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I would like to add a few words to my notice of motion. Could you guide me as to whether I should seek leave to do so?

The PRESIDENT:

– You can do that by leave, but I think honourable senators would like an indication of the words you propose to add.

Senator KANE:

– I would like to add at the end of the notice of motion the words ‘within secure and defensible borders’. Paragraph (2) would then read:

  1. That the Senate condemns these attacks as endangering world peace; and accordingly, the Senate calls on the Australian Government to use its influence in the Security Council to bring world pressure to bear on Egypt and Syria to withdraw their forces behind the 1967 ceasefire lines and agree to realistic negotiations for a Middle East settlement based on Israel’s right to existence within secure and defensible borders.
The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted to amend the notice of motion? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator KANE:

– Thank you, Mr President. I therefore move:

That the Senate, noting reports that in the hours immediately before the outbreak of war in the Middle East, the Israeli Government, with United States diplomatic help sought to avert hostilities;

Also noting reports that Israel offered assurances to both the Egyptian and Soviet Governments of its peaceful intention in the hope of preventing an outbreak of hostilities:

That despite these Israeli efforts United Nations observers have reported that it was Egyptian and Syrian forces which commenced hostilities by attacking Israeli positions on the cease fire lines along the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights;

Views these attacks by Egypt and Syria on Israeli positions as a grave threat to world stability;

The Senate condemns these attacks as endangering world peace. Accordingly, the Senate calls on the Australian Government to use its influence in the Security Council to bring world pressure to bear on Egypt and Syria to withdraw their forces behind the 1967 cease Are lines and agree to realistic negotiations for a Middle East settlement based on Israel’s right to existence within secure and defensible borders.

It is true to say that for the fourth time in a generation the Arab and Israeli conflict has erupted into a full scale war in the Middle East. It is a fierce and bitter struggle. It is a struggle which involves the expenditure of thousands of millions of dollars on both sides. It involves the use of some of the most sophisticated and deadly weapons of modern warfare. Many lives have already been lost on both sides. It seems that further heavy casualties are inevitable. There can be no doubt that the hostilities matter a great deal to those soldiers fighting in the war. The war matters a great deal to those who are fighting and dying in the Middle East today. It matters a great deal to their families. It matters a great deal to the nations that are locked in this conflict. It is a conflict that must concern deeply the whole world because it is a conflict that presents a very serious threat to the peace and stability of the world.

If we were expecting to be entering a more peaceful era in world affairs, then these hostilities have shattered those expectations. If we were expecting, and no doubt we were, to enter an era of negotiation instead of confrontation then indeed those expectations have been shattered. The attack by Egypt and Syria on the Israeli positions on the other side of the cease fire lines has indeed shattered many of our hopes and expectations. Any analysis of this deeply troublesome situation must be based on the answers to 2 fundamental questions. Those questions are: How did the war begin and why did the war begin? The answer to the first question is that it began with a premeditated and unprovoked attack on Israeli positions. This attack on the Israeli positions was started in the occupied territories along the eastern banks of the Suez Canal, on the Golan Heights, and on the cease fire lines with Syria in the north. The answer to the second question- why did it begin?- is equally important. The short answer is that the war in the Middle East was started by Egypt, backed by Syria, because the Arab states are trying to achieve on the battlefield what they have been unable to achieve in 6 years of manoeuvring in the diplomatic and political arenas. It is a desperate effort by the Arab states to win politically what they failed to achieve on the battlefield in the 6-day war in 1967. The object of the Arab states all along has been to impose its political will on Israel. They have tried to dictate to Israel the terms for settlement and negotiation, but the Israelis, mindful of their security and survival, have consistently found those terms unacceptable.

Might I remind honourable senators that Australia, in common with other middle and smaller powers, must be concerned about this war. We must be concerned because the stability of any region in which the interests of the 2 super powers- that is, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics- are so vitally engaged must be of concern to nations such as ours. We must be concerned because the stability of such a region affects the world balance of power. We must be concerned because it affects the interests of nations and the chances of world peace. The Middle East is, of course, precisely such a region. It is a region in which the strategic and geopolitical importance of the world’s energy resources, trade interests, shipping and communication facilities, and commercial investment all come together in a unique combination.

Apart from this international need to be concerned, Australia has a special interest in this conflict. I say that because Australians have fought and died in the Middle East in 2 World Wars. After the Second World War we played a constructive role in the United Nations in the events which led to the establishment of Israel. I believe we played a very proud role in that indeed. Also Australia traditionally has supported all efforts for a just and equitable settlement of the conflict in the Middle East. Finally, by a chance of circumstance, Australia has found itself in the unique position of presiding over the United Nations Security Council at this crucial time. Our Ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Laurence Mclntyre, acts as chairman of this important repository of the hopes of many people around the world for an end to the fighting.

I said earlier in my remarks that there had been an attack by Egypt and Syria on Israeli positions. While there may be confusion and doubt surrounding the conflicting reports of the present fighting, there is at least one certainty, and that is how the war began. The large scale cease fire violation by Egyptian and Syrian troops, with the movement of thousands of tanks, heavy artillery, missile batteries, transport columns, bridges, helicopters and assault barges, was witnessed and reported by the United Nations observers in the Suez Canal region and on the northern front of the Golan Heights. These independent observers did not report at any stage any prior crossings of the lines by Israeli forces. Even if those independent witnesses and authorities had not confirmed the fact that it was the Arabs who struck first, anybody who has the slightest understanding of warfare would know that an invasion force involving, as it did, 3,000 tanks, 2,000 pieces of heavy artillery and almost 1,000 aircraft on the Egyptian side alone, not to mention the 1,200 tank force on the Syrian side, totalling a minimum of 350,000 men in these 2 armies, cannot be put together without months of planning and preparation. This, I say with emphasis, was not some unpremeditated and spontaneous reaction to an Israeli raid or Israeli provocation. This time there was no Israeli raid and no Israeli provocation.

There is another fact of great importance, and it is this: The attack was launched at 2 p.m. last Saturday, which was Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement. It is the holiest and most solemn day in the Jewish religious calendar. It is a day of fasting and prayer. It is a day when Israel literally comes to a standstill. It is a day when all public transport in Israel stops, when every shop and public service, except for the most essential, closes. All radio broadcasts cease for that day. Even non-religious Jews are to be found in the synagogues. It was because the Arab States thought that they could mount another Pearl Harbour style attack and catch the Israelis unprepared and at their weakest that this day was chosen. There can be no doubt about that. I remind the Senate, and it is worth noting, that Israel was aware of the Arab military preparation in advance of the attack. Israel tried in every way to bring international pressure to bear on the Arabs not to go ahead with their assault. The record shows that a number of third party governments communicated clearly to the Arabs that the Israelis would not take any pre-emptive action against the Arabs if they held back their forces. All attempts made by the United States and other responsible governments to dissuade the Arabs failed.

At this point let me cite another essential fact. It is this: The Arab attack could not have been launched had it not been for the military and political support of the Soviet Union- support about which the Arabs and the Soviet Union have made no secret. It has been not only a matter of Moscow building for the Arab States a massive arsenal of its most advanced weapons but it has been the urging and goading of the Soviet Union which has allowed and enabled the Arabs to feel confident in their military planning. It is worth quoting, and I intend to quote, a prominent American columnist who writes for a very prominent journal. I refer to Mr James Reston who writes from Washington for the ‘New York Times’. It is well known that the ‘New York Times’ is a distinguished journal. The writer to whom I have referred is equally as distinguished. I quote from Mr Reston’s column:

At the end of the May 1972 Summit at the Kremlin, Messrs Nixon and Brezhnev said they were guided by their obligations under the charter of the United Nations. They were aware of the need to make every effort to remove the threat of war and to create the conditions which promote the reduction of tensions.

I remind the Senate that they are the words of Nixon and Brezhnev. According to Reston, they said:

The United States and the Soviet Union have a special responsibility to do everything in their power so that conflicts on situations will not arise which would increase international tension.

I again remind the Senate that they are not Reston’s words but the words of Nixon and Brezhnev. Mr Reston also pointed out:

Yet when the new conflict developed in the Middle East all these noble promises and intentions seem to have been forgotten. Although Mr Nixon appealed to Chairman Brezhnev to cooperate in getting a ceasefire along the Suez … to cooperate in a big power effort to stop the fighting, the plain fact is that Washington got no co-operation.

Reston also said:

Yakob Malik, the Soviet Union ‘s Ambassador, not only supported the military activities of Egypt and Syria against Israel, but criticised the Security Council for even raising the question at the United Nations. Meanwhile, and this is the main point, the information coming to the United Nations was that the Soviet Union while committed to reduce tension under the Nixon-Brezhnev agreement was actually urging Algeria, Lebanon and particularly the King of Jordan to get into the war against Israel. This is not a casual or frivolous report.

I remind the Senate that these comments came from none other than James Reston. In conclusion, let me say that today we hear authoritative reports that the Soviet Union is re-supplying heavy weapons to the Egyptians and the Syrians and that the war is to be a long and bitter one. In view of all these facts, it is essential, I believe, to establish clearly how the war began, not only so that the aggressors and their supporters can be condemned but, even more importantly, to understand what the war is about and what is at stake. Most important of all, understanding what is happening matters because it helps to ensure that we can express Australia’s interests in calling for an end to the fighting on a basis which might hopefully lead to some settlement of the long standing Arab-Israeli conflict rather than a basis which merely sows the seeds for a fifth deadly round of hostilities after this fourth round is over. It is for those reasons that I commend the motion to the Senate.

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) put.

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Ayes………. 37

Noes………. 5

Majority……. 32

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Kane) proposed:

That the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

- Mr President, I rise to speak to the motion that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. I think that it is very important that the substance of that motion be recognised on this occasion. What has been said tonight by Senator Kane expresses a concern which is felt by all people who want to see a cessation of hostilities in the Middle East. I am quite sure that the cogency of the arguments that he has advanced are not lessened by the fact that the debate on his motion is not proceeding immediately. I think it is highly important that the Senate, before it moves in an area which is of vital and worldwide importance should have available to it information from the Government. As Senator Kane indicated, he is relying to a very considerable extent on reports which have emanated from the area of conflict. For all I know what has appeared in the newspapers may be totally correct. But I feel that it is obligatory upon the Senate to obtain- and certainly the Opposition in the Senate feels, that it should have- what factual material the Government can provide upon which a decision can be made.

Of course, this motion was introduced into the Senate by notice of motion only yesterday. It came on for debate this evening and Senator Kane has expressed his proposition in support of the motion. I think that he would agree unquestionably that decisions of this character in the field of international conflict where war is still occurring ought to be based upon factual information as to what has occurred. Where we have a motion of the character that has been moved by Senator Kane which attributes blame very forcefully I feel that the basis of that blame should be well established. I am not suggesting for one moment that the newspaper reports to which he has referred and the information upon which he has relied will not transpire to be factual information. The only concern that the Opposition has is that we should have this basis verified for us. I believe that the Government is doing what it can to bring an end to the hostility.

It would be incredible if the Australian representative at the United Nations particularly as he is the Chairman of the United Nations Security Council for this month, were not doing his utmost to ensure that there is a bringing together of the parties. I would hope that amongst the action that is being taken there is every effort to dissuade and prevent supplies and arms being given to the Egyptian forces, as has been reported is occurring. Equally, if arms are being supplied to the other parties I believe that the Security Council should be doing what it can in that area also to bring about an end to the fighting. I am not taking any sides in this conflict at the present time because I would like to have the basis upon which I hold certain personal views completely verified.

We have adjourned this motion tonight not because there is any desire to prevent a speedy determination of this motion but because as a matter of courtesy it has always been acknowledged that if the Government wants an adjournment of a matter which has been raised it should be granted it. We have done that consistently in relation to general business items this year. It has been done in other years when there was a different government. I certainly hope that the exceptions to this rule which have occurred in recent times will not be repeated and that when the Opposition seeks an adjournment of a matter that adjournment will be granted to the Opposition. That is one of the basic arrangements in the Senate which are departed from only in exceptional circumstances. But having said that, and having explained what might have seemed a curiosity in such a serious and sensitive area, I think it is proper to point out that this debate ought to be resumed as soon as possible and on the basis of the information which the Government can provide as to what are the factual bases upon which the resolution was moved.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

-I think it is to be regretted that the propositions which have been advanced by Senator Greenwood in relation to the motion now before the Chair, that this matter be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, were not advanced by him on behalf of his Party on the motion that the debate be now adjourned. It was at that point of time that the Senate was being asked, in essence, to consider whether the matter was of sufficient urgency to be proceeded with immediately, or whether it could be allowed to stand aside. The motion moved on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party was quite clear. It was a matter of the highest urgency. One Opposition senator, Senator Bonner, saw fit to support us in that vote. But if Senator Greenwood had placed his proposition before the Senate on that motion, conceivably he may have persuaded other honourable senators one way or the other.

This is a most important and urgent matter, and to say that even a week is not an undue delay in these circumstances is not a viable proposition. After all, this conflict is a perpetuation of the 6-Day War. On that occasion the whole of 2 nations went to war, and the war, in modern terms and with sophisticated weapons, was concluded in 6 days. It might take longer on this occasion. But we are not speaking in terms of weeks or months. We may be speaking in terms of hours as to the settlement or not of this conflict. Therefore, there was a particular note of urgency about the proposition which was advanced to the Senate by Senator Kane on behalf of the Democratic Labor Party. That motion should have been carried. It should have gone forward as a resolution from this Senate. With the matter coming before the United Nations Security Council, presided over by our own Australian Ambassador, it was of very great significance and could have been of very compelling significance. Unfortunately, this resolution does not now go forward.

After all, only the other night the Senate unanimously passed a resolution to go to the United Nations on the question of the dissident intellectuals in the Soviet Union. That resolution went to the United Nations because we thought that was the forum in which the rights of those people could be protected and defended. Surely this is a matter that equally and with urgency could similarly have gone from this chamber to the international organisation. Obviously on that occasion we considered that a formal resolution from the upper chamber of the national Parliament would have some international effect on the participants in the discussion at the United Nations. Is it any different tonight, or is it not a fortiori more important that we should have sent a resolution from this chamber to the international body to fortify our Ambassador as he sits there as Chairman of the Security Council? Was it not of supreme importance? Now we have denied the opportunity to ourselves and to our Ambassador. It would have fortified him tremendously in his chairmanship of that particularly sensitive body in this tremendous conflict.

Therefore, I am gravely disappointed that the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party did not see fit to support our proposition on this occasion, and I am equally disappointed that the Government saw fit to adjourn the matter. As notice of the motion was given yesterday, I think that it could have been easily possible to mobilise all the evidence that is available. As Senator Kane said, whatever may be the confusion that now rests in the conflict, certain things are inescapably established. There are the clear acts of aggression by the Arab nations against Israel. That was incontrovertible; that was the thing we were condemning. All the research in the world will obviously no more confute that than it would be possible to confute the unasked aggression by Japan at Pearl Harbour. That was something that could not be contradicted then or in history. Similarly, the aggression on this occasion cannot be contradicted.

A week’s adjournment cannot do anything to obviate or to excuse or to explain that. That matter was obviously clear. There was before the Senate the clearest evidence on which the Senate tonight could have made a definitive judgment, but it has elected not to do so. We can only hope that the delay by the Senate in doing this and bringing the matter on for debate next week will not have the unfortunate consequences that may now flow from this action. We hope anyhow, that next week when this matter comes on for debate we will get a resolution from the Senatethe one that we could and should have got tonight.

The Democratic Labor Party is gravely concerned and bitterly disappointed that there was not sufficient sensitivity in this chamber to allow this proposition to go to a vote in order to assist this nation which is fighting for its existence against superior forces and the tremendous pressures which surround that small piece of territory in the Middle East. I hope that on the next occasion there will be unanimous support by the Senate for the resolution which tonight the Senate would not face up to and in respect of which the motion was defeated by a combination of the Government and the great majority- except one- of members of the Opposition.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I know that it is terribly dangerous to say in this place that one will be brief, but I intend to be brief. I do not intend to canvass the issues but only the motion before the chamber. I rise for one reason only. I hope that I am not doing Senator Byrne an injustice, but when he first rose to speak I thought that he was somewhat critical of the fact that Senator Greenwood did not put his point of view when the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) moved that the debate be now adjourned.

Senator Byrne:

– I thought it would have been more appropriate.

Senator WITHERS:

-I suggest that Senator Byrne should read standing order 431 which states that that motion must be put without debate.

Senator Byrne:

– He could have spoken by leave.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is a new one that Senator Byrne has just thought up.

Senator Byrne:

– It is not a bad one, though.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, but the honourable senator has just thought it up. The original burden of Senator Byrne’s complaint was that Senator Greenwood did not speak to the motion that the debate be now adjourned. That is what he said. All I am saying is that under the Standing Orders Senator Greenwood was not permitted to speak to that motion.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– All I want to do is express some sympathy for Senator Byrne’s stand because obviously he does not know the purpose of adjourning the debate on

Senator Kane’s motion. I thought that it was explained by Senator Greenwood. The debate was adjourned because of the urgency of this matter. There is a war going on and people are actually dying. Anything that we can effectively do to bring a termination to the hostilities should be our aim in this matter. The motion was moved tonight in order to send to the United Nations an expression of opinion by the Senate. Senator Byrne mentioned how we passed a similar resolution last week. You, Mr President, will remember that you were asked whether you had carried out the wish of the Senate and your reply was that you had; that that resolution went along to the United Nations with the other 100,000 expressions of opinion from different organisations.

Senator Wright:

– A remark that never should have been made.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It was factual.

Senator Wright:

– It is not in regard to the importance of that resolution.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I accept it as factual. Now we want to send along another resolution. Do we get 100,00 1 resolutions on the list for consideration?

Senator Byrne:

– This one is the Security Council; the other one was the Committee on Human Rights.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-What would be the attitude of the Security Council to an expression of opinion from one House of the Australian Parliament? If we could get an expression from the Government as to Australia’s attitude -

Senator Kane:

– When are we going to get that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I do not want to canvass the merits of the question. But Australia is active in this matter. It has a policy, and it is doing its utmost to bring about a settlement and peace in this conflict in accordance with United Nations resolutions and agreements. That is our policy. As I said, we have an ambassador at the United Nations at the present time and he is the Chairman of the Security Council. We are not letting him function for the purpose of bringing about a settlement if we make an expression of opinion in this chamber, because we then align ourselves with one side in this conflict and we become the allies of a participant in the conflict. That is not the way to settle this conflict.

The saving of lives is the thing we are concerned about. If we are concerned about the saving of lives, then we must see what the Government is doing in this matter. I say that the Government is acting for that purpose. We hope in the very near future to report on the Government’s activity. Our representatives have been very active in the Security Council on this matter. Then we will have a more effective voice in the Security Council in relation to this conflict. There is no desire on the part of the Government to prolong the war or to stop any action towards peace. It is in the interests of the most effective action in this conflict that tonight we have moved the adjournment of the debate. Then there will not be a resolution supporting one side of the conflict, which is contrary to Government activity. The Government is trying to settle the dispute. The settlement of this dispute should be the concern and interest of every one in this chamber.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-When I learnt this evening that it was proposed that this debate should be adjourned after one speech, I was dismayed. I assumed that it was to be adjourned with the agreement of all elements of the Opposition. I refused to vote for the adjournment of the debate when I realised that the proponents resisted it. I rise to dissociate myself from any justificaiton for that point of view, completely and unequivocally. If the Government of Australia, after notice that hostilities have broken out in the Middle East with all their potential of explosive repercussions of world war, is not ready to respond to this motion at 10 o’clock on Thursday night or, if need be, at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning, it is a disgrace to the country.

Yesterday Senator Kane gave notice of a very purposeful motion indicating an intense interest in a conflict with the potential to which I have referred. If the Government is not prepared to declare its attitude tonight because it wants an adjournment, for God’s sake let us have a 12-hour adjournment until tomorrow, but not until next week. Is the Senate going to surrender any participation in responsibility in this matter of war and peace in the Middle East, which it is suggested involves great powers, by the expression of a point of view after purposeful discussion? We have a duty to speak now. That is why I left the chamber when I realised that the motion was not being voted on with the support of the proponents. For God’s sake, Mr President, with a war of this sort in the Middle East and with all that has been developing there for 10 years -

Senator Cavanagh:

– We will seek to prolong the war by taking sides.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I want the Government to declare its attitude, from all its secret information, and to guide the Parliament. But it waits, retreats, gives industrial matters preference and gives its partisan attitude and prejudice preference. I want the Government to declare its response- if not tonight, then tomorrow, but not next week- in matters of world war or peace.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I rise to express my personal view on this matter. I think that a vital principle regarding the role of the Senate is involved. Senator Wright has reminded us that we are faced with the ghastly reality of a war with a tremendous potential of world involvement. In a situation of this kind it is the responsibility of the Government of Australia to express the opinion of the Government I believe that it is not the role of the Senate to initiate or to attempt to initiate a policy for the Parliament of Australia. We are not here for that and that is not our role. I believe that we would have a role as a House of Review if we disagreed with the Government’s pronouncement. But I believe that we in this chamber have no right to attempt to initiate a commitment or to commit the people of Australia on a matter of this sort. The matter is far too serious for us to take this sort of action on any ground that we have had submitted to us. I think that we must await a decision of the Government on the matter.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I do not want to belabour the question. I think that people on all sides of this chamber tonight are fully imbued with the need to promote peace in the Middle East. But I think, as Senator Prowse suggested- I think that there was a misunderstanding by Senator Wright- that it would be absolutely stupid to say, because this proposal has been adjourned, that nothing is happening. Whether we like it or not, the Australian representative at the United Nations is in the hot seat. People are asking: ‘What is the Government doing?’. Months ago the Labor Party Federal Conference was held at Surfers Paradise and many people have talked about it. We laid down a clear-cut policy based on the original United Nations policy. There was a reference by Senator Wright to industrial matters. There is a similarity because there is a cooling off in industrial issues just as there is in this matter. As a matter of fact, I point out for the information of Senator Kane who talked about the attitude of the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that President Nixon was deemed to be pro-Israeli, but he also is keeping his powder dry.

It is not a question of being unaware of a small country assailed by larger countries; it is a question of getting a ceasefire, as Senator Cavanagh expressly stressed. Are we going to argue what can be done with the velvet glove rather than the mailed fist? When I respectfully asked my leaders how we could save political refugees in Chile, it was indicated to me that it was better to let our diplomats handle the job in Santiago than to rock the boat. Honourable senators can talk to me about the number of bodies and say that probably more people are lying dead tonight on the Golan Heights -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Mulvihill, you must relate your remarks to the substantive matter.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I am referring to the question before us on the basis of the precedents which have been established. Senator Cavanagh referred to the role of the Australian Government in mediating. I am sure that we are not putting the matter in cold storage. It would be absolutely stupid to say that in the interval of one week until we come back again, the Australian representative at the United Nations will be almost a eunuch and that nothing is happening. Of course something is happening. We all want to see a cessation of hostilities. We know the pros and cons of the issue. I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination we are endeavouring to abdicate from our responsibilities. It simply gets back to what Senator Cavanagh said; that is, that our representatives at the United Nations certainly will be vigilant in their job. But, on the other hand, let us look at the other traditional attitudes. As I have said, if it is good enough for President Nixon to keep his powder dry and if honourable senators accept that- they have never criticised him- then they can be equally tolerant about the role of the Australian Prime Minister.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1178

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTATION (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) BILL 1973

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 1178

STATES GRANTS (PETROLEUM) PRODUCTS) BILL 1973

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 1178

TERRITORY AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The need to introduce this Bill and the 2 Bills which follow arises from the establishment of the Darwin Community College. The new college, which is expected to begin teaching in March 1974, has been established as a statutory authority under an ordinance of the Northern Territory. There are, however, certain provisions that cannot be encompassed within the ambit of a Territory ordinance and it is therefore necessary to enact them in complementary legislation by the Australian Parliament. The matters to which I refer relate to financial provisions, air accidents liability and superannuation. This Bill covers the first of these matters.

The Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Bill 1973 includes certain financial provisions that normally apply to statutory authorities established by an enactment of this Parliament. These provisions relate to the payment to a statutory authority incorporated by a law of a Territory of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of that authority, and empower the Treasurer to give directions as to the amounts in which and the times at which the moneys are to be paid. The Bill makes provision not only for the Darwin Community College but also for any authority that may be incorporated in future for a public purpose by a law of a Territory and prescribed by regulation under the Act. Its effect would be to remove the need for further specific legislation by the Australian Parliament in relation to other authorities that may be similarly established in future. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 1179

AIR ACCIDENTS (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT LIABILITY) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

-! move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

I explained the need for this Bill in my second reading speech on the Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Bill 1973. The Air Accidents (Australian Government Liability) Bill 1973 amends the principal Act to provide that any body corporate that is incorporated for a public purpose by a law of a Territory may, where appropriate, be declared by regulations to be a body corporate to which the Act applies. This method of dealing with Territory instrumentalities will enable not only the Darwin Community College to be prescribed but also any other appropriate Territory authorities, thus avoiding the need for further amendments to the principal Act. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 1179

SUPERANNUATION BILL (No. 3) 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

As honourable senators will recall, I explained the need for this Bill in my second reading speech on the Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Bill 1973. The Bill provides for the application of the Superannuation Act to the

Principal and staff of the Darwin Community College. Because of the need to extend superannuation cover from the date the College legally came into existence, the amendment is deemed to operate with retrospective effect from 19 July 1973. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 1180

SHELTERED EMPLOYMENT (ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill is designed to increase the scope of the sheltered employment assistance program in 2 ways. Firstly, it enables local governing bodies to use borrowed money to attract subsidy for sheltered workshops and hostels or other types of residential units for handicapped people. Secondly it provides that, if a local governing body borrows money and donates that money to another eligible organisation to use for the purposes described, it will continue to attract subsidy.

Since Australian Government assistance for sheltered workshops was introduced, about 6 years ago, there has been a significant development of sheltered workshops. Last year the invalid pension bill was $ 184.7m. This is the equivalent of each wage and salary earner contributing $40 a year to maintain his fellow workers who have been deemed unfit for competitive employment. There are now about 150,000 people between the ages of 16 and 65 years who have been granted invalid pension on the grounds that they are permanently incapacitated for work. Mostly these are people who, were they not disabled, would be working in commerce, industry or the public service. This figure, in isolation, does not mean very much.

But consider it in relation to the total number of employed wage and salary earners which, according to the latest information issued by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, is 4.7 million. Seen in this context it means that, for every 30 wage and salary earners in Australia, one person has been declared an invalid. The figure would be even higher if repatriation pensioners were taken into account. Clearly, then, any move that is going to enable the handicapped to achieve some measure of economic independence is going to be in the interests not only of the handicapped people themselves but also of the whole community.

Cost-benefit studies have shown that the costs to the Commonwealth of rehabilitating persons to be placed in employment are likely to be recovered, by way of reduced pensions and benefit liability and additional tax paid on earnings, in a minimum period of 4 years. Thus, on economic grounds alone, there are sound reasons why this Government should proceed with its plans for a substantial increase in the rehabilitation program. But it will not develop these programs in isolation, as has been the case in the past. It will ensure that they are integrated and comprehensive, that they are balanced and relative to needs, and that they are constantly evaluated to ensure that they are maximising rehabilitation benefits for the community.

In any such program sheltered workshops are a most important ingredient. But they are not, and never will be, the whole answer to this problem. The Australian Government’s rehabilitation service must play a bigger role in helping people to get jobs for which they are suited; not only those who become disabled during their working life but also the many school-leavers who each year find it difficult, sometimes impossible, because of a physical or mental handicap, to find employment. Moves are now being made to expand the Service to do this. There are now some 160 sheltered workshops approved under the Act, employing more than 8,000 people, mostly invalid pensioners. A survey made earlier this year revealed that the annual level of production in the approved sheltered workshops exceeded $llm, compared with only $2.2m seven years ago. As well as providing handicapped people with the opportunity to augment their pension income, sheltered workshops provide a social environment; a place away from the home or hostel with which they can identify; where they can make friends and feel that they have a purpose. They also serve an important function in preparing handicapped people for employment in outside industry. Last year, for example, it was claimed that more than 500 disabled workers left the sheltered workshops for jobs outside. While many of these people do not obtain permanent employment in outside industry, it means that they do not become wholly isolated from the community.

As with most other subsidy assisted schemes, the present program of assistance to sheltered workshops has the disadvantage that its effectiveness depends on the initiative being taken by voluntary bodies and other eligible organisations. It is also dependent on organisations that are interested in starting a sheltered workshop having sufficient funds to attract subsidy for the project. Because of these factors there is a marked geographical imbalance in the establishment of workshops. Almost half of the existing sheltered workshops are in New South Wales. In Newcastle, for example, there are 5 approved workshops, most of them multi-diagnostic, providing employment for more than 400 handicapped people. On the other hand, in the western suburbs of Melbourne, with a population of almost half a million, there are only 2 approved sheltered workshops providing employment for 90 people; one of these workshops catering mainly for spastics and the other for mental retardates. Local governing bodies have played a big part in sponsoring the development of workshops in many overseas countries, where sheltered employment has long been accepted as a valuable form of self help for the handicapped. They have also been able to ensure that they are established in areas of greatest need. This does not always occur when these decisions are left to voluntary organisations.

I wish to make it clear to honourable senators that this Bill is not intended to bring about any of the major reforms that are required to meet the basic human needs and rights of the handicapped citizen. It would be premature to attempt to do so at this stage. Sheltered employment must be seen as one part, albeit an important part, of an overall plan to aid the handicapped. Any major changes must be related to other rehabilitation measures and accordingly must await the outcome of investigations that are now being undertaken by the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Woodhouse. Honourable senators would be aware, of course, that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has already given an undertaking that the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare on the mentally and physically handicapped relating to sheltered workshops and other matters, insofar as they are an Australian Government responsibility, will be implemented by this Government. We are not suggesting that all the recommendations will be introduced in one year or even in one Parliament, but we are currently working on a program which will allow us to move as quickly as possible on those recommendations which are properly the responsibility of the Australian Government.

As a means of serving the continuing needs of the disabled, the Government is going to establish a National Council for the Handicapped. The personnel appointed to this Council will be among the most distinguished, able and experienced in the field of rehabilitation. The Council will have a major responsibility for the general welfare of the handicapped and, because of the importance with which this is regarded, it will be reporting direct to the Prime Minister. By extending the subsidy provisions to money borrowed by local governing bodies, it is hoped that this Bill will encourage these bodies to take a greater interest in this practical form of assistance to the handicapped. Initially it is not expected that wide use will be made of the greater availability of subsidy and the added expenditure for 1973-74 is not expected to exceed $200,000. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1181

HANDICAPPED CHILDREN (ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This is the second of 2 Bills the purpose of which is to enable local governing bodies to make a greater contribution to the welfare of handicapped people. The first of these Bills was to make it possible for local governing bodies to use borrowed money, either directly or by donating borrowed funds to other eligible organisations, to attract subsidy towards the capital cost of sheltered workshops and residential accommodation units for handicapped people. The purpose of this Bill is to make similar provisions in relation to training centres, training equipment and residential units for handicapped children. It will provide the means whereby local governing bodies, by using borrowed money, will be able to help in meeting the need for these facilities.

To date, local governing bodies have not concerned themselves greatly in this area of social activity. Representatives of these bodies have more often called public meetings where responsibility for planning a training centre or hostel, and raising the necessary finance, has been vested in a committee of local residents. Quite a few local governing bodies have made land available for projects, but usually without becoming directly involved. Since the program was introduced little more than 3 years ago, there has, however, been a strong demand from voluntary and religious organisations for assistance by way of subsidy, and to the end of the last financial year grants totalling more than $7m had been approved. Most of these grants have been for training centres but $1.4m has been used to provide residential accommodation. Grants for training equipment have totalled $0.9m.

With the introduction of the recommendations of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, relating to the education and training of handicapped children, it is probable that there will be a reduction in the assistance sought by voluntary and religious organisations under the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act. It is likely, however, that this development will affect only school buildings and training centres and probably some of the equipment needs. It will not help to meet the demand for assistance towards urgently needed hostels and other residential accommodation units. Indeed, some voluntary organisations have already announced that they plan to concentrate their future efforts on providing residential accommodation, especially for mentally retarded children.

Even though local governing bodies in Australia have not, in the past, concerned themselves greatly with the direct responsibility of meeting the needs of handicapped children, this Bill will open the way for them to do so by the use of borrowed money. It will also ensure that the respective provisions of the two pieces of related legislation are kept in line. The added expenditure resulting from this measure is not expected to exceed $100,000 for 1973-74. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1182

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

On 3 April 1973 the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) announced that Cabinet had that day approved the establishment of a commission on social welfare to make recommendations to the Government on the development of social welfare in Australia. The need for setting up the Social Welfare Commission is based on the new emphasis we have given to the recognition of adequate welfare systems as being a public right which contributes to the well-being of the total Australian community. This new philosophy demands a change of emphasis in government policy and in welfare programs.

Because of the new dignity which such a philosophy gives to the recipients of welfare services, it is the role of the Commission to evolve strategies which will enable those people in the problem situation to take part in the planning of immediate objectives and long term goals. Moreover it is the role of the Commission to monitor existing programs, institute research projects, conduct public consultations, and to ensure that those who use the welfare services are involved in the evaluation of the relevance of welfare programs to their needs. In developing new goals, implementing long term planning and setting priorities in the welfare field, the Commission is charged with the task of taking an overall view of social policy, which encompasses such areas as education, housing, health services, employment policies and other matters, as well as the more specific issues of income-security payments and personal welfare services.

The concept and role of the Social Welfare Commission is a most exciting one. In future there will be a rational development of welfare programs in the community. More importantly programs will be developed flexibly and largely guided by priorities identified locally. When the Australian Assistance Plan is fully operationalthe Commission is drafting the plan and will test pilot programs and evaluate the need for alternative and supplemental measures- the social welfare needs of Australia will be released from the heavy hand of centralism which defined programs in the past.

I would assert quite firmly that the development of social welfare programs in this country to date has been blighted by the way in which past governments as a matter of centralised decision-making determined priorities- and not many priorities at that either- and then by implication indicated to the community that if areas were either unsuitable or had no need for these particular programs then that was tough luck; they missed out altogether. For instance, of what use are programs for the aged, expected in a limited way, in the rapidly burgeoning areas in the fringe suburbs of our cities where young families often on low and inadequate incomes are congregated? Similarly, the reverse situation would apply if a rigid commitment were made as a matter of centralised policy making that the priority would be given to programs for the needs of the young families while the needs of the aged were ignored.

In any event the special needs of particular areas, for instance, have been totally neglected in altogether too many instances by the rigid nature of previous Canberra centred decision making. Programs just have not allowed for the diversity of the nation’s social economic and cultural pattern between regions. Accordingly the response to the welfare needs of these regions has been inadequate and often irrelevant. Local communities know their needs best and that is why we will be stressing regionalised administrations with as much regionalised decision making about priorities as possible in the application of programs. This will allow for a flexibility and diversity of programs attuned to the varying needs of this wide-ranging country of ours. 1 should also mention that when the Australian Assistance Plan- now being developed by the Government- is fully operational, community based voluntary welfare services will be fostered and stimulated with generous support so that the service provided and the organisations providing them are related to, and are identified with the community in which they operate. Again the stress is on flexibility and local autonomy. It emphasises and encourages local initiatives. The only display of centralism in this exercise is the display of responsible decision making by the Australian Government, which has established the Social Welfare Commission and which in turn directed the Commission to develop the Australian Assistance Plan according to guidelines set down by the Government in order that the administration and operation of social welfare programs and key decision making affecting their direction are very much a local community concern.

Since the Cabinet approval the Commission has been operating on an interim basis. The Bill before the House is not a complex one. It is simply its purpose to establish the Commission formally and to set out its powers and functions. The Bill provides that the Commission shall consist of 1 1 Commissioners-a full time Chairman, a full time Deputy Chairman and 9 part time Commissioners. The period of appointment in the case of the Chairman is up to 7 years, in the case of the Deputy Chairman up to 5 years, and In the case of the part time Commissioners up to y ears. The Chairman of the Commission is iMrs Marie Coleman who, prior to her appointment, was Director of the Victorian Council of Social Service. The position of Deputy Chairman has not yet been filled but all 9 part time Commissioners have been appointed. They are: Professor R. G. Brown, Mrs Sadie Canning, Mrs Edna R. Chamberlain, Mr Charles H. Fitzgibbon, Professor C. P. Harris, Mr Tom Roper, Professor E. G. Saint, Reverend Keith Seaman and MrG.T. A. Sullivan, Q.C.

The detailed functions of the Commission as set out in the Bill, but which I will repeat for the information of honourable senators, are:

To ascertain, and report to the Minister on, the social welfare needs of the community and to make recommendations to the Minister in respect of those needs. To make recommendations to the Minister for furthering the achievement of a nationally integrated social welfare plan, including:

Recommendations of priorities in relation to social welfare programs. Recommendations for the development of social welfare programs on a regional basis with localised administration.

Recommendations for the participation in the implementation of social welfare programs of representatives of the persons or agencies to be assisted.

Recommendations for the coordination of the social welfare activities of organisations, including State, local government and voluntary organisations, involved in the provision of social welfare.

Recommendations for the adjustment, from time to time, of social welfare programs in the light of changing community circumstances and attitudes and the state of the economy.

Recommendations for avoiding the duplication of social welfare programs and for promoting the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the community social welfare effort.

To estimate, and report to the Minister on, the likely cost of proposed social welfare programs and to advise the Minister on the relative priorities to be given to the implementation of those programs.

To keep social welfare programs under constant review and to re-assess and evaluate those programs in the light of experience.

To propose to the Minister measures to give all organisations, including State, local government and voluntary organisations, concerned with social welfare access to available information and technical assistance.

To consider, and report to the Minister on, measures designed to provide skilled staff for the successful implementation of social welfare programs.

Such other functions in connection with social welfare programs as the Minister approves.

In connection with the functions of the Commission, honourable senators will recall that the need for social planning at the regional level was recognised in a major election proposal, the Australian Assistance Plan. The aim of the Australian Assistance Plan is to assist in the development at a regional level, within a nationally coordinated framework, of integrated patterns of welfare services, complementary to income support programs and the welfare related aspects of health, education, housing, employment, migration and other social policies. Further information concerning the Australian Assistance Plan is contained in discussion paper No. 1 prepared by the Interim Committee of the Social Welfare Commission which the Minister for Social Security tabled in the House of Representatives on 30 August 1973. On that date the Minister also tabled the first report of the Interim Committee. Under the powers conferred on it by the Bill the Commission may, with the approval of the Minister, conduct an inquiry, including a public inquiry, into any matter being investigated by the Commission. It may also arrange for individuals or organisations to carry out research projects on its behalf. The Commission will, of course, have the right to confer with, and accept submissions from people and organisations including governments.

An important provision in the Bill is that which requires all reports of the Commission to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. Such reports will include not only those requested by the Minister but also those initiated by the Commission. These public reports will serve as a standard by which the Australian people will be able to judge the Government’s performance in the social welfare area having regard to the information provided and the recommendations made to it in the Commission’s reports.

The establishment of the Social Welfare Commission is a further demonstration of the Government’s commitment to introduce democratic participation into national government. The charter of the Commission is a broad one. Its aims are ambitious. The task not easy. But we are confident that the work of the Commissionwhich will facilitate informed public discussion of welfare needs and priorities- will be invaluable in devising new policies and the establishment of a better social welfare system for all Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

page 1185

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Company Taxation

Australian Currency: Identity of Ship

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 October 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19731011_senate_28_s57/>.