Senate
22 November 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 10.15 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2029

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Petition

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 138 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

1 ) That Australian citizens place great value on their freedom to choose their own doctor in all aspects of medical care.

That we believe in a doctor’s freedom to provide a personal service based on personal responsibility within a system based on quality rather than quantity, as opposed to an impersonal service in which doctor and patient lose their identity.

3 ) That proposals to change the existing health scheme are unacceptable to the people of Australia.

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

Petition received and read.

page 2029

QUESTION

MIDDLE EAST CRISIS: WORLD WIDE UNITED STATES ALERT

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has noted the statement reported to have been made publicly yesterday by the United States Ambassador that Australia had learned within moments of its implementation of the world wide United States alert during the Middle East crisis? Will he confirm that the facts are as stated by the Ambassador?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I saw the report. In fact, I have before me the report in the ‘Canberra Times’ of Mr Marshall Green’s speech made yesterday. It states:

Australia learnt of the world wide United States alert during the Middle East war ‘moments’ after it was implemented, the United States Ambassador, Mr Green, said today.

We did know after it went through North West Cape that the alert was on. But at no stage were we informed offically by the Americans that the alert was on.

page 2029

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade which relates to a matter of extremely great importance to the economy of this country. It concerns the much featured statement in today’s Press by Dr J. F. Cairns, the Minister for Overseas Trade, that the Australian Industry Development Board will meet shortly and will be compelled to make considerable cuts in the activities of the Australian Industries Development Corporation. He attributes this to delay in dealing with the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill and suggests that the Board believes that this delay is causing considerable difficulty in its operations. Now, it has been clearly understood that the Board in this matter was keeping silent and did not wish to be brought into the area of political and public controversy. As the Minister has now broken that understanding in regard to the Board will he now call upon it as an expert body, which contains many of Australia ‘s most respected businessmen, to state its view of the proposed expansion of the Corporation’s activities?

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

-The question is based upon an alleged statement by the Minister and I ask that it be put on notice.

page 2029

QUESTION

CONVERSION OF BLACK AND WHITE TELEVISION SETS TO COLOUR OPERATION

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for the Media noted reports in the Press that 2 students in Melbourne have developed what is claimed to be a cheap method of converting black and white television sets to colour operation? Will the Minister advise the Senate whether this claim is a valid one and could result in the reduction of the cost of colour television to Australians and other people throughout the world?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I had noticed the reports and because I assumed that a question of this nature would be asked of me I have been in touch with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to obtain some relevant information. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has been aware of the work being done by these students for some time now and has been waiting until the students have completed their work to make an assessment of the feasibility of their idea. The Board’s engineers are in fact inspecting their equipment at this moment as they have been all morning, and will give it a further detailed inspection tomorrow morning at a demonstration which is being organised for interested members of the industry.

It should be made plain that the system devised by these students requires the complete replacement of the tube of the television set by a new colour tube. There is no way known to engineers that can produce a colour picture on a black and white picture tube, and the colour tube is one of the most important components in a colour television set. It should also be made plain that at this stage any estimate of the costs involved in converting a black and white set to colour by this method must be regarded as a matter for very careful and detailed analysis. Without wishing in any way to dampen the enthusiasm of the people involved, I would like to suggest that this proposal will require very careful consideration from a cost point of view. The engineering staff of the Broadcasting Control Board will investigate technical and cost aspects thoroughly. At this stage I urge members of the public to adopt a waiting attitude to the possibility of converting their sets. In the electronics area it is often possible to make technical developments that are quite feasible on the laboratory bench but less feasible in the market place where costs have to be taken into account. No one is more eager than I or the Board to see these young men make a successful breakthrough that may be of benefit to the Australian public, and the Government will assist where it can.

page 2030

QUESTION

TRAVEL BY AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON RAAF AIRCRAFT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question without notice- and I do not expect the Minister to have anything to read from- is addressed to the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. When the Minister is able to give the information will he state whether it is customary for representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission or other news media to be permitted to travel in Royal Australian Air Force aircraft during any search operations in which the RAAF is taking part? If it is not, will the Minister institute inquiries to ascertain why and by whom the RAAF was instructed to take ABC representatives on RAAF aircraft of their choice during the search for the crew of the ill-fated ‘Blythe Star’? Will he also inquire whether operational conversations between the RAAF crew and search and rescue headquarters were recorded by an ABC representative without the knowledge or permission of the captain of the aircraft?

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The question calls for a lot of information about the recent search, which I do not have. I suggest the best course is to put the question on notice and I will obtain the information.

page 2030

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: JOURNALISTS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for the Media noted that it has been reported that journalists employed on metropolitan daily newspapers have, as a result of an arbitrated decision, been awarded wage and salary increases? Will the Minister confer with the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to ensure that the base rate for ABC journalists is brought into line with the increased rates applying to journalists working for metropolitan dailies?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have already conferred with the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who has informed me that the full details of the metropolitan dailies award are not available as yet and therefore at this stage it is too early to make a comparison of pay rates. Penalty rates of pay have to be taken into account, of course, in the making of a comparison. As the honourable senator will know, journalists employed by the Commission and also by Radio Australia recently were granted for the first time penalty rates for weekend work. I can assure the honourable senator that the matter he has raised has not been overlooked by me. I think it is fair to say that since the Government assumed office more has been done by the Commission to improve the working conditions of journalists in its employ than had ever been done previously.

page 2030

QUESTION

TAIWAN: VISITS BY AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, or any other Minister who is responsible for this matter, the following question: Is any Australian citizen who is a civil servant prohibited from visiting Taiwan in a private capacity? If so, how is he so prohibited, and what is the reason for this abrogation of human rights?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This question was addressed to me in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. I am given to understand- this is subject to correction- that no Australian private citizen is prevented by the Australian Government from visiting Taiwan. But, in any event, I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Immigration in another place in order to obtain the correct answer for the honourable senator.

page 2030

QUESTION

ADOPTION OF ABORIGINAL CHILD

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of a report that appeared in yesterday’s Canberra ‘Advertiser’ concerning the case of Mr and Mrs Bob King and their foster child Kelly? Has the Minister received from his Department a report on this matter? If so, is that report ‘mysterious’, as the Press implies? Is it normal practice for public servants to refuse to comment to members of the Press, or are the refusals to comment by departmental officers referred to in the Press an indication that the Department is not taking any action in this matter? Further, has the Minister asked his Department to draft for his signature a letter to the New South Wales Minister on this matter? Finally, does the Minister have any idea why the journalist writing this article desired to give the impression that no action has been taken by the Minister or his Department and that all of the persons mentioned are endeavouring to cover up some details with regard to this case?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Yes, I did read the article which appeared yesterday in the Canberra Press. I was surprised at the type of journalism that was used, because it attempted to create mystery about something which is not mysterious. This matter was mentioned in a previous issue of the newspaper. At that time I immediately made inquiries of my Department and received a reply from it on 15 November. The facts of the case are that the New South Wales adoption authorities were not aware that the Kings wished to adopt this child. When people wish to adopt a child in the Australian Capital Territory it is usual for them to make inquiries of the Australian Capital Territory authorities. But the Australian Capital Territory authorities have not received an application for approval of Mr and Mrs King as adopted parents. It is unlikely that the child’s mother ever approved of the Kings, as they are unknown to her. The matter was being handled through Mrs Kinsella of the Foundation for Aboriginal Affairs in New South Wales.

Mr and Mrs King came to see me on Monday evening of last week and following discussions with them I promised that I would take the matter up and try to ring Mrs Kinsella the next day. I took the matter up with my departmental head, Mr Dexter, who agreed with me that it would be better to write to the New South Wales Department of Child Welfare. The 2 things that are essential apparently are the approval of the Kings by the mother as adoptive parents- the Kings have told me they now have information that the mother is prepared to give that approval- and for the Kings to apply for recognition and to be accepted as adoptive parents by the Australian Capital Territory authorities. I promised to get in touch with Mrs Kinsella for the purpose of trying to arrange a letter from the natural mother and an application from the Kings. They were going to be sent to me and I was to take the matter up with the Minister for the Capital Territory. The Kings would then be accepted as adoptive parents but would not of necessity have the child adopted out to them. They would go on a list and the matter would be decided in accordance with the welfare of the child.

Senator Little:

-That would be the main factor, the welfare of the child.

Senator CAVANAGH:

page 2031

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to either the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation or the Minister for Customs and Excise and concerns the report prepared by the working party which studied kangaroo conservation methods and harvesting programs. As the party specified a list of requirements to be observed by the States, can the Minister say how many times the working party met and whether it carried out inspections in all or any of the States? Who decides whether management programs submitted by States meet the requirements set out in the working party’s report?

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

– In view of the importance of this matter and the interest which the honourable senator has shown in it I think I had better get exact information for him. I will do that without delay.

page 2031

QUESTION

POLITICAL REFUGEES FROM CHILE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can assure the Senate that the Australian Government’s policy in regard to political refugees from Chile is matching that of Canada in its ambit and humanitarian concepts. Further, does the Minister have any knowledge of any applications from such political refugees being rejected by the Australian representatives in Santiago?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Following an appeal by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for permanent resettlement opportunities for refugees from Chile, the Australian Government has responded that it was ready to accept applications without quota restrictions from those refugees who are genuinely interested in settling in Australia. Such applications will be sympathetically considered in terms of normal migration criteria, and passage assistance will be granted to those eligible for it. This opportunity to apply for migration to Australia is open both to those refugees who fall within the United Nations High Commissioner’s mandate in Chile and to others who are sometimes referred to as refugees but who do not meet the definition of that mandate- for example, non-Chileans who wish to or have been asked to leave Chile, and Chileans who do not wish to remain under the present regime. The Australian Embassy in Santiago has been instructed to co-operate fully with the United Nations High Commissioner’s representative there in arrangements for implementing this policy. Neither I nor my Department has received any reports of applicants encountering difficulties. The Australian Government has placed no obstacles in their path, having stipulated only that they fulfil the normal migration requirements. If the honourable senator has any details of obstacles encountered by prospective migrants I would be happy to have these cases investigated. I might say additionally to Senator Mulvihill that I have also asked our Embassy in Santiago to be especially alert to see that no undue obstacles are encountered by people who may wish to migrate to Australia.

page 2032

QUESTION

OIL SEARCH IN AUSTRALIA

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy. In view of the serious world shortage of petroleum products and the need to ensure greater self-sufficiency in these basic commodities in Australia, what action is the Government taking to revitalise interest in oil search and exploitation in both on-shore and submerged areas? Is it not a fact that Australia is losing out to Indonesia and other South East Asian countries in oil search activity because of greater incentive and encouragement being provided in those countries as against the attractions that Australia is now offering?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I do not know what the Minister is doing to revitalise oil search and I do not accept that we are falling behind Indonesia in the search for oil. I do know that the Minister is doing everything possible to preserve for Australia the resources that we have found and are developing. I think he is worthy of credit for his efforts. I will ask if there is any move in regard to revitalisation, as the honourable Senator put it. The search for oil has not closed down in Australia; there is still plenty of oil search taking place.

page 2032

QUESTION

REGULATIONS UNDER THE REPATRIATION ACT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Repatriation say what progress has been made in the preparation of regulations under the Repatriation Act which are required to give effect to the Government’s recent decision to supply reasons for rejection of appeals to repatriation tribunals? Will the Minister ensure that this right becomes available to every appellant if he so requests or if his advocate makes such a request on his behalf?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The decision of the Government to carry this out has been reported to the Senate. It has been necessary that certain trials of the preliminary arrangements made be worked out between the Department and the various tribunals. That has been done. As to the current position, I will get a full report for Senator Devitt so that he and the Senate can be brought up to date on the operation of this new system.

page 2032

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA-CHINA TRADE AGREEMENT

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows on from a question I asked yesterday about the Chinese Trade Minister, Mr Pai or, to give him his full name, Pai Hsiang-Kuo. Does the Minister recall that Mr Pai came to Australia last May to sign a trade agreement with Australia? Would not the Minister, as Special Minister for State, meet such an important visitor in the eyes of the Government? Has the Minister seen a report by Jeff Penberthy in the Melbourne Press of 8 November, written from Peking, in which he said that Mr Pai had been replaced? Would the Minister find out the facts in this case and report to the Senate? In particular, would he report on the validity of the trade agreement between the 2 countries.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Yes, following the honourable senator’s question yesterday, I do recall Mr Pai arriving here. I did not meet him. I think I was overseas at that time. I went away in late April and came back in early June, if my memory serves me right. I understand that Mr Pai has been dropped from the Politbureau in China. If there are any further details that may interest the honourable senator I will ascertain them and let him know. That is the general situation as I know it.

page 2032

QUESTION

PRESS REPORTS ON THE SENATE

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the dishonest statements being published by the media regarding the speed of the Senate’s work, would the Leader of the Government consider setting up an all party committee of the Senate to supervise untruthful statements made by various sections of the media relating to the work of the Senate? Would he give to the committee power to move to bar from the Press gallery any representative of the media proved to be responsible for publishing untrue or biased reports of the Senate’s work?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-No, I would not. I would not give consideration to setting up such a committee, but of course it is entirely up to the will of the Senate as to what committees it does set up. I think it would be quite undesirable for the Senate to establish a committee for that purpose. I think Senator Wood really would agree with what I am saying. I understand the purport of his question. He wants to draw attention to the fact publicly that a great deal of work is being done by the Senate. There is no doubt that over recent years there has been an enormous increase in the volume and complexity of the work of the Senate. This has been due to the voluntary expansion of our own activities through the committee system which has meant a change in the character of the Senate. It is also due to the large volume of legislation associated with the change of Government after 23 years and the desire to implement as quickly as possible new policies.

I think there ought to be public appreciation of the fact that the Senate is doing a great deal of work, not only in the hours of sitting of the Senate here but also in the Estimates committees, the legislative and general purpose committees, the select committees and so on. Where the Senate is attracting unfavourable publicity- and I think there is every entitlement for the public and the Press to comment on the Senate- is obstruction which the Opposition is giving to the carriage of measures which are part of the platform and policy upon which the Government of Australia was elected. I think the public is entitled to know that and that the Press is entitled to tell the public. The more that that is brought home to the people the better. I thank Senator Wood for drawing attention to the other matters but I do not think we should have a committee as he has suggested.

page 2033

QUESTION

RADIO AUSTRALIA

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister for the Media whether Papua New Guinea will be served from the existing Radio Australia station at Darwin and not from a new Radio Australia installation on Cape York Peninsula as was proposed earlier this year. Does this decision affect the proposal to provide the Torres Strait Islands with a national broadcasting service?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a fact that Radio Australia broadcasts to Papua New Guinea from the short wave transmitter at Darwin. Earlier this year there was a proposal to establish a transmitter on Cape York Peninsula, but, as the honourable senator has said, that proposal has not been proceeded with. Had the proposal to establish the station on the Peninsula been proceeded with, naturally it would have been desirable to incorporate the new transmitter for the Torres Strait area within the Radio Australia complex. However, I can tell the honourable senator that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is proceeding with a plan to establish a medium frequency station on Thursday Island. That transmitter will enable the population of over 2,000 people to receive the Queensland regional Radio 3 program. My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has displayed a very keen interest in the matter. I am having discussions with him about it at this time.

page 2033

QUESTION

FOREIGN OWNED ADVERTISING AGENCIES

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not a fact that despite Government protestations none of the many Federal instrumentalities using foreign owned advertising agencies have changed to Australian agencies since the Government came to power? Is it not a fact that the Australian Dairy Produce Board has now appointed U.S.P. Needham Australia Pty Ltd, a foreign owned company by Government definition? Is it not a fact that in Victoria, whence the Board operates, there are over 60 totally Australian owned agencies from which the Board could have chosen its agency? Will the Government stop talking emotionally about Australian nationalism while its actions are in contradiction of it?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The question is directed to me. I understand that much of what the honourable senator puts as fact is not fact and that there have been significant changes. I suggest that this answer might be supplemented by the Minister for the Media who has been instrumental in bringing about those changes.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Commonwealth Advertising Branch comes within my immediate ministerial jurisdiction. In recent weeks there has been a complete restructuring of the Commonwealth Advertising Council which will ensure that in future Australian owned agencies will be in the majority on that Council. As I understand it, about 80 per cent of

Commonwealth Government departmental advertising is now in the hands of Australian owned agencies. The Australian Dairy Produce Board, to which I understand the honourable senator referred, is of course a statutory organisation and, as I understand it, is responsible for its own advertising arrangements.

page 2034

QUESTION

TELEVISION INDUSTRY ADVERTISEMENTS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen large scale television manufacturers’ advertisements claiming that their industry was in danger of losing its independence to foreign influence? This is related to the colour television controversy. Did the Minister note that the advertisements were authorised by the Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia), His Master’s Voice, General Electric, Healing, Kriesler, National, Philips, Pye and Thorn companies? Is the Minister aware that HMV- Healing is two-thirds owned by overseas interests; that General Electric is 80 per cent owned by United States interests; that Kriesler, Philips and Pye are substantially owned by Philips of Holland; that Thorn is wholly owned by United Kingdom interests; that National is wholly owned by Japanese interests; and that only AWA is Australian controlled? In the circumstances, will the Minister examine these advertisements and advise whether the Commonwealth has any power to control or remedy misleading advertisements? Does the Government permit all such advertisements to be tax deductible? What remedy lies with the Australian people against excessive and often misleading advertisements?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I will look into the matter referred to by the honourable senator. He asked a number of questions about it. I understand that some of the information certainly is correct and I imagine that the rest of it would be. I know that AWA has a substantial Australian element extending beyond the manufacture of television sets and into various transmission equipment items. As to what can be done about misleading advertisements in general, in the case of consumer products it is proposed that there be Australian laws to deal with misleading advertisementsthat is one of the provisions incorporated in the Trade Practices Bill which is now before the Senate- and also that there be standards for the advertising of such products.

When the advertising gets into the area of propaganda and that type of thing, it is a very dangerous area for any government to be introducing any form of supervision or control in.

I think those matters probably are dealt with much better by open conflict of opinion than by any endeavour to touch at all on the area, which is really in some sense an area of political advertisement. But I will look into the matter for the honourable senator. I assure him that misleading advertisements, insofar as they touch the question of goods and services and such matters, is certainly a concern of the Government.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Are you saying categorically that it was misleading advertising?

Senator MURPHY:

-No. I said that I would look into it. I have not seen the advertisements. I said that I understood from what Senator Gietzelt had put that some of the information he was giving was correct.

page 2034

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy seen a statement made by the Minister for Minerals and Energy that there is a shortfall of between 0.8 and 0.9 trillion feet of natural gas reserves in the Moomba-Gidgealpa field in South Australia to meet the requirements of Adelaide, Sydney and the proposed petrochemical industry at Redcliffs in South Australia? Is it also a fact that the Minister stated that a connecting pipeline between Gidgealpa and the Palm Valley field will be constructed with all expedition because of the Federal Government’s estimated shortfall? On whose assessment is this estimate based? Have discussions taken place between the Minister or his Department and the Premier of South Australia on this matter? Does the Premier of South Australia agree with the Commonwealth Government’s estimate? If not, why is the Government prepared to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers ‘ money now on a pipeline that may not be necessary for many years to come?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I do not know what the Premier of South Australia agrees with or does not agree with. I cannot answer that part of the honourable senator’s question. The national pipeline grid will be one of the most extensive suppliers of gas throughout Australia. The matter has been taken up with experts of the Department, and there has been consultation from time to time with various State Premiers and with Santos Ltd, which is the firm operating. I think the Minister for Minerals and Energy and the Department know all of Australia’s requirements and know the capabilities of the various fields to supply. With a national pipeline link to all capital cities and towns of importance, a shortfall in one area of supply will not affect the supply to capital cities.

Senator YOUNG:

– May I ask a supplementary question, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:

– Only on the basis that you claim that the Minister has not adequately answered the question.

Senator YOUNG:

-Yes. I ask the Minister again whether he can inform the Senate on whose estimates are the Government’s calculations for the shortfall based?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Department’s advisers ‘.

page 2035

QUESTION

UNIFICATION OF NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. By way of preface I point out that 2 years ago the then Australian Government Mission to the United Nations supported a resolution deferring discussion of the unification of North and South Korea by the method of waiting for a report from the International Red Cross then in Korea. As information on the outcome of the exercise carried out by the International Red Cross does not seem to have been publicised, can the Minister give an indication of any progress in this very important matter of the reunification of Korea?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Reunification talks started about 12 months ago and they had badly bogged down prior to the United Nations General Assembly meeting. Two propositions were put forward. The North Koreans were asking that one body on the United Nations would represent one Korea. The South Koreans put up the proposal that both North Korea and South Korea should be made members of the United Nations. Australia supported the South Korean proposal because with the realities of the position that would have been the best outcome. An announcement was made yesterday that both sides will not pursue their claims, that they agree that the unification of the country should be achieved independently without reliance on outside force or interference; that unification should be achieved by peaceful means without recourse to the use of arms against the other side and that full national unity should be promoted. I think this is a welcome situation. There is a promise to resume the talks on reunification. So instead of a situation developing which could have resulted in a head-on confrontation, behind the scenes or in committee prior to the United Nations General Assembly vote, both North Korea and

South Korea agreed that further talks should take place, and they laid down these parameters.

page 2035

QUESTION

APPLE INDUSTRY

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. I am sure he will agree that it is one thing to refuse assistance to an industry but it is another thing to deprive an industry of returns that it has earned. Does he know that the apple industry is facing an acute crisis by reason of cost and the handicap in the European market? Does he know that a great number of trees are being grubbed out because of lack of confidence? Is it not a fact that by reason of the Government’s decision on revaluation each exporter lost about 60c a bushel and that the Government has provided compensation of only 30c a bushel limited to $ 1 , 500 per orchard? Does he realise that this deprives the industry of about $ 1.5m to which it is justly entitled? Will the Government review its decision to limit that compensation and to give justice to these exporters?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– As a similar question is asked nearly every day, by this time I am beginning to realise that there is an acute crisis in the apple industry in Tasmania. On each occasion that hardship is established compensation is paid by the Government. I shall take up with Senator Wriedt, when he returns to Australia on Sunday, the question of the amount of compensation and whether the Government will review the limits of compensation.

page 2035

QUESTION

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS ON TELEVISION

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the Minister for the Media aware that on the night of Friday, 16 November- that is, the day before the New South Wales State election- Channel 9 in Sydney on more than one occasion televised a short film showing a ballot box and a flag with the word ‘Liberal’ clearly marked on it and also showing the Premier, Sir Robert Askin, dropping a ballot paper into the ballot box while a voice reminded viewers to vote on the following day? Does the Minister agree that this constitutes a clear breach of section 116 of the Broadcasting and Television Act? Will he take appropriate action against Channel 9 in respect of this breach?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand that what is known as a promo, a promotional advertisement, was shown by Channel 9 on Friday, 16 November, advertising the election coverage of the station on the evening of the election on Saturday, 17 November.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board advised me that that promotional advertisement included a film clip of Sir Robert Askin and also of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party leader, Mr Hills. I understand that it had a background voice reminding people that the next day was election day and urging viewers to watch Channel 9 for the election coverage. I am told that there were 2 visual shots comprising clips from news film- one of Sir Robert Askin walking though a gate into a school polling booth, and another showing the New South Wales Labor leader, Mr Hills. Both were on the one promotional clip. I am asking the Control Board to obtain for me or the station to provide for me a copy of the promotional advertisement so that I, and, it is hoped, the Attorney-General also, can view it.

Recently my colleague Senator James McClelland suggested that Channel 9’s licence be revoked or suspended because of an alleged previous breach. I can tell the honourable senator that I had a long discussion with officers of the Attorney-General ‘s Department on that matter, and their clear advice to me was that in that instance there was no breach of the Act. Probably no one in this Parliament has been more critical than I have been in the past of the political activities of what one can commonly refer to as the Packer organisation. I have said it in this Parliament-

Senator Marriott:

– What about the Rupert Murdoch organisation?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator should not have interjected. I know that honourable senators opposite were very vociferous about this type of matter at a time when there was quite an upheaval in their ranks as to who should be the leader of this countryMr Gorton or Mr McMahon. They too were very critical then of the activities of the Packer organisation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Minister, I think you are beginning to debate this now.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I merely wish to assure Senator James McClelland that I have told Sir Frank Packer and indeed all networks that this Government will not tolerate political bias of the type that this country may have seen previously under Liberal administrations.

page 2036

QUESTION

SUPPLIES OF PETROL AND OIL

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can he assure the Senate and the Australian people that ample supplies of petrol and oil will be available for the foreseeable future and that there will be no need for petrol rationing in this country?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I can assure the honourable senator that everything is being done by the Government of this country, particularly by the Minister for Minerals and Energy, to see that there will be no prospect of any kind of petrol rationing in this country. The Minister for Minerals and Energy took vigorous steps during the year to ensure that the development and exploitation of Australia’s reserves, particularly the reserves of energy, were conducted in such a way that Australia’s interests would be foremost. I think that everyone has come to realise the foresight and the wisdom of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. No one can give any assurance for ever on these things. But it is quite clear that his policies are so directed that Australia is very fortunately placed. As I understand it, there is no prospect of such an event as that envisaged by the honourable senator happening.

page 2036

QUESTION

SUPPLY AND PRICE OF OIL IN AUSTRALIA

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister.. I preface it by saying that it is clear that in spite of assurances given by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Minerals and Energy Middle East oil prices will seriously affect the supply and price of oil to Australia. Is it not a fact that had the Government not brought about the cessation of expansion of oil production and exploration Australia would be better placed to hold off the threat of serious reduction of our oil supplies from the Middle East? Is it not also a fact that Government interference has caused serious delays in the development of natural gas, particularly in relation to the delivery of South Australian natural gas to New South Wales? Would it not be true to say that if these delays had not been brought about industry in New South Wales would have been able to offset the threat of reduction in oil supplies from the Middle East?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I cannot pretend to answer all the details that have been put to me by the honourable senator. Let it be clear that the Minister for Minerals and Energy took vigorous steps to see to it that the development of these resources would be undertaken in Australia’s interest. It was common knowledge that endeavours were being made by great corporations outsideno doubt, with very great foresight on their part- to see that they got control of the development of Australia’s natural gas and energy resources with a view to using those resources elsewhere. There is an energy crisis all around the world. They were, quite wisely from their point of view, trying to get control of Australia’s resources. We now have a government and a Minister seeing to it that these resources are developed in the interests of the Australian people and used in their interests. In a time of world energy crisis that is exactly what the Australian people would expect of their Government and the Minister, and that is exactly what is happening.

page 2037

QUESTION

EXPORT OF LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it a fact that since the commencement of production of natural gas from Bass Strait the previous Government allowed the export of 8 million barrels of liquid petroleum gas from that area? Does that quantity represent approximately 4 years’ supply of Australia’s requirements?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am asked a question that is based on statistics. All I can say is that I assume from the honourable senator’s vast knowledge of the subject, his deep interest in it over a number of years and his membership of committees concerned with the subject, that Senator Cant is undoubtedly stating the correct position. If it is any different, I will let the Senate know.

page 2037

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICES: ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to an announcement of the withdrawal of assistance to community organisations such as the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. Is it not a fact that in February this year it was announced in the Governor-General’s Speech that the Government proposed to give effect to what it called the clear ‘desire of the youthful majority for a more tolerant, more open and more humane society’? Is it also a fact that last week the Minister for Tourism and Recreation allocated an amount of $3m for recreational purposes? What are the reasons for this withdrawal of considerable assistance to youth groups and community organisations which are contributing so much to Australia’s quality of life?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The position of the defence vote was such that it entailed some rethinking and some savings. On the advice of the defence advisers, the Government decided that certain savings could be made in the allocations of services and equipment for the organisations to which the honourable senator refers. It has been decided that in future some economies will have to be made in that regard for the main purpose of making sure that the support side of the Services is reduced in order to achieve more effective tactical Services. That is consistent with the general planning of the defence vote. As against that, the honourable senator will know that to some extent the Services, in the months since the Labor Government took office, have become more involved in community affairs and probably have incurred expenditure amounting to more than the savings on the other side. There is an intention by the Government that this participation of the Services be extended as far as possible; but on the other hand, for the reasons which have been explained in this place and by the Minister for Defence, some savings have had to be made in respect of the huge amounts which have been spent on the Services generally. As a result, the economies that have taken place will affect the Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts; but it is hoped to review the matter next year.

page 2037

QUESTION

ENERGY CRISIS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, concerns questions asked regarding the energy crisis and the so-called oil diplomacy in the Middle East. Is it not a fact that Australia depends for 30 per cent of its oil needs upon imports, primarily from the Middle East and largely of heavy crudes? Is it not a fact that this percentage is likely to grow perceptibly in the years immediately ahead, based on expert advice, and that Australia’s known resources to provide the other 70 per cent are projected at no more than 8 to 10 years ahead? If these are facts, why is the Government not restoring the incentives for oil exploration that it removed? Why is the Government not putting on a crash program of oil exploration? Is it not true that Australia is facing real peril in the next decade with regard to oil resources?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I think that this is an appropriate question to go on the notice paper. It really ought to be answered by the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Unless his representative in this chamber wants to answer it, I think the question should be placed on the notice paper.

page 2037

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I view it as a very important question. Can the public feel confident that the Labor Government is ever alert to the needs of all disadvantaged sections of the community? In particular did this socialist Government promise aged persons that the pension would be increased progressively until it was 25 per cent of average weekly earnings? Is the Government aware that while it has been in office, due to the inflation which it in part has created, the basic pension has already decreased from 20.7 per cent of average weekly earnings as it was when Labor took office in December 1972 to 19.5 per cent of estimated average weekly earnings, as it is at this time? If the Minister challenges the authenticity of my statistics -

Senator Murphy:

- Mr President, first of all this question was directed to me when it ought to have been directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. But now the honourable senator obviously is debating the matter beyond all reason.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask you to conclude your question, Senator Webster.

Senator WEBSTER:

-I accept your ruling, Mr President, but on each instance I have asked a question of the Leader of the Government -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have asked you to complete your question, not to make any comments on my observation.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Will I repeat the question?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. I ask you to conclude the question.

Senator WEBSTER:

-I intended, Mr President, to direct my question to the Leader of the Government and the -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Just conclude the question. I will determine who will answer it.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, the Leader of the Government interrupted my question. You directed me to complete it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Then please complete it.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I do not accept that ruling at all.

The PRESIDENT:

– All right.

page 2038

QUESTION

CHINA: STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– On 8 November I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs for an explanation of an expression used by the Prime Minister concerning our new relations with China. Senator Withers and Senator Young sought an explanation yesterday as to the precise meaning of the expression. They were told in effect that they understood English. I again quote the Prime Minister who said:

Australia ‘s new aspiration is symbolised more in our relations with China than with any -

I repeat, ‘any’-

  1. . . other country.

I ask: Did the Prime Minister use this expression because he liked the sound of the words or does he regard the expression as being significant in explaining our new relations with China? If the expression is significant, will the Minister explain the meaning for the benefit of those whose understanding of English is less than his?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I do not know what was in Mr Whitlam ‘s mind when he made this statement. He said quite a lot of things.

Senator Sim:

– Why do you not find out?

Senator WILLESEE:

– If the honourable senator wants to find out then he should go and ask him. This morning I looked at the question that was asked yesterday by Senator Withers in case I had not treated him fairly in my answer. Senator Withers asked:

Will the Minister explain in some detail the exact meaning of the expression used by the Prime Minister.

How am I going to do that? I have my own views on our relationship with China and with all other nations. Senator Sim is not asking me for my views. He is asking me what was in the Prime Minister’s mind. This is quite an impossible question to answer. I have no intention of going ahead and trying to explain each word to every honourable senator opposite.

page 2038

QUESTION

SALE OF KANGAROO SKIN POSTCARDS

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise whether it is reasonable to assume that he is standing shoulder to shoulder with Clyde Holding, the Leader of the State Opposition in Victoria in trying to eliminate the sale of kangaroo skin postcards?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I understand that statements have been made that there has been a widespread sale of postcards made from kangaroo skin. I would think that kangaroo skin postcards which are posted overseas would be covered by export controls. There is a certain reasonableness in the application of the controls which apply, but I would regard the use of kangaroo skins for this purpose as entirely objectionable. If this practice is not covered by law then I think appropriate changes ought to be made to ensure that it can be prevented.

page 2038

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF PAINTING ‘BLUE POLES

Senator LAUCKE:

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to a reply to a question which he gave recently in which he said that $A67,310 or US$100,000 was paid to Max Hutchinson (New York) Ltd for brokerage and commission in connection with the purchase of the painting ‘Blue Poles’. On 8 November I asked the AttorneyGeneral whether a member of the Visual and Plastic Arts Board, which Board had to deal with the purchase of the painting, is associated with Max Hutchinson (New York) Ltd, the recipient of the commission. I then asked whether in the public interest action would be taken to ensure that there is no possibility of private commercial gain accruing to the holder of a public office arising from influence and privilege in that office. At that time the Attorney-General replied that he would look into the matter and advise me as to these connections. I further ask: Is there connection between Max Hutchinson (New York) Ltd and galleries in Sydney?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I will get an answer for the honourable senator as soon as possible.

page 2039

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Recently I asked the Attorney-General about the problems of confidential submissions being made to the Prices Justification Tribunal and whether there were any deficiencies in the Act in relation to such matters. I ask: Has he had an opportunity to examine the question I raised several days ago?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The question was asked of me and I have now received an answer from the Department.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This deprives other honorable senators who wish to ask questions of the opportunity to do so. There is a place in the notice paper for providing answers to questions previously asked.

Senator MURPHY:

-Then I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

page 2039

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-On Wednesday, Senator Gietzelt asked me a question bearing on the confidentiality provisions of the Prices Justification Act and I promised to give him a considered answer after referring to the legislation. The Act requires in section 21, that an inquiry conducted by the Tribunal shall be held in public, but that, if any witness objects to giving any evidence in public that the Tribunal is satisfied is of a confidential nature, the Tribunal may take that evidence in private if it considers that it is desirable to do so. Section 23 (4) provides that the Tribunal shall make information or documents furnished by a company in connection with an inquiry available to the public in such manner as the Tribunal thinks fit. Section 23 (5) provides that the Tribunal shall not make such information or documents available to any person if the company concerned informs the Tribunal that it objects to the information or documents being so made available and the Tribunal is satisfied that the information is, or the documents are, of a confidential nature.

It is therefore entirely a matter for the Tribunal to determine whether any evidence, information or documents should be dealt with on a confidential basis.

page 2039

AUSTRALIAN FIRE BOARD

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Australian Fire Board for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 2039

SERVICES TRUST FUNDS

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to the provisions of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947-1950 I present the annual reports of the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund, the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with the reports of the Auditor-General on the books and accounts of the Funds.

page 2039

ATTENDANCE AT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table a paper setting out details of my attendance at 4 international conferences during my absence from the Senate from 27 September to 24 October 1 973.

page 2039

USE OF VIP AIRCRAFT

Sentor BISHOP (South Australia-Minister for Repatriation)- On 8 November 1973 the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence a question without notice regarding the tabling of manifests for Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft of No. 34 squadron from the day details were last given until the end of October 1973 and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) undertook to provide the necessary information. Details of travel in Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft up to and including 30 April 1973 have previously been tabled in the Parliament, the most recent occasion being 8 June 1 973 when I tabled details for the period 5 February 1973 to 30 April 1973. The documents I now table embrace all details of VIP travel in Royal Australian Air Force aircraft in the period 1 May 1973 to 4 September 1973. The details of VIP flights from 5 September 1973 to the end of October 1973 will be tabled as soon as possible and certainly before the conclusion of this parliamentary session.

page 2040

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the first annual report of the Department of Urban and Regional Development for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 2040

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: REPORTS

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973, 1 present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

Dripstone High School, Darwin, Northern Territory and Stage 6 Extension of the Stokes Hill Power Station, Darwin.

page 2040

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, pursuant to contingent notice of motion I move:

My subsequent motion would be that Senator Wright be permitted to bring on his Bill at 4.30 p.m.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What is his Bill?

Senator WITHERS:

-The Parliament Bill 1973 which deals with the new and permanent parliament house.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

As soon as that Bill is disposed of, and one would imagine it would be disposed of fairly quickly, we will come back to Government business.

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

– I cannot agree with Senator Withers that the Parliament Bill will be disposed of as easily as he has suggested.

Senator Withers:

– Most likely you will take the adjournment.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. There are some matters in that Bill that I would like to take up with Senator Wright, not so much with a view of delaying the Bill but because serious questions are involved. I am not happy about some of the clauses of the Bill for reasons other than the site of Parliament House.

Senator Webster:

– That is what we often think about Government legislation.

Senator MURPHY:

-That may be so. However I certainly would like to have some further consideration of this matter. Later I will point out to Senator Wright the matters that are troubling me. Otherwise we have no objection. I move the following amendment:

That the following words be added to the motion- otherwise Government business to take precedence over general business this day.

Senator Withers:

– That is agreeable.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think we can dispose of this without going through the formality of an amendment. Is the Leader of the Opposition agreeable to that course?

Senator Withers:

– I am prepared to add that to my motion.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I submit that the appropriate course would be to allow me to give the speech introducing the amended Bill and then if there are any serious questions warranting a postponement, the matter is in the hands of the Senate.

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That at 4.30 p.m. today intervening general business be postponed until after consideration of Order of the Day No. 28, Parliament Bill 1973, otherwise Government business to take precedence over general business this day.

page 2040

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee F

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– In accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 1 5 September 1973, I present the report of Estimates Committee F relating to the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1973-74, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2041

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1973-74

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Willesee) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I take the opportunity provided by the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) to raise 2 short matters. The first concerns the referendum on the export of merino rams and merino semen. The ballot papers which have been circulated for that referendum are most confusing. The first question asked is:

Should the Australian Government permit unrestricted exports of merino rams and merino semen to countries in addition to New Zealand.

Suppose that there are 3,000 voters and suppose that 1,000 of those 3,000 vote ‘yes’. The second question is introduced in this way:

If that question is answered in the negative-

That would be the position on the supposed figures which I have put; that is, of the 3,000 voters only 1,000 vote ‘yes’ and 2,000 vote ‘no’-

Should the Government permit the export of no more than 300 merino rams in each 12 month period to countries other than New Zealand, in addition to unrestricted exports of merino rams to New Zealand.

So, that question is restricted to those who vote no’ to the first question. On my figures, that would be 2,000. Suppose that on this question relating to restricted export 700 vote ‘yes’ and 1,300 vote ‘no’. If the 2 questions are to be treated as they are printed - that is, individually- that means that both questions will be answered ‘no’ although, taking the 3,000 voters together, at least 1,700 of them will have voted ‘yes’ for restricted export.

Senator Cant:

– That is not a proper analysis.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I will say it again.

Senator Cant:

– There are 3,000 voters all the time. The number is not reduced to 2,000.

Senator WRIGHT:

-But that is the point I want to ram home. Some clerk has had the subtlety to introduce the second question by the instruction that only those who are voting ‘no’ on the first question are to answer the second question. So, on my figures, only 2,000 are permitted to answer the second question and there is a minority vote on each question. Yet, if the questions were put, as they should be put, to the whole suffrage of 3,000 and if 1,000 vote in favour of unrestricted export and 700 vote in favour of restricted export, then, on a proper assessment of the vote, 1,700 out of 3,000 have voted ‘yes’ for restricted export. I am sorry that I had to repeat that proposition because to me it is amazing that a department can send out printed ballot papers with such confusion and ambiguity. I ask the Minister- I have asked twice already for a ministerial interpretation of this matter- whether the yes votes on the first question are to be taken into account as yes on the second question, even though the ballot paper says that only no voters on the first are to vote on the second. I think that in a matter of such importance the Government ought to remove its confused ambiguity and let the industry know at the earliest opportunity.

The second matter that I want to raise is one that Senator Cavanagh will have heard me raise before. I am glad that this morning I have had acknowledgment that he is beginning to understand that a crisis is confronting the apple industry in Tasmania. He smiles, but I know he is not smiling in indifference to the industry; that would not be his nature if he understood it. I am putting to him in the utmost seriousness the urgency of understanding the injustice that has been inflicted on this industry by Government decision. The exports of this industry from Tasmania last year were limited to about 4 million cases; that is very much down on exports in previous years. The industry has been dwindling in the face of economic adversity and because of the change in European economic markets and it has been assisted to dwindle by the absolutely purblind, archaic policy that was introduced by the Government of which I was a member, and which has been carried on with avidity by this Government, of paying people to grub out fruit trees- an abysmal policy in any circumstances, I think.

Senator Byrne:

– That was a depression policy in America.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Well, the people who proposed it and propagate it ought to be buried where the apple trees have been grubbed from. Last year the Premier of Tasmania realised that growers must expend a great amount of money cultivating, pruning and spraying their crops and have to decide whether to expend that money so as to have a crop to export in the middle of February. There is such a want of confidence in the industry at present that it is urgently necessary to give some indication of government support or assistance to ensure that that crop is brought to harvest. The Premier, Mr Reece, guaranteed $2.60 a case last year to give growers confidence. He said it was a one-year operationand this year he has not been able to renew that guarantee. It was highly publicised through the newspapers last week that he was to have a conference with the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister visited Hobart on Sunday last with a view to getting this Government’s assurance that it would underwrite some supporting proposal. There has been a significant silence on that subject since Sunday and I raise it briefly in the hope that the members of the Government will understand the urgency of giving some indication that the expenditure to be incurred in the crop can be recouped with government guarantees. That is the first aspect of my proposition.

The second aspect is one to which I referred in a question this morning- and I am sure that on this Senator Cavanagh does not fully understand what is being done. When the Government announced its revaluation decision it accompanied the first announcement- Senator Wriedt being a representative of Tasmania and knowing the difficulty of the apple export cropwith an announcement that some revaluation compensation would be given. But in the confused outlook of this Government, Senator Wriedt had the piety to say that the compensation would be given only in cases of need. He therefore limited the compensation to 30c a bushel and to no more than $1,500 an orchard. The actual deprivation of price which growers have experienced by reason of revaluation is of the order of 60c a bushel- double the original compensation that the Government had agreed to pay.

But the effect of limiting the compensation to $1,500 an orchard-that is to say, 30c on 5,000 bushels- is not to ensure that only those in need get the compensation. If you grow 500 bushels and export them you get the $1,500, if that is your only income. But of course you may be in the beef industry and selling vealers at present at $250 each and there is no evidence of need at all. You may in addition to growing 5,000 bushels, be carrying on a profitable diary, as are some of these orchardists. That shows that even the $1,500 is not directed to need. Furthermore, the grower who exports 40,000 cases gets his compensation on the first 5,000 cases. So this criterion of need is simply a figment of a befuddled imagination somewhere. But the height of the absurdity comes from the latest edict which this Parliament in its peculiar way permits to go out. That is to say, a department issues the rules upon which government money by way of revaluation compensation is to be paid. We do not see regulations, we do not have the rules submitted to us. But here is a department that adds to the rules and varies them from time to time. In a week when we have scheduled into us yesterday a Bill of Rights protesting against discrimination on the grounds of sex, I ask honourable senators to listen to this:

The shares of male partners who actively participate in the orcharding activity are to be proportionate to their shareholding.

So if a partnership is exporting 20,000 cases and 4 male partners are actively participating in it, each partner gets $1,500. If there are 8 partners who export 40,000 cases, each partner gets $ 1 ,500- if they are male. But the next paragraph states:

A wife of a partner is to be considered as one ‘grower’ unit with her husband.

Whether, generally speaking, biologically or reverting to the ancient axiom of the law that husband and wife were once considered as one at law -

Senator Prowse:

– Do you think that because Adam and Eve had some problems with apples-

Senator WRIGHT:

– They still persist and will continue to do so. Paragraph (d) states: a wife of a partner is to be considered as one ‘grower’ unit with her husband.

  1. her share of profits is to be added to her husband’s share,
  2. however, no grower unit of husband and wife is to receive more than $ 1 ,500

So a wife can roll up her sleeves in the packing factory or she can pick apples as many of them do, or when the apple season is off, milk the cows and so forth, but then because she is the wife of a grower there is this stupid limitation. Of course, if the grower has a mistress no such limitation applies. The ingenuity proceeds; it is not fully developed yet. The letter continues: single womenfolk sharing in the partnership or company are to qualify for assistance only if actively participating in the orcharding activity.

So single womenfolk apparently can get their full $1,500 so long as they are actively participating in the orcharding activities. But if a woman is the wife of a grower, just because she has the stigma of being married to the grower, the grower is limited to one ladle out of $1,500. That is the provision that the Government makes in its befuddled, stupid way in relation to partnerships. In fact, it applies the word ‘partnership’ to a company. Then it goes through the shareholding and directorate in order to make an arbitrary decision as to whether, if a person has an interest in the company, that interest is sufficient to give him an extra $1,500.

But let us take the case of the single grower who grows 40,000 cases. He would probably have 15 or 20 permanent employees and he would probably employ 40 casual staff during the harvesting season. Those employees may or may not be on fixed wages. They may be paid on the basis of bonus profit sharing according to the returns. But no, in its outlook the Government seizes on need. If a person is a big grower who grows 40,000 cases apparently he has no need of compensation. I plead with the Government to review the situation not on a social service basis which is completely inapplicable to it but on the basis that the compensation is actually for loss inflicted by a government decision which has reduced the price that overseas exporters can expect to be paid. On that basis I ask the Government to quantify the actual amount per case and see to it that the growers are paid a just amount according to the actual quantity exported. It would not have escaped the befuddled understanding that promoted this formula, I am sure, that by its use the Government was cunning enough to exclude three-quarters of the crop from compensation. By this restricted formula only one-quarter of the actual crop is being reimbursed for the 60c a case of which the Government has deprived the growers involved in export. On a market of 4 million cases it means that no compensation will be paid in relation to 3 million cases. That means that on at least 50c a case a loss of $ 1.5m has been inflicted on the industry which the Government is mean enough not to recoup.

Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria

– An Appropriation Bill is an appropriate Bill on which to raise a question of whether the Parliament has full control of government finances. Annual government expenditure is given parliamentary authorisation in several ways: Firstly, through Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2), and, secondly through special appropriations. Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) cover the costs and expenses of maintaining the ordinary annual services of the Government and non-recurring types of expenditure. Special appropriations are really permanent appropriations, and Bills relating to these appropriations do not come before the Parliament annually but on an ad hoc basis. For example, the salaries of High Court justices have been established and adjusted by a Bill debated in both Houses. Such a Bill does not come before the Senate every year but only when an adjustment is being made. These special appropriations cover more than just the salaries of officials. Some cover the entire running costs of a statutory authority. But I make the point that they are not subject to detailed annual scrutiny by the Senate, although I know that a motion was carried some time ago asserting the right of the Senate to have control of these matters if it so wished. However, the point has been made and evidence has been presented to me that in fact the Senate gives detailed scrutiny to only 42 per cent to 44 per cent of annual government expenditure.

In recent years the Senate has improved this scrutiny through the Estimates Committees. Despite the lengthy meetings of the Estimates Committees the point has to be made that we are dealing with only 42 per cent to 44 per cent of annual government expenditure and that 56 per cent to 58 per cent of total government expenditure is escaping any detailed scrutiny by the Senate. The only chance that honourable senators have of looking at the use made of these millions of dollars is to examine the annual reports of the authorities when they are presented to the Parliament and circulated to honourable senators. These annual reports are often more noteworthy for their glossy covers and expensive printing than the information they contain. These special appropriations also cover tied payments to the States, and for 1973-74 they amount to $792m. We authorise these payments but there is little or no scrutiny by us of how the money has been spent. I have a number of tables of figures relating to this contention as well as some explanatory notes. I would ask that they be incorporated in Hansard so that honourable senators can examine them and test whether they accept the contention on the information which is now put forward. I seek leave to incorporate those tables and explanatory notes in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McManus showed the tables to me before he rose to make his speech and they are capable of being incorporated in Hansard. He asks for leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The tables and explanatory notes read as follows)-

ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Special Appropriations as a Percentage of Total Annual Expenditure- In the four financial years 1970-71 to 1973-74 (Estimates), Special Appropriations have represented between 56 and 58 per cent of total revenue. These percentages are based on ‘Total Consolidated Revenue Fund’ rather than Total Outlays’, which comprehend in addition certain transactions of the Loan and Trust Funds. If the percentage is based on Total Outlays, Special Appropriations have ranged between 52 and 56 per cent. (See Tables 1 and 2 attached.)

Increase and Trend in Government Expenditure- At Table 3, the percentage increase in government expenditure is shown over the same period, 1970-71-1973-74, under the headings used in Table 1. While the percentage increase in Total Consolidated Revenue declined from 12.S per cent to 6.79 percent between 1970-71 and 1972-73, the 1973-74 Estimates indicate a proposed increase of 22.83 per cent. There was also a slight decline in the percentage increase in Total Outlays between 1970-71 and 1971-72, but Total Outlays rose again in 1972-73 and a significant increase is proposed in the current year.

Increase and Trend in the Use of ‘Tied’ Payments to the States- In compiling the information at Tables 4 to 6, the classification used is as contained in the Budget Papers document Payments to or for the States, 1973-74 which defines tied’ payments as ‘Specific Purpose Payments’ (p.l). The use of Specific Purpose Payments has increased each year since 1956-57, with the exception of 1968-69, when Specific Purpose Payments fell by nearly $7m. As Table 4 indicates, the trend in the increase of ‘tied’ payments was uneven for the period 1936-57/ 1 968-69, but since that time there has been a marked increase, from 17.56 per cent in 1969-70, to an estimated 77.83 per cent in 1973-74. Allocations to the States for Housing and Education account almost entirely for the marked increase in Specific Purpose Payments in the 1973-74 Estimates (See Table 5).

Tied’ payments as a percentage of Total Payments to the States rose fairly steadily from 23.82 per cent to a peak of 3 1.39 per cent between 1959-60 and 1967-68. Between the financial years 1968-69 to 1970-7 1 the percentage declined slightly, until it reached 28.31 per cent in 1970-71. In the following year, however, the percentage rose to 31.44 per cent; in 1972-73 it rose by almost 4 per cent to 34.24 per cent while current estimates show a sharp rise to an estimated 47.02 per cent of Total Payments. (Table 6 refers.)

The following tables are attached:

Table 1 -Government Expenditure 1970-71 to 1973-74.

Table 2- Special Appropriations as Percentage of:

Total Consolidated Revenue Fund; and

Total Outlays.

Table 3- Trends in Government Expenditure 1970-71 to 1973-74.

Table 4-Specific Purpose Payments 1956-57 to 1973-74.

Table 5- Payments to States for Housing and Education 1972-73to 1973-74.

Table 6- Specific Purpose Payments as a Percentage of Total Payments to States 1 959-60 to 1 973-74.

TABLE 5

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR HOUSING AND EDUCATION 1972-73 TO 1973-74 {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Specific Purpose Payments to States for Housing and Education- 1972-73: Housing, $19,463,000; Education, $252,309,000; Total, $271,772,000. 1973-74: Housing, $241,091,000; Education, $612,295,000; Total, $853,386,000. 1. Total Specific Purpose Payments to States, excluding Housing and Education- 1972-73: $653,771,000; 1973-74: $792,205,000. 2. Percentage increase in Total Specific Purpose Payments 1973-74, excluding Housing and Education Payments- 17.51 per cent. Source: Payments to or for the States, 1 973-74, pp. 90-93. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- There is another matter to which I wish to refer following a reply which I received the other day from the AttorneyGeneral to a question which I had asked. The question I asked related to the raids on the Croatian community which took place as long ago as 1 April 1973- a highly appropriate date. I am informed that 58 premises were raided by New South Wales and Commonwealth police on 1 April, that 25 charges of a criminal nature were laid and that some of them were of an unimportant character. I have no information about the others. I make this point: Sixty-eight people had property seized from their homes, but at least part of the property of 35 persons is still retained by New South Wales or Commonwealth police. Now we are told that in some cases the police do not know where the owners are and that in many cases the material is being retained- at a time when we are about to discuss civil rights, I would like honourable senators to note. The police took the property of these people on 1 April 1973. Today, 7 months later, the police are still holding the property as evidence in relation to the possible commission of offences against the Crimes Act or for the purpose of further investigation as to the possible commission of such offences. The police have had 7 months in which to look at the property of these people, and the police are still hanging on to it because they think that some day it might work out that there is an offence in regard to the property. I think that is a scandalous attack upon the civil rights of people living in this country. Do the police suggest that they are hanging on to the property in case these people commit an offence in future or do the police mean that they are hanging on to the property because they are still scratching their heads and wondering whether an offence was committed? A couple of people wrote to me and said that their homes were invaded. One of them said that he and his children were taken to the police station at about 4 a.m. He was not allowed to go to the toilet without someone accompanying him. His children were held in the police station. All that they got to eat was a few biscuits, until he was released late in the morning. This man said that the police took not only personal effects and photographs but also his account books for the business which he was running, his cheque book, his bank book and all kinds of property. I do not know whether he has got them back in order that he may carry on his livelihood. I consider that the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government have been guilty of a grave and serious attack upon the rights of Australians. The police, having raided homes and taken property on 1 April 1973, say that they will hang on to the property in case they work out one day that these people have been guilty of an offence. I think it is absolutely scandalous. I think it is farcical to talk about a civil rights Bill and a civil rights debate when the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government are equally at fault by permitting their police forces to commit the gravest infringement of the ordinary civil rights of people living in this country. I call upon the Commonwealth Government and the State Government either to charge these people or to return their property. The 2 governments should not put these people in a Kathleen mavourneen type position by saying: 'We will hang on to your property. One day we may think of charging you, but it may be for years, it may be forever'. {: #subdebate-40-0-s3 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I shall speak with considerable restraint. I assure **Senator McManus** that a committee of people of diverse political views has been looking at this matter. I can assure him that his speech is an over-simplification of all the issues. I say no more at this stage. {: #subdebate-40-0-s4 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I lend my support to the views which **Senator McManus** has expressed. In the past fortnight the Senate has been given answers to questions which were put on notice during the first session of this Parliament. The answers give some details which have long been withheld. **Senator McManus** has referred to some of the circumstances, which the answer to his question has revealed, about these raids which took place in April of this year. I asked other questions about these raids. Now I think we have a clearer picture of the enormity of what occurred on the morning of 1 April. We are told that 58 premises were raided. Information of this character ought to have been made available far more speedily than it was made available. I believe that it was what I said during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate on 2 successive nights which finally prompted the giving of this information after the lapse of 5, 6 or 7 months. It appears that the purpose of these raids, as now stated by the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy),** was, on the part of New South Wales Police, to seek evidence of conspiracy and other offences especially relating to the use of explosives; and, on the part of Commonwealth police, to seek evidence of offences against sections 30b and 30c (b) of the Crimes Act. One very curious feature of the reasons the Commonwealth police sought this information is that they were seeking it under a section which could not, under any circumstances, sustain the issue of the warrants, because section 30b of the Crimes Act makes it an offence for a person to be an office holder or a participant in an unlawful association. There is provision in the Crimes Act for associations to be declared unlawful. To the best of my recollection, those provisions of the Crimes Act have never been availed of. There are no unlawful associations at present. There were none on 1 April this year. Therefore, how could warrants be issued, how could claims be made and how could searches be undertaken to seek evidence of the commission of offences against that section when there could be no offence against that section because there were no unlawful associations? The other section under which the Commonwealth police were seeking evidence was a section which makes it an offence to advocate or encourage by speech or writing the overthrow by force or violence of the established Government of any civilised country or of organised government. Again, I do not recall any offence under that section ever having been prosecuted in the courts. The significant feature is that after these raids took place, after this tremendous volume of property was seized and after all the publicity which attended events at that time, no charge for any offence against section 30c of the Crimes Act has been laid. In short, out of all those raids a total of 14 charges were laid, and all were laid under New South Wales law. What charges were laid? Five persons were charged with having explosives in their possession. The results of those charges- I lack detailed examination of the facts in respect of each case- were that only 2 charges were sustained. The other 3 charges were dismissed. Each person who was charged and convicted was released on a good behaviour bond. That would suggest that when the circumstances, both of the accused and of the facts in relation to the possession of explosives, were established the court felt it appropriate that each person should be released upon entering into a bond. No charges of conspiracy were laid. Apart from those S charges relating to explosives, there were 3 charges relating to the possession of pistols. One case involved an unlicensed starting pistol. What was the outcome? The defendant on that charge was convicted and fined $30. He has appealed. His appeal has not yet been heard. One charge could not be heard because the defendant left Australia. The final charge resulted in the defendant's being convicted and released on a bond. There was another charge. It was a charge against a person for having possession of military ammunition and a military rifle. That is the way in which the Attorney-General provided the answer to me. That charge was wholly dismissed. They were the only charges which could in any conceivable way have any relationship to the purpose for which the searches were conducted. When we look at the other charges we find that 4 persons were charged with having stolen goods. Of course, this is the type of situation which can arise whenever there is a foraging expedition by the police into persons' homes. A policeman can pick up some goods and ask a person where he got them. If no satisfactory answer is given, it is then open for a charge to be laid that the person has come by the goods unlawfully. Such a person then has certain problems in establishing how he came by the goods. Four persons were charged with having stolen goods. Two persons were convicted, one acquitted and one person is yet to come up for trial. There was another charge laid against a lady. Charges laid against her husband were dismissed except for the charge that he used unseemly words to the policeman at the time that the raids were taking place. This lady is yet to be tried on charges of assaulting and obstructing the New South Wales police. It is obvious from the result of the charges laid against her husband that the police were not able to sustain any offence against him. Finally, one person was charged with driving offences and with resisting arrest. He has been convicted and is appealing against his conviction. What I have just related indicates the outcome of this massive raid on the morning of 1 April 1973, a black day in the history of civil liberties in this country. I believe that it is important that the results of those raids should be made quite clear. In respect of all the premises raided, 14 charges were laid, most of them in respect of offences for which the raids were not conducted. In respect of charges laid for which the raids were conducted, 5 charges were laid with regard to explosives. Three of the persons charged were acquitted totally, two were convicted and the circumstances were such that they were released on a bond. The conclusion to be drawn is that this immense police exercise failed totally to achieve the objectives claimed for it in the charged atmosphere of the time. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- It was an outrageous political manoeuvre. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- It was an outrageous political manoeuvre because we saw the way in which the fact that the raids had taken place was used in the Senate subsequently to sustain or to seek to justify action which had taken place. I believe that these facts ought to be made known and that they ought to be given the widest currency. I rise to support what **Senator McManus** said because whatever might be the arguments for and against the Bill of Rights, you cannot prescribe liberties simply by law. The only way in which liberties and people's rights can be preserved and made meaningful, is to have an alert and vigilant community concerned to maintain and protect rights. This is one forum in which I hope that spirit will never die or ever be daunted. {: #subdebate-40-0-s5 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works and Acting Minister for Primary Industry · ALP -- I rise to speak in the first reading debate of this Bill, anticipating that there may be a long discussion on the questions that have been raised by **Senator McManus** and **Senator Greenwood.** Having an appointment to keep, I hope that I can perform my duties as the Acting Minister for Primary Industry in replying to the questions raised by **Senator Wright.** I have not moved a motion and thus my speaking would not close the debate. It is only a question of discharging those obligations which I have. I think that it is rather unfortunate, especially on the question of Tasmanian apples, that the honourable senator did not wait until next week to raise this matter because then the Minister for Primary Industry **(Senator Wriedt)** would have been able to answer his questions. I apologise for any inability to give the clear answers that **Senator Wriedt** could have given to satisfy **Senator Wright.** I will deal first with the question of merino rams. I do not think that there is any problem about that. The questions to be put to the growers are as stated. Firstly, it will be asked should the Australian Government permit the unrestricted export of merino rams and merino semen from Australia to other countries in addition to New Zealand. Of course, the growers simply vote yes or no on that question. Those who vote no will have the opportunity to say whether they agree with unrestricted export. If those voting yes on the first question are in the minority the next question arises: Would you permit the export of no more than 300 merino rams in each of the 12 month periods to countries in addition to New Zealand? A decision would be obtained on whether we could start with the unrestricted export. If the decision is made against permitting the unrestricted export of merino rams and semen, the growers have an opportunity to say whether they favour permitting the export of 300 merino rams. Of course, added to those growers who vote to permit the export of 300 rams must be those growers who voted for unrestricted export in the first part of the question. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- Why is that? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- Because they believe in the export of merino rams. That is the question to be decided. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- This is the first ministerial expression of it. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -Yes. If it is not possible to have unrestricted export, we ask whether the industry believes that 300 rams should be exported each year. I think that it is reasonable that those growers who believe in unrestricted export but who cannot get the majority to support them should be added to the number of growers favouring permission being granted to export 300 rams a year. I now turn to the question of the cost of apples. The crisis in the apple industry is known to me. It has been well debated before the Cabinet and the Caucus of my Party. The crisis that exists in the apple industry has given rise to our determination to do something. The system of giving compensation to growers only on the basis of hardship was adopted in 1971 by the McMahon Government at the time of devaluation of the United States dollar. There was then not an open go. This Government has continued that precedent established by the McMahon Government of giving assistance to those in need. In considering budget reports it was found that subsidies on production paid from taxpayers' money go unnecessarily to wealth growers. Therefore, the needs of growers were examined to see that the money went to those who actually needed it. But we have the position in the industry in which it is doubtful whether all those engaged in it will have anything but crisis in the continued market situations of today. Solving the problems of the Tasmanian industry involves either the growing of other crops or making the industry viable. Not only is a subsidy of 30c per bushel granted up to a limit of 1,500 bushels, but also the Government has decided that in addition to the emergency adjustment assistance payment, supplementary grants of $1,000 would be available to farmers growing predominantly export apples and pears and $500 to farmers growing predominantly canning fruits. Such grants would be available to growers in extreme financial difficulties who were eligible for clear-fell assistance under the fruitgrowing reconstruction scheme. Growers who qualified for this assistance would receive the full amounts of supplementary grants. We have this continuing annual crisis of the apple industry. The market is over-supplied and the product is not the most attractive for shipping companies to export. Should we try to get the apple growers into industries where they can make a proper living with more viable production than they have been achieving? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Growing turtles, I suppose. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- Well, if the growing of turtles was viable I do not see why they should not grow them. It is no use making humour out of this situation. The Government has tried to do something about the very crisis that **Senator Wright** raises every day in the Senate. If we are to gain something out of the industry the main thing is to increase our markets. We have considerable competition on British markets. For the first time we have made approaches to Japan with some success. The whole field of marketing of primary products has been more successful under this Government than under any previous government. At the last meeting with **Senator Wriedt** in Tokyo on 3 1 October the Japanese Minister for Agriculture agreed to consider the possibility of importation into Japan of Australian apples from regions free of disease. To date all Australian apples have been excluded because of the existence of disease in some fruit growing areas. I believe that this does not apply in Tasmania. This is the first real attempt to do something for the Tasmanian apple growers. This Government is well aware of the position. I will give all the facts to the Minister for Primary Industry when he returns at the end of this week. If he can add to the reply he will do so but I assure the honourable senator that this Government has everything well in hand. It will see that compensation is paid where the need for it arises. It will do its best to see that orchardists are established in some production whereby they can attain a viable living without the periodical crises which they are experiencing today. {: #subdebate-40-0-s6 .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN:
Victoria -- I wish to take up a few moments of the Senate's time to approve very strongly of the remarks of **Senator Greenwood** and **Senator McManus** in relation to the Croatian tragedy. It is abundantly clear from questions which we have asked in this place and the answers which we have been given that the enormous police raids of early April were a farce, a disaster and a negation of democracy in this country. Because the matter is at present before the Senate Select Committee on Civil Rights of Migrant Australians I do not propose to refer to actual evidence from Hansard but I intend to refer to police evidence which has been printed in the daily Press. It is abundantly clear from this evidence that the New South Wales Police and the Commonwealth Police are staffed entirely by angels and archangels. They were so clean in the matters in which they involved themselves. Everything, according to the police evidence, pointed to these wicked people doing the most terrible things, and after 69 nouses were raided we have the piffling result which **Senator Greenwood** has just itemised in detail. Most of the convictions were for things which have nothing to do with terrorism. They were simple criminal activities. If the Government were genuinely interested in terrorism- I do not believe that it is; it is a political fraud and a political ramp-it would have taken some action when a self professed practising terrorist came into this country. Let us have a look at the Government's record in regard to 3 of these people. Tariq Ali is a self professed practising Arab terrorist. He came to Australia about 6 or 8 weeks ago; I cannot remember the exact date. He was admitted into Australia without a moment's hesitation or delay and he expressed his delight on television and said: Every other country I go to I have to go through a couple of hours' interrogation because they know my terrorist record '. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- On the ABC, of course. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN: -- I do not recall which television channel I was watching at the time. I was very surprised at this Government, which is determined to stamp out terrorism which has people raiding innocent Australian homes at five in the morning and enters other homes without a warrant and then says it was invited. 1 would have thought that a government of that type would have said that Tariq Ali would not be allowed into the country. But he was and he attempted to spread his terrorist ideas here and to collect money. Was he apprehended? Did the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation chase him? Not as far as I know. Did the Commonwealth Police arrest him? Did the Commonwealth Police question him about anything? Not as far as Tariq Ali is concerned. Not as far as his interview on television is concerned. Let us leave Tariq Ali. Perhaps the omnipotent surveillance of the Commonwealth Government missed Tariq Ali, but it could not miss Herbert Zvogbo This gentleman is a self professed terrorist from Rhodesia. He is one of the freedom fighters; one of the people who cross the borders of Rhodesia and murder black women and children. This character arrives in Australia and announces that he has come to raise money for terrorist activities in Rhodesia. Is he banned? He is not. Is he investigated? He is not. What happens? The Government invites him to the Surfers' Paradise orgy up on our Sunshine Coast where the Labor Party is meeting in the middle of the winter. Herbert Zvogbo says that he went along to see the Leader of the Government in this place **(Senator Murphy)** and also the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam).** After some discussions with these 2 honourable gentlemen what happened? Almost a full page photograph appeared of Zvogbo in the 'Australian'. He announcedand this has never been rebutted because I have a question on notice which was asked weeks ago and has not been answered- that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General had told him that they would do all in their power to help to overthrow the regime in Rhodesia. I ask honourable senators to mark the word 'overthrow'. That does not sound like the use of constitutional means, does it? {: .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack: -- Could that be a breach of section 30 of the Crimes Act? {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN: -- Well, it is a matter which can be investigated but I would hate to see the Attorney-General arraigned because I have such tender feelings towards him. What happened when Zvogbo put this forward? It has never been contradicted. So, we now have a Prime Minister and an Attorney-General who are committed to the overthrow, presumably by violence, of a regime in Rhodesia. One of the usual tales trotted out when anything is mentioned of this nature is that Rhodesia is an illegal regime. The Unilateral Declaration of Independence has been in existence in Rhodesia about 8 years now and the Government is still referred to by the Attorney-General and members of his Government as an illegal regime. Chairman Mao and his offsider helped to overthrow the successor to **Dr Sun** Yat-sen on the mainland of China a little over 20 years ago but that is not an illegal regime. It was done by force, violence, subversion and the normal method of communist activity. But that becomes a legal government and we have our Prime Minister slobbering over him. He came back here and announced that no country more closely symbolises Australia's ideas than does that of this murdering gang which now reigns in Peking. I want to refer again for a moment to the selective indignation which this Government has in directing its instrumentalities. I have referred to the savage travesty of the Croatian persecutions. I had occasion a few weeks ago to address the Captive Nations Organisation in Sydney. This meeting was attended by about 2,000 people. Naturally it did not get any covereage from the gentlemen of the Press because the 2,000 people who attended did not smash one window, they did not prod one police horse and they did not explode one stink bomb. It was an absolutely lawful meeting and they made their point. Had this been a meeting of the type supported by honourable senators opposite at which there are fights with the police it would have received tremendous coverage. I went to Adelaide about a month ago to speak to a meeting of the Captive Nations Organisation. On Saturday of last week I spoke, as did my friend **Senator McManus,** to the Captive Nations assemblage in Melbourne. I take no small pride in the fact that **Senator McManus** and I received the Order of Knighthood from the Polish Government in exile. This is a government that stood behind our troops when the Nazis and their pals were doing the best they could to stamp them out. Honourable senators opposite might remember what the Polish Government in exile did at Tobruk, Monte Cassino and at other places. The record of that Government would wipe the smile off their faces. I have been distracted for a moment. The point 1 want to make is this: Having addressed these law abiding citizens who loathe, hate and detest communism because they have experienced it, and having seen for myself that the meeting was conducted in a lawful and orderly manner, we found that on the Monday the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, from the AttorneyGeneral's Department, descended upon the Chairman to ask questions about this subversive gathering. ASIO wanted to see the constitution of the Captive Nations people. If this had been a communist show dealing in subversion, treachery and all that is vile, they would have ignored it. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- The President of the Senate has attended some of the gatherings of this organisation. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN: -- That is right. This organisation had the backing of President Eisenhower, President Kennedy and President Johnson. It has the backing of President Nixon. All of these men made no bones about their attitude towards this organisation. But because we had our meeting in Melbourne ASIO descended upon the Polish Chairman. I merely mention that because later on we will have an opportunity of debating the Bill on human rights. I do not want to transgress by referring to what is contained in that Bill, but I simply say what a lot of humbug it is because for 23 years under a democratic government we did not need such legislation; for 23 years there was no call for it. Our rights were never impugned because we had a democratic government. I will not go into the activities of comrade Chitepo who is a self professed black" terrorist from southern Africa. When this person came to Australia he was allowed to go around, to make speeches and to collect money. He was allowed to do so because this Government has an obsession to the point, one might say, of oleaginous servility and obsequiousness towards what it calls anti-racism. To my way of thinking a man is a murderer whether he is black, vhite , brown or brindle. If a self-professed murdering type comes here I do not think he should be admitted. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- There are a few down in Melbourne in the dockyards. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN: -- I do not propose to traverse that line of territory just for the moment, senator. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- You will, have plenty of time at this time next year to traverse anything you want to. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN: -- Well, do not anticipate that with such delight. I want now to draw attention to an economic matter. I want to appeal to the Government, having given it some mild criticism in that matter, and to direct it along a more constructive line. I want to ask the Government even at this late hour to reverse the disastrous decision made by my own Government and followed by this Government in regard to the implementation of the metric system of weights and measures. Evidence of the introduction of this system is appearing day by day in shops, commercial houses and on the farm. It appears more and more that the change to this system will be disastrous and that absolutely no benefit will accrue from it. We should not be dictated to by some other countries which measure their goods and distances in the metric fashion. Is it suggested seriously that if Japan wants our minerals it will not buy them if they are not sold in tonnes? I am not sure how one pronounces that peculiar French word. We have been conned into accepting this system. We were told that certain advantages would accrue. I do not doubt for one minute that when it comes to doing a few sums at school the children will find that the metric system is much easier than the present one. But the point I raise is this: Has an estimation been made of the millions, the hundreds of millions or perhaps the thousands of millions of dollars that this conversion will cost or of the benefit that will accrue to the nation as a result of this conversion? Is it any easier to buy a 740-millilitre bottle of beer than it is to buy a 26 oz bottle? Recently when I went into my little local milk bar and asked for a 740-millilitre bottle of lemonade I had to assist the shopkeeper to find a bottle of that size. According to the dairymen in Victoria the price of milk will go up by approximately 12 per cent simply because of the conversion to the metric system in that industry. The other day in the Senate I dealt with the increase in the cost of postage that has resulted partly from the conversion to the metric system and of course partly from the Budget measures of the Government. I pointed out that if one wants to check whether a letter weighs over 20 grams, which is the standard postage rate, one has to buy a 1-gram weight. But the problem is that these weights cannot be purchased. **Mr Deputy President,** you know from your scientific endeavours how tiny a 1-gram weight is. You may know that weights of this size are available only from scientific instrument shops and that one has to pay $38 for a weight of this size. I could give many examples of how the metric system is conning this country into unnecessary expense. I could tell the Senate how this system is spurring on inflation. Certainly it is not bringing about the benefits that were promised. I ask the Minister who is in charge of this matter to tell us what benefit the country has received from our distances being measured in kilometres? Can he tell us whether it is any easier to say that Sydney is 264 kilometres, I think it is, from Canberra rather than 189 miles? Who is going to pull up all the mile posts and put in kilometre posts? Who is going to change all of the yards, feet and inches on the millions of titles to land in this country? Will this be done at once or will it be done as new titles are issued? Innumerable economic problems will result from this change. Indeed, we could put the entire Public Service to the task of arranging our metric conversion. But now that we have decided to take this step, what benefit does the country receive from this change? The farmer has trouble in measuring quantities. I have had a look at some of the arguments put forward in favour of metrication but I have not been able to find any benefit which is consistent with the amount of money that it will cost to change over to this system. For example, the cost of a skein of wool has increased as a result of the changeover. It is estimated that the cost will increase by 1 5 per cent. Why? Simply because it is subject to metric measure. The Government has expressed tremendous interest in curbing inflation. It has talked a great deal about it but it has not done a great deal about it. It has set up the Prices Justification Tribunal, which it knew would not work and which we knew would not work. It has changed the exchange rate and made a few other gestures. I am now asking the Government to turn back before it is too late. I know we have spent thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars already in partly converting to the metric system. Punters do not know what is happening. When the commentator says '800 metres to go', they do not know how far away the horses are. This is a matter which has to be learned over a lifetime and we will receive from conversion no benefit to compensate for the enormous waste of time, energy and money spent on it. I appeal to the Government to turn back. We are on the brink. Turn back before it is too late. {: #subdebate-40-0-s7 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- The first reading of such a Bill as this can be used for stating matters which are irrelevant as well as matters which are relevant. A lot has been stated here this morning. I have not heard it all but I have heard some of what was said about searches of premises in April this year by Commonwealth and New South Wales police. A lot of it was not only irrelevant to the debate before the House on the Appropriation Bill - {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- That is an unfair statement, senator. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- It was also irrelevant - {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- It has not got to be relevant. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- It was also irrelevant to the truth. The matters which have been raised today have been dealt with before. I do not want to go into the matters which have been dealt with by the Senate Select Committee on the Civil Rights of Migrant Australians but a lot of the matters which have been referred to have been the subject of evidence given before that Committee. I simply state what I have said in the House previously in relation to the searches that were conducted. I in no way participated in the decisions as to which homes were to be searched or on what grounds this was to be done; I had nothing to do with the matter. This was dealt with by New South Wales Police and, so far as the Commonwealth Police Force was concerned, between the Commonwealth Police Force and the Deputy Crown Solicitor- there may have been more than one officer of the Department. I in no way knew on what evidence the searches were based. I in no way took any part in the decisions taken in respect of what was regarded by them as an important police matter. Any assumptions that have been put forward that there was no evidence of commission of certain crimes should be taken with a great deal of reserve. I merely say to the Senate that already offers have been made by me to supply counsel 's opinion in respect of certain matters to the Committee. I will say no more on that subject. It is quite unfortunate that such matters should be discussed in this way in an endeavour to perpetuate a party political atmosphere about whether or not there is evidence to substantiate a prosecution for a criminal offence. There are other matters stated - {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Do you not accept ministerial responsibility? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -Of course, and it would behove the honourable senator to refer to the great discussions which took place several years ago, I think in the time of Attorney-General Hughes, on the nature and extent of ministerial responsibility and to other statements which have been made on that subject. {: #subdebate-40-0-s8 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP -- The matters that **Senator McManus** raised have gone into Hansard and we will certainly look at them. The Senate will remember that he said there is quite a large amount of expenditure going through government channels, which has not been looked at by the Senate. Evidently this has been going on since time immemorial. He did point out that this Government is improving on that situation and should look further at it. I do not want to enter into a long debate about the things that **Senator Hannan** said. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- I'll bet you don't. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -I would certainly like to debate those things with him if he would be a little more truthful and a little more accurate and if he did not wander so much around the place. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- Everything I said is identifiable in the Press. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- He says that it is identifiable in the Press. The very man who accuses the Press of telling lies now brings forward what it says as gospel. I heard him say that **Mr Zvogbo** was a man who had gone across the border into Southern Rhodesia and murdered people. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Murdered black children is what he said. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I have seen no evidence of this at all. I did meet **Mr Zvogbo** when he was here and I refer to an answer I gave to a question asked by **Senator Greenwood,** who was interested in the matter at the time. He asked me clear questions about it and I gave him clear answers. He talked about people who were murdering and who were armed insurrectionists in Africa. This is a very well known fact of life in Africa and in other parts of the world. There are people who believe that they are not being given a fair go. They are being denied the right to vote and therefore say that they are going to make improvements in the government. If there is no chance for people to vote in an election how do they change their government? We have seen the situation in a country close to our own quite recently where the people have taken matters into their own hands- 'revolution ' is too big a wordand have forced the resignation of governments and so forth. I quote now the relevant part of the answer I gave to **Senator Greenwood.** I stated: >As a result of a question which **Senator Greenwood** asked me last night I asked **Mr Zvogbo** whether he had been in gaol, how many times he had been in gaol and all about the matter. Last night when I said that there was no proof of this man being a terrorist, or words to that effect, **Senator Greenwood** interjected and said that this man had been in gaol. **Mr Zvogbo** informed me that he was first arrested and charged with carrying an illegal document. The illegal document was a statement which he had made before the Committee of Seventeen, which is now the Committee of Twenty-four, of the United Nations. It was a copy of his testimony. He was aquitted by the court. The second time that he was arrested was, I think, for a seditious utterance. Seditious' may be the wrong word, but I think that that was the charge. It was at a political rally when he said, in effect, as he told me, that violence breeds violence. He was charged with making a seditious utterance, if that was the charge. He was convicted. He appealed through all the appellate courts but lost the case and served 12 months in gaol. The day that he was released from gaol, on his information, he was banned to a section of Rhodesia. He was later gaoled for 7 years, without charge and, therefore, without trial. That is the only thing I have ever put on record about this man. I put it on record again because **Senator Hannan** has roamed very widely about this matter. I looked at this subject because, though I may have misunderstood him as I listened to what he said, I thought he said he had a question on **Mr Zvogbo.** I did not see it but if there is one I will certainly look at it for him. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- It was addressed to the Attorney-General. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -To the AttorneyGeneral. I did not know of it. The honourable senator said that it was a long time ago. If this had been in my bailiwick, I certainly intended to obtain an answer for him. Honourable senators have to realise that when we get on to the question of foreign affairs there always is a tendency to talk about the world or a country as we want it to be. We would all like things to be like that. The fact is that in our relationships we have to face up to the realism of the situation. The honourable senator said some very extravagant things which I do not think he ought to have said. He has no proof that these people are murderers. No worse charge can be made against a person. The honourable senator said these things without the persons concerned having any chance of defending themselves against the charge and without even bringing forward reliable information. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. {:#subdebate-40-1} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-40-1-s0 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP -- I move: The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate the amounts required for expenditure in 1973-74 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund other than those amounts provided by special appropriations and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1973-74. The amounts sought for each department are shown in detail in the Second Schedule to the Bill, the sum of these appropriations being $3,808,140,000. This Bill seeks an authorisation of $2,2 1 5,848,000, the balance of $1,592,292,000 having already been authorised under the Supply Act (No. 1) 1973-74, $1,556,348,000, and Supply Act (No. 3) 1973-74, $35,944,000. The expenditure program of the Government was outlined in the Budget Speech and the Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document 'Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year ending on 30 June 1974' which was referred to the Senate Estimates committees on 13 September for examination and report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Cotton)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2053 {:#debate-41} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1973-74 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Willesee)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP -- I move: The purpose of this Bill is to provide for expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1973-74 on: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The construction of public works and buildings; 1. The acquisition of sites and buildings; 2. Advances and loans; 3. Items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure; 4. Grants to the States under section 96 of the Construction; 5. New policies not authorised by special legislation. Details of the amount sought by each department are shown in the Second Schedule to the Bill, the sum of these appropriations being $1,261,534,000. Of this $404,973,000 was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1973-74; the balance of $856,561,000 being authorised by this Bill. The main features of the proposed expenditure were outlined in the Budget Speech. The Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document 'Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in Respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1974' which was referred to the Senate Estimates comittees on 13 September for examination and report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Cotton)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2054 {:#debate-42} ### STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 October (vide page 1 4 1 1 ), on motion by **Senator Murphy:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- The principal purpose of the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill is to provide the necessary money to cover the grant component of the State governments Loan Council program for 1973-74. It authorises capital grants of slightly less than $280m. It also provides for forward cover, at the same rate, for the first 6 months of 1 974-75 pending the passage of similar legislation. This is a common practice. It is not the first time that it has been done. The payments are authorised from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Loan Fund and the Bill includes the appropriate borrowing authority. Much of this is consequential upon the change in the basis of helping the States which was entered upon by the previous Government. Portion of the State governments Loan Council program is made available on an interest free basis, such as by grants. This is designed to help the States finance their capital works programs, particularly items for which debt charges are not normally recoverable- school buildings, police buildings and the like. In effect, I think it can be fairly said that the interest burden in the State governments Budget area is of substantial consequence and is a growing part of their problem of managing their affairs. Two areas are involved. One is the provision of capital works of public view and convenience style where it is not really possible to recover interest charges. Equally, they have a substantial area of capital works in the form of trading undertakings and the provision of facilities for people, where interest is recoverable. If my memory serves me correctly, something like 45 per cent of the interest burden of State government budgets is recoverable by charges on trading funds and trading accounts. In effect, it is recoverable from consumers. The balance of 55 per cent is not recoverable. There is no doubt in my mind that in the days of the previous Government the Commonwealth embarked on a wise policy of endeavouring to relieve the States of the interest burden to the extent that it could be done in non-recoverable capital areas. This could well be taken a stage further, although not particularly in this debate because time presses upon us. But, as **Senator McManus** said earlier in regard to another matter, the Senate could well give some consideration to the overall financial implications of the Australian scene. I will comment on some of his remarks when we deal with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2). He spoke of a matter with which I have been dealing as well although in a separate context. In the area of overall Commonwealth finance, a case can be made for the Commonwealth to assume interest payments now being borne by the States on their debt programs in many areas such as this Bill provides for. Equally, the railways situation is worthy of examination in the general context of an inter-state commission- an approach on which **Senator Wright** has done a lot of work and to which many other people have adverted. That is something which might well rectify the Australian budgetary scene totally, and between the Commonwealth and States, and in a manner that could be worth while. The Loan Council in 1973 approved programs totalling $867m, comprising $287m in the form of grants from the Australian Government and $588m in the form of borrowings. As was said in the second reading speech, there were 2 particular areas which had to be taken into account in determining the size of the State governments' Loan Council programs. Firstly, new arrangements had been made for covering the welfare housing programs. That money had been made available in the form of section 96 grants and therefore allowed for under a different approach. Secondly, the State governments accepted the Australian Government's offer to finance tertiary education. That reduces the overall program by $32. 8m and had the effect of changing the general balance of the scene. But if both those factors are adjusted and allowed for the 1973-74 program is, at $84.7m expansion, 10.4 per cent greater than that of 1972-73. It is a substantial increase representing, I think, a fair allocation of what the Government ought to be doing in the Australian scene. The Government might argue how the Australian debt should grow in relation to the Australian economy. It might argue this in the net terms that we are not having much of a growth rate. But I think the country can stand an expansion of its capital programs providing the resource strain is not such that Australia is put in a further cycle of inflation, into which this Government has already launched us and which is of quite some magnitude. But I think that 10.4 per cent as an increase is a reasonable thing to look for. One would watch it closely if it went above that percentage. One has to watch it very carefully in the context of the true Australian growth rate, anyway. If the Australian growth rate tends to drop below what it ought to be this will put us in a situation of embarrassment if we continue to borrow at a rate substantially in excess of that. One might mention here that there has been a characteristic financial discipline in the Australian scene for the last 20 years. If we look at the Australian overseas debt in 1972 and compare it with 1947 we will find that there has been practically no expansion. There has been a substantial charging of capital works to revenue. Over the 20 years looking at the economy in a certain style which might be called, I suppose, an open market economy style, we see that great financial restraint was taken by the Australian people. They diminished their debt program very substantially. They diminished their overseas obligations substantially. Overall this put them in a very good posture for facing the future. Because they have achieved that posture by very substantial financial discipline we do not want to feel or see that a new government is in the process of throwing all that accumulated resource down the drain. But we shall watch that situation very carefully as time goes on. The Loan Council also deals with semi-government borrowings which represent about a 10.1 per cent increase. The larger State authorities are semigovernment and local authorities whose borrowings exceed $400,000. For those authorities whose borrowings fall below $400,000 there is no resort to the Loan Council. In chapter III of the Budget document Payments to or for the States 1973-74' there is a general statement. If honourable senators look at the table on page 80 they will find that the total payments to the States, not elsewhere included, between 1972-73 and 1973-74 do not represent the same rate of expansion to the States as the earlier years represented. But I do not regard that as a point of criticism. It is only a point of comparison because the figures are on different terms and their calculations are entered on a different base. There is need for sombody sometime to do an accurate analysis of the relative situation in the State-Commonwealth area of what I might call income and what I might call capital loans statements. On the revenue side, the work that I did indicated to me that as between the Commonwealth and the States the situation was reasonably fair. The area where one has to look at this is the area of State interest burden. But the State loan program as against the Commonwealth loan program seems to me, over the run of years, to have tended to move rather adversely against the States. More work needs doing on this. The current figures in the current Budget papers, having been changed from the previous comparative base, do not allow quite the same area of examination and more work needs doing on it by somebody who has some more time than we have. But maybe we will have a chance to do that on some other occasion. The second reading speech deals with various clauses of the Bill. They are quite straightforward. I can see that no exception needs to be taken to any of these matters. I have made the comments I have with a hope, rather than with a request, that at some appropriate time will the Senate take up not only the examination of the total area of expenditure in the Commonwealth scene across the board but also a consequential study of the Australian debt program, the indebtedness between the Commonwealth and the States, the interest burdens accumulating in the hands of each of them, and the general trend of the Australian debt position both externally and internally in relation to what might be termed the true economic growth rate of Australia. With those observations I think it can be taken that the Liberal Party in Opposition supports the measure. I understand that most of my colleagues in the Opposition parties support it too. {: #subdebate-42-0-s1 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -The Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1973. I merely seek the opportunity to make minor comments on some of the principles which emerge from it. Any Bill of this character which relates to the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and State governments always brings to mind the total question of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States within the Federal concept and system. So far we have seen- more particularly over the last 12 months- and orientation of the whole of the Government's administration and policy towards the centralisation of authority in Canberra, indubitably at the cost of the States. This may be a matter of political philosophy. But at least when we come to a matter such as this and we find that the Commonwealth which has a substantial command of the sources of revenue is in a position to give money to the States on terms, even though as generous as this but on this basis, it highlights the necessity for a complete look at the concept of federation. Should we continue in this way or has an appropriate moment arrived for a redistribution of power? In what form are the States to be preserved with what functions and within what areas are they able to be viable within their own sovereignty, although it might be more limited sovereignty? Of course that will rest upon the financial structure which will support the activities and the constitutional responsibilities of the States. Therefore I feel that this Bill should attract some thought beyond the mere provision of the financial grants and other assistance which is set out in the Bill and to which the Bill purports to give effect. Great moves are operating in Australia today at the instance of the Federal Government for further control by it over areas of constitutional life. Also the Australian Constitutional Convention has been convened at the instance of 2 State governments- certainly the Government of Victoria- and it will look at the whole question of control over finances by Commonwealth, State and local authorities. A Bill such as this rather highlights the need for some such thing to be done. These arrangements always operate from year to year, from Loan Council to Loan Council and from Premiers Conference to Premiers Conference. Probably they always result in a certain fiction that the States put their position, the Commonwealth puts its reply and a compromise is ultimately arrived at. This sometimes reminds me of the definition of a economist as one who proceeds from an unwarranted assumption to an inevitable conclusion. It is almost certain that the final formula which is arrived at in any year by the Premiers Conference or by the Loan Council is almost inevitably one which could possibly have been determined by correspondence before the conference actually met. Therefore the whole situation is unreal; it is undesirable. I feel the time has come- I think this is particularly evident in the attitude of the States- when the whole matter must be looked at. As far as this Bill is concerned the Commonwealth has assumed a responsibility for the provision of certain moneys by way of grant to the States in lieu of the States drawing upon their loan allocations. I would say that that is equitable. At this time it is prudent and wise because of the inflation which necessarily bears most heavily upon those who are the constructing and operating authorities within the federation. The States have to operate substantially all the public and semi-public utilities. That will have the effect of at least eliminating what, to my mind, has been a matter of grave concern and that is the continuing rise in the debt level of the States as against the position of the Commonwealth which finances all its own works from revenue as it has done for many years. The States are required to finance their debts from within their own program. So there is a rise in the level of State liability and a diminution and even disappearance of the level of Commonwealth financed debits within the accounts. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- Before the suspension of the sitting I was making some observations on the remote implications of the Bill which is before the Senate- the State's Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill- and drawing attention to those wider implications so far as they seem to indicate the need for a redefinition of the relative powers of the Commonwealth and the States so that the States would have a real and viable sovereignty. Instead of the sporadic and somewhat arbitrary grants which are determined by agreement between the Commonwealth and the States there should be some on-going financial arrangement which would enable the States at any time to see where they stand either in relation to their total finances or the particular areas in which now they receive special grants for assistance or loan support from the Commonwealth Government. I am glad to see that the Commonwealth Government has assumed certain responsibilities by way of substituting grants for borrowings on behalf of the States so that at least half of the indebtedness of the States is relieved, and that the Commonwealth has assumed a responsibility, for example, for the provision of welfare housing and capital works arising from the new Commonwealth approach to the assumption of responsibility for tertiary education; and the consequential capital saving that will result from that which is now the burden of the States. I am looking forward to the results of the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention so that as Australia moves into the next 30 years we can have a completely new distribution of power, so that the States no longer will feel themselves to be mendicants at the table of the Commonwealth and so that the Commonwealth will know at any time in view of its new international responsibilities just where it is going, where its areas of power, clearly and undisputably will lie and the States will have not only the responsibility for certain things but will have the means at their disposal without having to resort to alternative sources of finance by way of annual agreements or special approaches to finance their duties within the Constitution. Within these terms the Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill and will assist its passage through the Senate. {: #subdebate-42-0-s2 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP -- I shall be brief in reply. I thank honourable senators for their comments. As they indicated, the capital grants are designed to relieve the States of debt charges which they would otherwise have to bear. The grant now represents a significant proportion, almost onethird, of their loan program. **Senator Cotton** mentioned the State railways as an area deserving of study. He made this comment in the detailed context of having a fresh look at the whole question. It is of course open to the States to pass money to the railways and I understand that one State at least has done so. So to some extent the railways have the benefit. But the honourable senator touched on a very vital part of the situation because this Government has already offered to take over the railway systems operated by the States and this is only an indication that we are aware of the very point raised by **Senator Cotton.** There is no substantial opposition to the Bill; there was no opposition in the comments made, which were quite proper on a Bill such as this, and I am grateful to honourable senators for their remarks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2057 {:#debate-43} ### STATES GRANTS BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 October (vide page 141 1 ), on motion by **Senator Murphy:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- The Opposition does not oppose the passage of this Bill. As the second reading speech of the AttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Murphy)** quite properly puts it, this is to authorise revisions to the financial assistance grants arrangements. These are matters which have been agreed between the Commonwealth and the State governments. The Bill is to give legislative effect to that agreement and therefore we wish the Bill a speedy passage. {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -The Democratic Labor Party, similarly, will not oppose the passage of the Bill. As **Senator Withers,** the Leader of the Opposition, has said this is in pursuance of an agreement arrived at between the Commonwealth and the States and gives effect to that agreement. It will be of considerable advantage to the States and we support the passage of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2057 {:#debate-44} ### SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 1 1 October (vide page 1 1 84), on motion by **Senator Cavanagh:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- The Opposition does not oppose this Bill and I do not feel that this is an occasion on which a great deal needs to be said. The Bill does of course recognise and give legal effect to a body which has been operating for the greater part of this year and in respect of which a report has been tabled. The functions, the nature of which are unexceptional, are set out in the Bill. The Opposition gives its support to the measure. {: #subdebate-44-0-s1 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia -- The Country Party supports this Bill but the reason why I got to my feet is to say that when this Bill was going through the House of Representatives the Country Party moved an amendment to it. Our senators have had a look at this amendment and the Bill and we do not intend to go on with the amendment. We still express some concern, as was expressed by our spokesman in the House of Representatives. There are in existence many organisations which perform splendid work in the social welfare advisory field and one must doubt therefore that the Government needs to go to the expense of establishing a Commission which, in part, will duplicate the work of these existing bodies. Nevertheless, we see a lot of merit in the Bill. I hope that this Commission, when set up, will not usurp the responsibilities of the social welfare bodies which have been appointed in these States. Perhaps the Special Minister of State **(Senator Willesee)** could give us an assurance on that. Otherwise, we support the Bill. {: #subdebate-44-0-s2 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -The Social Welfare Commission Bill is a most important Bill because it purports to direct the attention of the nation to an area which can be very easily overlooked in the modern society. Australia over the years has become increasingly affluent, and very often the concept can gain general acceptance that in an affluent society there is no poverty, that in an affluent society people are getting along all right. Incomes are high, and there may be 2 cars in the family; there are swimming pools in many homes, and there are trips overseas, particularly for young people. All of these things can obscure the very real and devastating fact that even in an affluent society such as Australia there can be even greater areas of want and need which require attention. This is an attempt- I think a justifiable and worthwhile attempt- to try to direct the attention and the concern of the nation to examining what are these areas that require particular governmental care and solicitude. I am interested particularly in the second and third paragraphs on page 3 of the Minister's second reading speech. Those paragraphs read: >For instance, of what use are programs for the aged, except 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 young families while the needs of the aged were ignored. I think there is a tremendous direction of attention to the need for the aged. Nobody can dispute that there is a need for that, a desirability for it and that there is sheer justice and charity in it. However, I do think that in this society certainly not enough attention is being given to the position of young families or of young children. This Senate on a number of occasions and in particular areas has expressed its concern, particularly in the educational field, in the sense that Committees have had referred to them the matters of education of children in isolated areas, the education of deprived children and, at the instance of **Senator Fitzgerald,** the education of handicapped children. This shows a general solicitude for the educational care of children. But there is a wider care of children which also must receive parliamentary and national attention and which should reflect parliamentary and national concern. I refer to the economic and social position of young families whose income is inadequate and whose children may, as the end result, suffer deprivation and denial. For our part the Democratic Labor Party has attempted for years to have substantial increases made in child endowment. This is obviously one of the ways in which the needs of young families, and particularly the needs of young children, can at least be provided for in part. We virtually have not succeeded at all in our campaign- certainly in no large measure- in persuading either the previous government or this Government of the need for an adequate provision for child endowment in the case of families which have more than a certain number of children. This matter is referred to in this Bill. It says with quite a degree of balance that one cannot give an undue accent to the disregard of the position of the aged any more than one can give an undue accent to the disregard of the position of the younger families and children. Nevertheless, the fact that this matter is referred to in the Bill shows that this is expected to be within the area of investigation, interest and concern of the Commission when it is established. If public submissions are sought from interested bodies, I would indicate at this stage that if the Democratic Labor Party is invited to make a submission and if it is appropriate to do it or if in response to a request we are permitted to do so, we will make a submission to this body on the need for adequate child endowment as one of the most practical, one of the easiest and one of the most justifiable ways of assisting young families in the community. With those observations I indicate that the Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill. {: #subdebate-44-0-s3 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Government is appreciative of the speedy passage that the Opposition has accorded this piece of legislation which, as **Senator Byrne** has rightly said, is a very important piece of legislation. All I need say, I think, in addition to expressing appreciation of the Government for the speedy passage of the Bill is that I shall reply to **Senator Drake-Brockman** who sought an undertaking that there would be a continuation of the operations of the various welfare bodies throughout the States. I draw the honourable senator's attention to the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security **(Mr Hayden)** in which he stated that one of the functions of the Commission is to make recommendations for the co-ordination of the social welfare activities of organisations, including State, local government and voluntary organisations, involved in the provision of social welfare. I think implicit in that statement is the affirmative statement on my part that I can give the undertaking sought by **Senator Drake-Brockman.** I thank the Opposition for the speedy passage it has accorded the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2059 {:#debate-45} ### STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL (No. 2) 1973 {:#subdebate-45-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 16 October (vide page 1207), on motion by **Senator Wriedt:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-45-0-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate -- The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. This Bill merely provides the money to the States pursuant to the provisions of the 1973 Housing Agreement. Honourable senators will recall that when the Bill giving legislative effect to the Agreement was before the Senate we in the Liberal-Country Party Opposition were very much opposed to the fact that only 30 per cent of the money will be made available through the Home Builders' Account. We thought that the Housing Agreement which was forced upon the States at that time was a bad agreement. That is an old argument. The Bill has been passed. This Bill merely provides the money to carry out the terms of that Agreement. The Opposition lost the last round. The Government had its way in relation to the type of agreement it wanted. We believe that an agreement of that type will not be in the best interests of Australia. Irrespective of that, the money must now be made available. Therefore we wish the Bill a speedy passage in this place. {: #subdebate-45-0-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I have nothing to say other than to thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill. I suppose it is up to us to show that the 1973 Housing Agreement is not a failure. However, I content myself with thanking the Opposition for its support and for the speedy passage of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2059 {:#debate-46} ### WHEAT TAX BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-46-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 6 November (vide page 1528), on motion by **Senator Wriedt:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia -This Bill amends the Wheat Tax Act 1957-1966 to provide for a maximum rate of tax of 15c per tonne on wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board. The proceeds of this levy are paid to the State wheat research committee in each mainland State in accordance with the production of wheat in each State. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation recommends the levy. I understand that it is to be set at 1 lc per tonne for the coming season. This will return to the Wheat Industry Research Council $1.2m, an increase of $200,000 over last year's return. I wish to speak briefly on the excellence of the provisions of" the Act. In 1957 the scheme was inaugurated to obtain money from the growers, matched by the Federal Government and by State governments in some areas, for the purpose of research into the wheat industry. Since the inception of the scheme no less than $20m has been collected and expanded on very important research projects. The fields of research are worth mentioning. Through the years I have observed the benefits which have accrued to the wheat industry and to the local flour milling industry. I have observed the ability of Australian producers to place wheat in many world markets as a result, quite directly, of the benefits of research which these moneys have made possible. The areas of research are set out in the annual report of the Wheat Industry Research Council. One area of research is soil moisture. The research is related to the time of sowing and the soil moisture available during the growing season. This has enabled farmers in certain rainfall areas to grow varieties of wheats which have greatly enhanced the yield capacity of our wheat lands. Another area of research is soil organic matter. In earlier years we were prone to rip out the organic matter in the soil to such a degree that it left a pretty poor base from which to produce highly proteinous crops. Research into soil build-up and putting organic matter back into the soil has been of real advantage to the wheat industry. Another area of research is soil nitrogen. Research has led to greater knowledge of the use of legumes and other assistance to build up soil nitrogen, both to maintain wheat yields and to enable other crops to be grown on what otherwise would be worn out soils. The plant breeding of wheat has been a major interest of the various State wheat research committees. I recall that about 10 years ago, as a result of breeding programs, there was a very important finding from research at the Roseworthy College in South Australia. The finding was in respect of wheat proteins. It was shown very clearly that certain varieties of wheat had a correlation between amount of protein and quality of protein. South Australia, particularly, grows very widely the socalled weapon varieties- the dirks, the scimitars and so on- which were bred at the Roseworthy Agricultural College, with the assistance of moneys from these levies and research at Waite Research Institute. It was found from that research and from milling tests that these varieties had a correlation. Before then we had wheat with a very high proteinous content but with a poor quality protein. Such wheats do not produce first class bread flour. The ability to correlate quality of protein with quantity of protein assists the milling industry in Australia. Such wheat is sought by overseas milling interests. Today there is a highly competitive market for grains generally, although things are easier now in regard to wheat sales; but there was a timethere will be again, I have no doubt- when the selective overseas buyers sought to obtain the wheat which best suited their immediate requirements, whether it was for bread flour, biscuit flour or flour made from durum wheat to produce farinaceous foods, etc. I have no doubt that, in relation to these areas of research, the cooperation between the Australian wheat farmers and the governments has been of inestimable value to the farmers, to the national economy and to the future security of the wheat industry. The Liberal Party Opposition- I understand that the Country Party's attitude will be the samehas no objection to the Bill and lauds its provisions. {: #subdebate-46-0-s1 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia -This Bill seeks to amend the Wheat Tax Act by extending, on one hand, the date of operation and, on the other hand, the amount of levy to be deducted from returns to growers. This Bill implements the proposal of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. It is expected, in line with the Federation's recommendations, that when the Bill is passed regulations will be introduced to set the operative levy at 1 lc per tonne on deliveries to the Australian Wheat Board for the 1973-74 crop. This levy will come into operation as from 1 October 1973. **Senator Laucke** has spoken of the original Act which commenced the scheme in 1957. The levy at that time was one farthing per bushel. I do not want to traverse that ground. I believe that the introduction of the original legislation was a landmark in the history of the Australian wheat industry. It opened up opportunities for a concerted attack on industry problems by drawing on the skills and experiences of the research workers who specialised in different fields associated with wheat production and marketing. This Bill gives expression to the wishes of the growers that research in their industry should be continued and should be increased. It gives expression to their conviction that the industry should supply the funds for its future development. For those reasons the Australian Country Party supports the Bill. {: #subdebate-46-0-s2 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE:
Victoria -The Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill. We are pleased that the Bill contains a provision which makes allowance for the fact that the policies of the previous Government, the present Government and maybe the succeeding government on matters affecting the economy of the nation are such that we must expect continued inflation. A provision in the Bill makes it possible for the 11c per tonne which is expected to be imposed to be extended to 1 5c per tonne to make allowance for inflation. As long as the previous Government, the present Government or the future government continues a policy of higher interest rates, which must add to the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor, as a means of curing inflation, we will be beset with inflation. It is wise to make provision in this BUI for the collection of another 4c a tonne at any particular time to allow for inflation. It is wrong to say that the industry itself should be providing the whole of the funds for the future research conducted in relation to it. As I understand it, whatever funds are provided by the industry are matched by the Commonwealth Government. That does not mean that the Government pays for the research. That is another illusion that whichever Party is in power always seems to run away with. They think that they are being generous to the industry and that the government is providing the money. Of course, what they are doing is transferring the contribution from the rest of the taxpayers- the people of this country. They make their contribution not only in the interests of this industry and those engaged in it, nor even in the interest of this country alone but also iri the interests of the whole world. We must all face up to the probability that in the future the world must learn to produce the maximum amount that it is possible to produce from the resources it has in order to cope with the ever narrowing gap between the production of sufficient food and the requirements of the people who populate the world. The taxpayers of this country who make a contribution and the wheat growers who make a contribution to assist their own industry and, incidentally, themselves, are at the same time making a contribution to the world economy, to the future needs of that economy. That is what they do when they make a provision such as this to improve the efficiency and the capacity of the industry to produce. We have so many examples of this that it is not necessary for me to reiterate them to show precisely how the capacity of the world to produce can be expanded by the application of the knowledge and the ingenuity of which man is capable. Probably this is an argument that can be used in reply to those people who prattle about zero population growth. That is an absurdity particularly in an under populated country such as the one that we have the great privelege to occupy. It is ridiculous when you realise how much knowledge we have added to reach the situation that we have reached today. This has enabled us to improve the capacity of the world to produce the requirements of such people who prattle ridiculously about the need in a country like Australia to adopt zero population growth. Of course, it is obvious to any person charged with a responsibility on behalf of others, as members of Parliament should be, that this country must reach its full potential not only in its own interests and those of its people but also in the interests of the world. An under populated Australia is a curse to mankind and the whole world. Those who promulgate this philosophy in Australia are a menace not only to themselves and the people of Australia but also to the future of the whole society which makes up the world to which we belong. We support the Bill. We think that it is practical and sensible and that it makes provision for the obvious weaknesses of the Party in government today and the Party that might even be in government in the future with its economic policies. We give the Bill our blessing. {: #subdebate-46-0-s3 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Acting Minister for Primary Industry · ALP -- I thank the Opposition for not opposing this Bill. I was very much appreciative of the remarks of **Senator Laucke** and **Senator Drake-Brockman** who obviously showed their knowledge of the wheat industry and their interest in this question. Likewise, I thank **Senator Little** for his remarks. Unfortunately, he brought a discordant note into the debate when he jumped on to the question of interest rates and zero population growth which I think should be the subject of a - {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- I did not blame the Minister in regard to the latter. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- I can assure the honourable senator that I am not responsible for the latter. This should be the subject of debate on its own. This fund is for the purpose of developing research and the marketing of wheat and is subsidised by the Government according to Budget allocation from year to year. We have done much towards feeding the world. I agree that we should do this. I think that the big sales Australia has made to the People's Republic of China possibly are assisting in raising standards in that country. We are assisting that country's population by making a move which was opposed for a long time. Again, I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill and leave my remarks at that point. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through all its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2061 {:#debate-47} ### MENTAL HEALTH AND RELATED SERVICES ASSISTANCE BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-47-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 November (vide page 1656), on motion by **Senator Douglas** McClelland: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania -In rising to give wholehearted and enthusiastic support to this Bill on behalf of the Liberal Party I want to say that I feel we are all pleased with this good news in the field of health care for a particularly unfortunate and growing part of our population. I believe that I should read into the record the full title of the Bill because it expresses delightfully the aim of the Bill. It is a Bill for an Act to provide for financial assistance to the States, local governing bodies and voluntary organisations in respect of the provisions of medical and other services or facilities in relation to mental illness, mental disability, alcoholism and drug dependence. The Bill provides signs of a new approach to mental health in all its aspects as covered in the long title of the Bill. It shows the people of Australia that the Commonwealth Government and departments of health are continuing to develop a helpful and understanding approach to the problems that, as I say, beset an unfortunately increasing number of the Australian population. The Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** who represents the Minister for Health **(Dr Everingham)** in the Senate said in his second reading speech that the Bill provides: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . grants for the capital costs of approved additional community facilities for alcohol and drug dependent persons and the mentally disturbed or disabled. These will not be inside mental hospitals. They will include both non-residential and hostel facilities for prevention, outpatient treatment, training and rehabilitation. He then went on to say: >Under the Bill the Minister will approve schemes and projects submitted by the States, local governing bodies and voluntary organisations. State schemes may include projects of voluntary organisations within the State. I want to add further in congratulating the Government that the Liberal and Country Parties in another place wanted to amend the original Bill. During the second reading debate in the other place the Minister accepted the idea and an amendment was passed in Committee that pleased all sections of the House. As would be well known by my colleagues in the Senate, throughout the year 1970 and up until 6 May 1971 I was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. It is interesting to note that of the 8 members of that Committee seven are still members of the Senate. I refer, of course, to **Senator Dame** Nancy Buttfield, **Senator Cavanagh,** the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, **Senator Georges, Senator Maunsell, Senator McManus, Senator Wheeldon.** The other member of the Committee is my own personal friend and former colleague, now **Mr George** Branson. We do not claim because we submitted a very complete and comprehensive report that in respect of any action that has been taken in the field covered by our report we necessarily were responsible or even ignited the thought that has culminated in some helpful action being taken in what I must say is the fight against drug dependency and alcoholism. In respect of what I consider to be the kernel of the Bill- the points I read from the Minister's second reading speech- I wish to quote the following extract from page 68 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse: >The Committee therefore recommends that a sum of $5m should be made available immediately for distribution to the States for the provision of facilities and staff for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug dependence, including alcoholism. These funds should be used for the facilities to be provided by Governments and for the support of voluntary organisations. The amounts required to maintain an adequate treatment and rehabilitation program should be reviewed annually and a continuing Commonwealth contribution on a dollar for dollar basis with the States for this purpose should be assured. This Bill provides $7.5m each year for the next 2 years. This is something that I know will give great heart to people in the States who are connected with local government and voluntary organisations. Throughout our taking of evidence in all the States we heard from people in these voluntary organisations. Their main trouble was the lack of money. Although various people and some States were helping the organisations they were all cramped in their efforts and some had to close down. The work that could be done has not been very successful. I believe that those organisations will be given new heart and new encouragement and it is hoped that all governments in the future while the need shall last will continue with this outlook towards the sicknesses that this Bill covers and will help to look after those people who are affected. The Committee found that it was essential in the whole field of drug abuse and alcoholism that there be voluntary organisations as opposed to those run by governments or government instrumentalities. So many of the people who either were suffering or who had relatives who were suffering from the sickness of drug dependency or alcoholism for obvious reasons did not like to attend a government institution and talk with a government official. But those people would willingly go along to the voluntary organisations. These voluntary organisations all had members of the medical profession of high standing, very interested and helpful departmental officers on the outside and in some cases and probably in most cases members of the drug squads and the narcotics squads of the Department of Customs and Excise giving a helpful hand and advice in a completely voluntary style. Although it could be said that the recovery rate from drug dependency or alcoholism is not great- it is not a high percentage- I believe it can be said that recovery has occurred in a number of cases. It has definitely been proved that where the organisations, the treatment, the advice and later on, if necessary, the hospitalisation are available the recovery rate can be greatly increased. It can be shown very easily that where someone who is suffering from diseases which this Bill encompasses is motivated back into normal civilian life it is of great benefit not only to the community and the country but also to the family to which those formerly sick persons belong. Anything the Government can do in this respect is worthy of support. I do not wish to delay the Senate any longer. A long debate took place in another place and much has been said and written about the causes and effects of drug abuse and alcoholism. All I believe in is already contained in the report that I had the privilege to sign on behalf of the Committee. The only final remark I will make is that I am pleased with the way this Bill describes how this money will be spent. If I have one complaint in Australia and in the international sphere in respect of the fight against alcoholism and drug dependency it is that too much money is being spent by too many people writing too many articles and books, most of which are complete takes out of articles which have been written previously by other experts. These people travel together to various countries, hold seminars and conventions, write more papers and come to more findings and not one person is aided in his or her fight to get rid of the cause of drug abuse or alcoholism. This Bill provides the working tools and the encouragement of the people, as the second reading speech of the Minister says, to go almost into the houses of the afflicted. These are the tools for the fight. The money is there and the encouragement is there. I congratulate everybody who has had any part in bringing the Bill to the national Parliament. {: #subdebate-47-0-s1 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE:
Victoria -The Democratic Labor Party will support this Bill. In giving the Party's approval might I say how pleased we are to see that this Bill provides financial assistance to the States, local governing bodies and voluntary organisations. The Bill is an attempt to repair the damages caused to people with these afflictions within the community. It is obviously not a program which can be carried out in a highly centralised manner. It is something that should spread right throughout the whole of the community and should get down to even the levels of voluntary organisations. I wish to refer to only one of the questions involved, that of alcoholism. Voluntary organisations probably have done more to be effective in this particular field than have any governmentsponsored organisations. Indeed in my experience as a trade union official, being interested in a large body of members, I came into contact with persons involved in this problem. There are always some people who suffer from the unfortunate circumstances of alcoholism. One rapidly gains an appreciation that probably the most successful people operating in this field are the sponsors behind Alcoholics Anonymous. They seem to give a hand and to hold out a hope to people that not even the medical profession can provide. I am pleased to see a provision in this Bill which will enable voluntary organisations to receive the assistance that is necessary to keep them in operation. It would be a dreadful thing right throughout the world today if an organisation such as Alcoholics Anonymous was not able to function in the manner in which it does. It has adopted simple methods. It does not have a scientific or medical background but deals more in the psychological field where it seems to be successful when all else has failed. Alcoholism is only one of a number of activities to which mankind has had a great intolerance. In more primitive times this attitude existed with regard to medical illnesses. In those times people suffering from some illnesses were sometimes chained to a log in a village so that they could be kept under supervision and kept from mingling with or allowing their illness to affect the community around them. Until quite recently alcoholism was thought to be a personal weakness that an individual should have the capacity to control. I think it is generally recognised today by informed people that alcoholism is something to which anybody may be subject, depending on their own personality or perhaps their metabolism. Today we know that alcoholism is an individual thing and it certainly is an illness. Some people have an intolerance to alcohol while others do not. Some have the capacity to resist while others do not. While this poison can become an obsession to some people in the community, the great majority of people can take it in their stride. This Bill makes provision for these things, and for that reason the Australian Democratic Labor Party supports it. I have received many letters from people who are afflicted with another problem- that of homosexuality. These people have expressed their belief that they have been unjustly treated by our laws in the past. Some want to legalise this practice. Responsible people- or irresponsible people, however one looks at it- have suggested that we should alter our marriage laws so that these people can marry. I have not had sufficient scientific training to know whether such people are suffering from a mental illness or a mental disability. They are certainly not alcoholics, but it could be they are as sick as are alcoholics and that we do not appreciate precisely what the illness is. I think that this is one field in which a solution could be found if we provided funds for research and assistance. I believe that it would be better to do this than to try to introduce into humanity a violation of a natural law that exists not only for homo sapiens but for the whole of the animal world where the necessity for the species to replace itself to ensure its continuity puts homosexuality outside the accepted social practices within a community. This is the normal state of affairs among human beings as it is among species of the animal kingdom. Many people give prominence to this matter. They say that homosexual relationships should be legalised, that they should be accepted and that they are completely normal and desirable and that they would improve the happiness and the future of mankind. While I sympathise with the problems of the people concerned perhaps it would be wiser if we approached this question along the lines that we handle mental disabilities or alcoholism and try to put aside money for more research. Perhaps we should try to find out precisely what we can about the problem of homosexuality so that we can help these people as we are helping by this legislation people who are prone to alcoholism or drug dependence. I believe that this Bill is a good Bill. I believe that the purposes behind it are excellent and the Party to which I belong supports it. {: #subdebate-47-0-s2 .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland -- The Australian Country Party welcomes this Bill and will give it its wholehearted support. As was mentioned by **Senator Marriott,** thus Bill implements a recommendation that was made by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. There is no doubt from the evidence received by the Committee that in the past there has been a tendency by the public in general to treat the illnesses of alcoholism and drug dependence more or less as criminal offences. But people who are dependent on alcohol and who cannot help themselves are suffering from an illness and must be given treatment which will return them to a normal life. The treatment of alcoholics and drug dependent people in the past has been left in the hands of police officers. People suffering from these illnesses have gone through the courts and then have been palmed off either to gaols or institutions, many of which do not have the personal interests of these people at heart. In fact, many of these places do not have much interest in these people at all. The Committee discovered that many alcoholics and drug dependent people went to a lot of voluntary organisations made up of people who understood the problem involved and endeavoured to help these people. However, we were told that unfortunately these organisations did not have access to finance to enable them to carry out the great job that they were doing. That is why I am pleased to see that voluntary organisations will be given consideration in this Bill. I believe that we must step up our education of the general public that alcoholism and drug dependence are illnesses. We have to make the general public aware that these people have to be given the type of care, kindness and devotion by the people who understand the problem and who care for them that will enable them to live a normal life in the community. As **Senator Marriott** pointed out, there was a long debate on this Bill in the other place. We are all very pleased to see the Government introduce this measure and, as I said at the outset, the Country Party gives the legislation its whole support. {: #subdebate-47-0-s3 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- This Bill is yet another example of this Government's policy to assist those who are most in need. I appreciate, using **Senator Marriott's** words, that the Bill has the wholehearted and enthusiastic support of the Opposition. **Senator Marriott** mentioned the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse of which he was a member. On behalf of the Government I pay tribute to the work of that Committee and also to the work done by the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare which inquired into the problems of the mentally and physically handicapped. I think that this Bill, when enacted and put into effect, will very much ameliorate many of the conditions complained of by those who are not so fortunate. I thank the Opposition for the speedy passage that it has given to the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2064 {:#debate-48} ### HIGH COMMISSIONER (UNITED KINGDOM) ACT REPEAL BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-48-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 13 November (vide page 1717), on motion by **Senator Willesee:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-48-0-s0 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- This is a Bill to which the Opposition offers no objection. The Opposition acknowledges that the Bill is a necessary consequence of procedural steps which were consummated during the lifetime of the previous Government. Those steps, of course, had long been a matter of suggestion and contemplation and they came into force at the end of last year. They were that the High Commissioner's Office in Great Britain should cease to be attached to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet- thereby maintaining the somewhat anomalous relationship which had survived since the time the High Commissioner was appointed- and instead become part of the general representation of Australia overseas under the guidance and control of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have spoken to the former Prime Minister, who assures me that the arrangements which he made last year would have necessitated the carrying of some legislation of this character this year. He stated that there were particular arrangements which were able to be made and which provided that the High Commissioner would have access possibly of a more favoured or more privileged kind than might apply to Australian ambassadors in other countries in respect of the relationship which they have with heads of government of the countries to which they are accredited. I have not any doubt that those arrangements will prove useful in the working out of our relationship with the United Kingdom. Having indicated that the Opposition agrees with the Bill- it is a very short Bill which repeals the various High Commissioner Acts which are still on the statute book and preserves certain rights of officers who may be attached to the High Commission in London- let me say that the Bill marks the end of a quite historic era because, as the second reading speech indicates, the High Commission was the first of Australia's overseas representations. Now we have an extensive overseas representation and the High Commission becomes part of that general pattern. I do not think the occasion should go without these matters being mentioned. I have looked through the report of the debate in the Parliament on the occasion when the High Commissioner Bill was first passed in 1 909. 1 am quite sure that the debate on the Bill that is now before us will occupy nowhere near the amount of space Hansard that the debate on the Bill in 1909 occupied. The report of that debate runs for many pages. It is interesting to note that the real issue under discussion at that time was whether the High Commissioner could possibly incorporate into his role the functions of the various State AgentsGeneral. The hope was expressed that that ultimately might be achieved. But it has not been achieved and today we still have the various State Agents-General existing in London together with the High Commissioner representing the Australian Government. I have no doubt that the problems which were then expressed are problems which today would have expression given to them and which would continue the dichotomy we currently see. It is also interesting to note that the High Commissioner's Office, according to the 1 972-73 Estimates, cost the Australian taxpayer approximately $7m. Possibly **Senator Willesee** will permit me the generosity of expression to say that, having regard to the way expenses have gone up this year, the cost is probably running close to $ 10m for the current year. Anyhow, it is in the region of $7m and upwards. It is interesting to contrast this with the position as it was in 1 909. **Mr Groom,** during his second reading speech in 1909, was asked what the High Commissioner's Office in London was, and he said: >At the present time, the staff consists of Captain Collins, a chief clerk, a supply officer, a paying officer, a clerk of records, a registration officer, one clerk, 3 typists, a messenger, and a storeman. Then there was the following interjection: >Are the clerks English or Australian? **Mr Groom** replied: >Several are Australians, but the typists, who get about 60 pounds a year, are English. The salaries paid amount to 2,200 pounds, rent and contingencies to 2,550 pounds, and there is an allowance of 150 pounds to the secretary, making the total annual cost of the office 4,900 pounds. The cost of running the High Commission in London in 1909 at 4,900 pounds- excluding the salary which the Act provided for the High Commissioner of, I think, 3,000 pounds plus a 2,000 pounds allowance- is a far cry from a cost in excess of $7m in 1973. As I said, it marks the end of a stage in Australia's development that we are repealing the Acts which are known as the High Commissioner Acts and bringing the High Commissioner in the United Kingdom within the scope of our general overseas representation. The Opposition supports the measure. {: #subdebate-48-0-s1 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I seek some information from the Minister for Foreign Affairs **(Senator Willesee).** I understand from his second reading speech that from 1 November 1972 certain responsibilities have been transferred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Being a pragmatist, I point out to the Minister that within 3 to 5 years citizenship problems could arise from conflicts as to status in the British work force between people from the European Common Market countries going in and out of Britain and Australians going over there. What I am concerned about is whether, if someone cables back here and complains about something in the United Kingdom, under the change in our representation in Britain our representative there will deal direct with the British Home Office. Just what is happening in this respect? I am prompted by **Senator Greenwood** 's reference to the previous Prime Minister to recall that about 3 months before the last election I asked a question about **Mr McMahon** conferring with **Mr Heath.** I asked whether when he visited Chequers on a weekend the subject of better citizenship rights for European Common Market nationals than for Australians was discussed. There was no immediate indication that it was not. When I followed it up with a question to **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson, asking who was the Australian spokesman and who discussed it with whom, I did not get very far. Then I wrote to the former British Home Secretary, Jim Callaghan, and received a slightly different view. I sum up by asking the Minister When we get, as we will, problems concerning the rights of Australians going on to the British labour market in competition with people from the European Common Market countries and representations are made here about them, will **Mr Grassby** get in touch with our representative in England who will then take the matter up with the British Home Office? Just what will happen? {: #subdebate-48-0-s2 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP -- in reply- I thank the Senate for its handling of this Bill. There are 2 points to which I will refer. Firstly, **Senator Greenwood** raised the question of cost. Let me tell him that I am painfully aware of the cost. In the second reading speech I said that certain provisions: . . will preserve or improve existing rights and terms and conditions of service of the present locally engaged High Commission staff, who will all continue in employment. I might clarify that a little by saying that that is at the immediate time. Obviously, at the moment they will come under the normal Public Service Board requirements. The employment of staff in the future will be under the Public Service Act. Staff will be subject to all the usual provisions relating to termination of employment and so on, as are all locally engaged staff at other Australian missions. They will come under exactly the same conditions. **Senator Greenwood's** question about costs reminded me of the old idea that everybody is there and there forever. Obviously it is not meant to be so and I sought to put the record clear. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked what our future opposite number would be over there. Mainly it will be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which is the equivalent of our Foreign Affairs office here. The extra word 'Commonwealth' is retained in the name over there. That will be the official line of communication on questions such as immigration to which I think the honourable senator referred specifically. The Home Office certainly would have something to do with that matter. However all these things are pretty well in the field of administration. Problems undoubtedly will arise but they should not be any harder to deal with on that sort of level. Both the previous Government and this Government believe that it is time that this area was brought under the Department of Foreign Affairs, the same as all other posts. As for the question of hand-over, **Mr Evan** Collings of the Public Service Board has gone over as a special adviser to review the change-over and how the Public Service Board conditions will fit into it. I thank the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2066 {:#debate-49} ### CUSTOMS BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 November (vide page 1 764), on motion by **Senator Murphy:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- This Bill is not opposed by the Opposition in the Senate; I speak on behalf of my Party as well as my colleagues in the Country Party. It is to amend the Customs Act in order to bring it into a form that will allow complete application of the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. This is a pretty straightforward son of thing in international affairs. There is to be an alteration of section 1 3 1a of the Customs Act. The only interesting thing one might observe in passing through this operation is that it deals with species of wild flora and fauna. The Act is being expanded to cover an anomalous situation in regard to fish and prod,ucts of the sea. I suppose fish and products of the sea are fauna and flora within the strict meaning of the words. It does not seem to me that this really would be the case but I accept the second reading speech of the Government and the statement on this matter by the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Murphy).** As the marine species are not covered and it seems wise that they should be covered, the Opposition is prepared to accord a speedy passage to this measure. {: #subdebate-49-0-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP -- I thank **Senator Cotton** for his comments on the Bill and I thank the Senate for its speedy passage. As **Senator Cotton** said, this is a fairly direct and simple proposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. BUI read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2067 {:#debate-50} ### STUDENT ASSISTANCE BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 November (vide page 1674), on motion by **Senator Douglas** McClelland: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE:
Tasmania -This Bill deals with senior secondary and tertiary, technical college, advanced college and university scholarships for students. The Opposition wholeheartedly supports the Bill which it regards as a continuation of the development of a policy which was an important aspect of the Liberal Party's approach to education over the years. The Bill proposes an unspecified number of scholarships with unspecified benefits which do include, however, fees and living allowances. Means testing is contemplated. It also provides for taking over existing scholarships; that is an important matter. It ought to be noted that the granting of scholarships is to be by authorised persons and that the old Commonwealth Scholarships Board is to be abolished. The Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** commented in his second reading speech on the work of the Scholarships Board. I endorse his remarks. Over the years it has provided a most valuable service to Australian education. There is a provision in the Bill in relation to the authorised persons but the criteria are not spelt out. I draw this matter to the attention of the Senate. It is relevant that so much of what is to be done is to be left to regulation. Almost all aspects of the Bill relate to things which will be done by regulation. For instance, a full time student is defined as a student included in a class of students that under the regulations is to be treated for the purposes of the Act as a class of students engaged in full time study. I raise that matter as but an example because throughout the definition clause of the Bill almost every definition is that which is to be given to it by regulation. Therefore, I think, it is all the more important that we should pay particular attention to the regulations. Some time ago I asked the Minister for the Media, representing the Minister for Education **(Mr Beazley)** in this chamber, a question which he answered on 14 November. I briefly quote from his answer. The Minister for the Media said: >Last week **Senator Rae** asked me to obtain some information for him about the introduction of regulations under the Students Assistance Act. I have now obtained that information, and with your concurrence, **Mr President,** I will provide it to the honourable senator. The Scholarships Act 1969 was not proclaimed because of the absence of regulations. A heavy legislative program during the period immediately following the passing of die Act prevented for some time the allocation of an experienced draftsman to the task. Drafting of the regulations was nearly completed when it became apparent that new legislation would be required and action was suspended. Much of the work already done, however, can be used as the basis for regulations under the new Act and it is anticipated that that Act will be proclaimed to commence by the end of January 1974. I hope that the Minister was not accurately informed when he said that it is hoped that the Act will be proclaimed and the regulations available- as I understand it- by the end of 1974. 1 ask him to take this opportunity to clarify the matter because I have had, and no doubt the Minister for Education and the Department of Education have received, a number of inquiries as to what is happening in relation to the regulations. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I think it should be the end of January. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- Yes, January 1974. Did I say something else? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The honourable senator said the end of 1 974. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- I am sorry. I mean the end of January 1974. Of course, that is the commencement of the academic year. A number of students are still apparently somewhat confused as to what the regulations will be and how the students will be affected. At the moment a number of students are in receipt of university scholarships of various sorts and some private scholarships. Apparently these scholarships will disentitle them to assistance under the Student Assistance Bill which we are considering at the moment. I take this opportunity to pass on to the Minister for the Media and, I hope to the Minister for Education, the importance of making the regulations quite clear and final as soon as possible and preferably before the end of this year rather than waiting until the end of January 1974. I am authorised on behalf of the Australian Country Party to indicate that it, with the Liberal Party, most certainly supports the passage of the Student Assistance Bill. We see it as a continuation and development of a policy near and dear to our hearts. {: #subdebate-50-0-s1 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria -- The Australian Democratic Labor Party will support the Student Assistance Bill. It has supported every progressive step in education which has ever been offered to the Senate. I want to make only 2 brief points. In recent years there has been a great deal of criticism from certain members of the student body- I emphasise the word 'certain' because the great majority have not been involved- who suggest that people of our generation are out of date in our ideas, that we are not progressive in our views and that we are a barrier against progress. I merely point out that in the days when I went to university 40 scholarships were given for the whole of Victoria. The generation which a certain group of people like to attack these days has brought about the situation where there are now scholarships and maintenance for practically every student who has a reasonable justification for going to a university. I suggest to these highly critical young students that they ought to be grateful to the people of our generation because we have provided them with advantages which were not available to us. Today they are on velvet because of what was done for them by the generation which some of them like so much to criticise. The other thing I wish to say is that I am always pleased to vote for these measures but I always have a feeling of disappointment that every time they come up I can see no indication of any move in our universities to ensure that every student who has these advantages placed at his disposal will really be worthy of them or will really profit from them. A lot of people, like **Sir Philip** Baxter, have pointed out the extraordinarily large number of students who fail to make the grade in the first year, the extraordinary number of students who do not seem to get anywhere. I have noticed that **Sir Philip** Baxter and others have said that surely it is necessary, if we are to see that money is properly spent, to initiate some system by which we can be reasonably sure that the student who goes to a university and who will be provided for in these ways really ought to be going to university and not seeking his education in some other direction. No attempt has been made by universities to solve the problem of a proper system of examining prospective students to ensure that they are in the right place. Why have we not some system whereby we can determine within reasonable limits whether a student should go to a university, a college of advanced education or into some form of vocational training? Very little is being done in this direction. We still have the situation where thousands of students in this country go to universities not because they particularly want to go there, not because they are particularly well equipped and not because they know what they are going to do while they are there. They go to a university because the daughter of so and so and the son of so and so down the street go to a university. The parents would be downgraded in the eyes of the neighbours if their son or daughter did not go to a university, too. People more qualified than myself who have been highly placed officers of our universities, have repeatedly said that the big problem these days is determining whether a particular student ought to go to a university. In my view nothing significant is being done to solve that problem. I always have a feeling of uneasiness when I vote for these Bills. I think to myself: 'Will we get value?' There is considerable doubt whether a number of these students will be particularly happy at a university and whether we will get value out of their going to university. I hope that something can be done to get a proper system of evaluating prospective entrants to each university. Until we do so we will spend thousands and thousands of dollars and on the testimony of people who are leading officers in our universities a lot of this money will just be wasted. {: #subdebate-50-0-s2 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I wish to take this opportunity to speak to the Student Assistance Bill. It is the natural successor to a Bill which has had some political history in this place. Years ago we had a great fight here to establish the principle and the terms and conditions upon which scholarships should be granted and the regulations upon which they should be based so that they would be subject to the supervision of either House of Parliament, and particularly of the Senate which has made the scrutiny of regulations its own province. That contest was held and the Bill was withdrawn. Subsequently another government brought in a Bill which based Commonwealth scholarships upon regulations. But the achievement of that regulation basis for scholarships was aborted because the Act was not proclaimed for some three or four years. I say quite kindly to the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland),** who in this chamber represents the Minister for Education **(Mr Beazley),** that not one signpost or indication is given in this legislation as to the criteria upon which scholarships will be provided by the regulations. Is it the correct inference, as my colleague **Senator Rae** has said, that the regulations will be available by the end of January 1974? There are practical difficulties about that for students who want to know their entitlement well in advance of the end of January 1974. What chance will we have to scrutinise the regulations to see that they are an appropriate basis upon which these moneys are to be distributed to the scholarship world? So I wish to say that I think the regulations should be available and tabled now so that the Senate can scrutinise them before we rise to see that they provide for the purposes which we wish them to provide. I want to say one or two other things, and they will come up more fully in the Committee stage. In clause 7 of the Bill, for instance, I notice that: >An authorised person may, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, approve the grant of a Senior Secondary Scholarship to a person who is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia . . . In one's innocence one would think that that expression was to be read as English should be read. But one has to go to the definitions clause to find that the phrase 'permanent resident of Australia' has an artificial and perhaps unacceptable meaning, because there it is expressed to mean: a person included in a class of persons that, under the regulations, is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a class of persons permanently resident in Australia. It would be more consonant with my facility for reading English if the Bill had been drafted so as to say that the beneficiary could be an Australian citizen or a permanent resident or such class of permanent residents as the regulations prescribe. I say that to remind the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** with what jealousy we scrutinise regulations which of themselves purport to restrict benefits to a discriminatory class. Then I am intrigued by the provisions of clause 9 and a parallel clause, clause 12, regarding tertiary education assistance. I mention that only briefly at this stage so that the Minister may be prepared to give me in the Committee stage an explanation of the manoeuvres in this clause, because as I read it, it provides that any Commonwealth scholarship in existence at the time this Bill comes into operation is terminated. That is to say, a scholarship already granted is terminated automatically and arbitrarily by this Bill. But then it goes on to say in ( 2 ): {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . an authorised person may approve the grant of a Senior Secondary Scholarship . . . to the person who was the holder of the existing scholarship. It does not say on what terms- and, of course, it is a discriminatory item. Paragraph (3) says that where it is granted: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . then, notwithstanding section 8, - What that means I would like to know- benefit under the Senior Secondary Scholarship so granted shall be the same as the benefits that would have been applicable under the existing scholarship if that scholarship had not been terminated. I confess that the purpose of that manoeuvring, as I will call it, just to indicate in a shorthand way how the legislation strikes me at the moment, escapes me. The last thing I wish to say is that noting that under section 8 the benefit of the scholarship may be a basic allowance or a living allowance, I applaud what the Government has done regarding living allowances for isolated children. I only hope that because of the disadvantage which the child of school or university age is suffering by reason of the high cost of transport and living in the cities and the high cost of educational fees and other things in the cities, emphasis will be given on a basis proportionate to the hardship of those costs upon country children in providing the living allowances so that the injustice that is imposed upon children- a barrier to country children against their getting an equal opportunity with those living in the cities- can be bridged as much as possible. I would like the Minister for the Media at some time, either now or in the Committee stage, to indicate whether eligibility for the scholarship has any age limit, whether it is to be based upon any educational qualifications or whether it is intended in the regulations to adopt some other more general criteria for eligibility. {: #subdebate-50-0-s3 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -In winding up the debate on the second reading stage a number of points have been raised by **Senator Wright** and also by **Senator Rae.** Firstly, **Senator Rae** commented on the definition of authorised person' as appearing in the definitive section of the proposed Bill. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- You may have misunderstood me. I meant there is no criteria regarding what an authorised person is to do. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- All I am advised is that the authorised persons are to be appointed by the Minister and it is expected that they will be senior officers of the Department in Canberra and in the Department's State offices. Under clause 6 of the Bill the Minister may appoint authorised persons. Clause 6 (2) says: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. An authorised person is, in the exercise of his powers and the performance of his functions under this Act, subject to the directions of the Minister. **Senator Rae** referred also to the regulations or, to date, the non-making of the regulations. He will recall, as he mentioned, that on 14 November, as reported at page 1 757 of Hansard, I gave him some information about the introduction of the regulations under the Student Assistance Act. I pointed out then that the Scholarship Act 1969, which was an Act of Parliament introduced by the previous Government, was not proclaimed because of the absence of regulations. No regulations had been made from 1969 until the previous Government went out of office. A heavy legislative program during the period immediately following the passing of the Act in 1969 prevented for some time the allocation of an experienced draftsman to the task. Drafting of the regulations was nearly completed when apparently it became obvious that new legislation would be required and therefore action in that regard was suspended. I am advised now by the Department that much of the work already done can, however, be used as the basis for regulations under the new Act and that it is expected that that Act will be proclaimed to commence by the end of January 1974. As a person who has children who, as students, are affected by legislation of this nature, I can appreciate some concern on the part of the Opposition about this legislation. But all I can do is give the assurance that the Department is working on the production of these regulations and that it is expected that they will be proclaimed by the end of January next. In any event, a tremendous amount of publicity certainly has been given to the tertiary allowances scheme. Just let me give some illustrations of what has been done. First of all, in May an outline of the scheme was released by way of ministerial Press release by the Minister for Education, **Mr Beazley.** Copies of the outline were sent to educational organisations throughout Australia, the Directors-General of Education and the heads of all tertiary institutions. Copies were distributed to interested persons by regional offices and copies were sent to all Commonwealth departments. In June and July the Minister mentioned details of the scheme on various public occasions and was reported in daily and student newspapers. Letters were sent, so I am informed, to all school principals advising them of the brief details of the scheme and that applications could be lodged in September and October of this year. Then in August, at the time of the introduction of the Budget, final details of the scheme were announced in Parliament by the Minister and incorporated in Hansard following the presentation of the Budget. Of course, details likewise were announced in the Press. Further outlines of the scheme were distributed to interested persons by regional offices. Then in September and October a pro forma note about the scheme was distributed through the schools to the parents of every final year secondary pupil. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Mentioning the amounts of scholarships and allowances? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- In response to the query of the honourable senator, I have had handed to me a copy of the booklet entitled: 'Tertiary Allowances Scheme 1974: Information for Applicants'. The booklet states by way of a footnote: >This booklet is a brief guide only. If you have doubt about any conditions under which assistance is granted you should contact the nearest Office of the Australian Department of Education. Addresses are listed at the end of the booklet. On page 7 of the publication benefits are set out as follows: >Assistance under the Tertiary Allowances Scheme may include living allowance, incidentals allowance, allowances for a dependent spouse and or child, travelling allowance. AH benefits are available subject to the means test. A student must be eligible for living allowance in order to receive any of the other benefits listed. Those benefits are set out on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the booklet. So the details were provided. If the honourable senator would like a copy of the publication, I will see that one is made available to him. Application forms and explanatory booklets were distributed to all final year pupils. All students currently holding scholarships for tertiary study were sent details of the new scheme and the arrangements for next year. Posters were displayed at tertiary institutions. Press advertisements were inserted in major newspapers by regional offices, advising students that forms were available. I am told that the latest development is that some regional offices are to run further Press advertisements urging students to lodge their applications at the earliest possible time. For instance, I have before me copies of a couple of the advertisements that were inserted in various newspapers. One was inserted in the Sydney Morning Herald' of 20 October of this year and, by way of illustration, another one headed 'Australian Government Tertiary Allowance Scheme' was distributed throughout the news media. So, all has been done to give as much publicity to the scheme as is humanly possible. **Senator Wright** referred to clause 5 of the Bill and made some comment about the term 'permanent resident of Australia'. He mentioned that the definition states: >Permanent resident of Australia' means a person included in a class of persons that, under the regulations, is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a class of person permanently resident in Australia. But I point out to the honourable senator that clauses 7, 10 and 14 of the Bill provide that recipients of assistance must be Australian citizens or permanent residents of Australia. The definition allows for further definition in regulations of 'permanent resident of Australia'. The intention is not to exclude migrants from assistance but to exclude persons holding temporary entry permits. I think the honourable senator then referred to clause 9 of the Bill and wanted to know whether it provided for the termination of the Commonwealth secondary scholarships. I am advised that this clause provides for the continuation of benefits to persons already holding secondary scholarships. Most of the existing scholarships continuing into 1974 will be Commonwealth senior secondary scholarships awarded in 1973. No difficulty arises in connection with them because no change in benefits is planned for 1974. The only difference will be the change of namethat is, the word 'Commonwealth' will be omitted. However, there will be a few studentsabout 100- who won Commonwealth secondary scholarships in 1971 or 1972 and who, because of interruption of their studies, will still be at school in 1974. The benefits they previously received from their scholarships consisted of a living allowance of $200 per annum without means test, a text book and equipment allowance of $50 per annum, and up to $150 per annum reimbursement of fees. Clause 9 (3) of the Bill provides that in 1 974 they will receive assistance called senior secondary scholarships but carrying the same benefits as the former Commonwealth secondary scholarships. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: asked me some questions about the criteria involved. I am told by the departmental officers advising me that the criteria for selection in the case of senior secondary scholarships are, firstly, merit based on examination and school assessment and, secondly, for part of the benefits, a need based on a means test. The age limit is 18 years. In the case of the tertiary education assistance scheme, the test is a need based on a means test, and there is no age limit. In the case of post-graduate awards, the test is one of merit based on performance in the first degree, as judged by the university. I sincerely trust that in this reply to the second reading debate I have answered all of the questions that have been raised by honourable senators opposite. I do not wish to comment on the matters that were raised by **Senator McManus,** except to say that, having had one of my own children go through university, having another at university and having another about to go to university, I think that this country has every reason to be proud of the standard of its youth. This Government believes in the general principle of equality of opportunity for everyone. We say that the son or daughter of every Australian worker is entitled to a place in a university. If anything has been wrong with the standard of education in Australia up to the present it has been, as I understand it, that the parents of about 80 per cent of all students are in the upper income and middle income brackets. We believe that this should be extended and that greater opportunity should be given to the children of the working class of this community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-50-0-s4 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria -- The Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland),** in his reply, said that he would not comment on the points which I had raised about the qualifications of students who go to universities. With all respect, it is a matter on which a Minister ought to comment. Last year I wrote to the then Minister for Education, **Mr Malcolm** Fraser. I received a reply dated 1 December, so it must have been one of the final letters which he wrote. I shall read out the figures which he gave me. I wrote to him and asked: >What was the number of students admitted to each Australian university in the last year for which information is available? > >What was the number of students who left without taking the first year examinations? > >How many students failed the first year examinations? Some universities coyly said that the figures were not available. The figures for those which were prepared to give them are: The University of New South Wales admitted 4,044 students; 268 left before the first year examinations and 1,029 failed. Out of the 4,044 students who were admitted, approximately 1,300 did not get to first base. The percentage would be between 25 and 30. At the New England University 1,264 were admitted, and 324 did not get to first base. At Newcastle University 1,062 were admitted, and about 440 did not get to first base. At Macquarie University 1,370 were admitted, and over 400 did not pass the first year examinations. At Monash University 2,876 were admitted, and about 530 did not get past first year. La Trobe University said that figures were not available. It would be intersting to have those figures because of the amount of time that students from that university spent on demonstrations, which would not have assisted them in their efforts to pass. The figures for Queensland University are amazing. Of the 3,827 who were admitted, 1,141, or about 30 per cent, did not pass first year. At James Cook University 608 were admitted, and 240 did not pass first year. At Flinders University 773 were admitted, and about 220 did not pass first year. At the University of Western Australia 1,920 were admitted, and about 600, or 3 1.7 per cent, I am informed, did not get past first year. At the University of Tasmania 636 were admitted. It had a pretty good record. Only 6 1 did not get past first year. At the Australian National University, where students ought to do particularly well because they are in small groups and because the university has unlimited finance and chosen professors, 1,205 were admitted, and 347 did not pass first year. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- The percentage for the ANU would not be as high as some of the other percentages. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -I think that the percentages range from 20 per cent in the universities which had the best figures to 30 per cent or more than 30 per cent in the universities which had the bad figures. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- Are there any figures to show whether the first year students who failed repeated the course the following year? {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- No. Obviously some students would do better the next year. The figures are such that I think they call for action by the Government. After all, education is a very costly business. We are all in favour of spending the maximum amount on education. How can any government justify sending students to universities and giving them tremendous subventions if, when they get to the universities, between 20 per cent and 30 per cent obviously should not have gone there? The conclusion is obvious. The Government ought to have a system of examining students who wish to go to universities to see whether they should go there or whether they should go to a trade school, a vocational school or somewhere else. Or is something wrong with the quality of teaching in our universities? I would agree that there is. Because a person has a Ph.D. degree this does not necessarily mean that he will be a good teacher or a good lecturer. Some of the most highly qualified men whom I came under at universities- men with degrees from Oxford, Cambridge and Harvardwere the most appalling lecturers I have ever met. They had no ability to impart knowledge. So I repeat to the Minister, who has said that he will not comment on what I put forward, that I think it is the duty of the Government to comment. Are we sending to universities people who ought not to be there? Why do we not have some method of testing them to see whether they will do well there or whether it is the right place? What is wrong with our universities that they cannot produce better results? I was a teacher. In my time if a teacher sent children for examinations and 30 per cent of them failed, the next year the inspector would want to know why. I repeat that in my view these figures are appalling. If money is to be spent at the rate that it is to be spent- I do not mind its being spent if it is usefully spent- how Gan this Government, which has **Dr Coombs** examining ways and means of saving the nation's money, justify doing nothing about this huge expenditure? Finally, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard the figures to which I have referred. {: #subdebate-50-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: #subdebate-50-0-s6 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I draw the attention of the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** to clause 6 (2) of the Bill which states: >An authorised person is, in the exercise of his powers and the *performance of his* functions under this Act, subject to the directions of the Minister. It is that last phrase 'subject to the directions of the Minister' which concerns me. I point out that under clauses 7, 10 and 14 of the Bill the main functions of an authorised person appear to me to be to grant awards and scholarships and in each case it is particularly provided that the authorised person may approve the grant subject to and in accordance with the regulations. It seems to be anomalous to import directions of the Minister into that situation. As I understand the position, the idea of authorised persons being delegates of the Minister, being authorised by the Minister and having a chief officer in each State is to cope with the problems created by the size of Australia. That is what the Minister said in his reply. But if he is going to go through files and award scholarships in accordance with the regulations, why should he be subject to the directions of the Minister? I do not know whether the Minister has any legal advice available to him with regard to the drafting of these things. But I would ask him whether there is any precedent in the previous Scholarship Act or in any similar legislation for a specific direction that the authorised person is to be subject to the direction of the Minister in connection with his functions and duties. I wish to add only that my concern is somewhat blunted by the provisions of Part V of the Bill which provides for a review of decisions. But we all know that it is one thing to have a straight out proper system of primary award and another thing to obtain a just review. But this review procedure does not seem to me to explain, justify or excuse the provision that in the award of scholarships the authorised person should be subject to the directions of the Minister. I would like to hear comment from the Minister on that provision. {: #subdebate-50-0-s7 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE:
Victoria -I enter this debate only for the purpose of extracting from the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** some further information on a statement that he gave to the Senate. He said that 80 per cent of the students attending universities come from the upper and middle class groups. I am wondering whether he could inform the Senate what income places a person in a middle or upper income group and what income places a person in a low income group. If we exclude the age pensioner groups which, of course, are unlikely to have children qualifying for university education, from which group does the remaining 20 per cent of students come? I refer to those left after taking 80 per cent of the students from the upper and middle class groups. {: #subdebate-50-0-s8 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Firstly, I will deal with the matter on which **Senator McManus** asked me for further comment. I refer to the figures that I understand were provided to him by the former Minister for Education and Science, **Mr Malcolm** Fraser. I assume that the figures to which the honourable senator has referred relate to the last calendar year, 1972, at a time when the previous Government was in office. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- I will place the letter on the table. It was before the present Government came to office. **Senator DOUGLAS** McCLELLANDCertainly, it was before the present Government came into office. I will agree that obviously the figures need to be considered. Obviously, the wastage rate is comparatively high in many of the institutions. It was significant to me, just listening to the honourable senator cite some of the figures, that the wastage rate on a percentage basis seems to be much higher in the larger tertiary institutions than in the ones with lower enrolments. It could well be that a number of factors, including accommodation, availability of courses, the availability of accommodation in certain faculties, the necessity for a student who could not enrol in medicine having to do dentistry or veterinary science and matters of that nature, would all have to be taken into consideration. Apart from the normal examination requirements and also the aptitude tests and psychological tests that are conducted for students at secondary school level and all these modern innovations I think that it is commonly recognised that the results of a secondary school examination are not a perfect prediction of the likelihood of a student's future success at tertiary level. But I do not know that any better method of prediction has yet been devised. I think that it would be commonly agreed that in the generality students develop their potential or they fail to do so when they reach the tertiary stage. I do not think that what **Senator McManus** has put is really related only to the simple fact that a person wants to send his or her child to a university merely because **Mrs Jones** or **Mrs Smith** down the road is sending her children to a university. I think that there must be ingrained in all these things a large number of factors. I will certainly refer **Senator McManus'** comments to the Minister. I would also suggest that the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts could well consider probing into a highly important subject of this nature. All I say is that in the generality, so far as this Government is concerned, we believe in the principle of equality of opportunity and we cannot deny to one who might seek the opportunity to go to a university the right to go to that university. On the point that **Senator Wright** has referred to - {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- It must be a right that a person intends to pursue adequately and with determination and dedication. He just cannot exercise the right blindly at public expense, can he? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Surely when a person goes right through secondary school and qualifies to go to a university by way of secondary school examination, one automatically must assume, I think, that that person has the ability to go on to the tertiary level. I say that, having regard also to the psychological tests and the aptitude tests that are conducted at the secondary level, one must assume automatically that if a person seeks enrolment to which he or she is entitled in a faculty of medicine the university concerned, knowing the academic record of that person at the primary and secondary level, should accept that he or she has every likelihood of getting through the course. While I am no expert on this subject, and I do not profess to be, the suggestion is often made in the community that over a given period of time only a certain number of doctors, dentists, lawyers or veterarians or whatever the case may be will be needed in any given year. Therefore, there has to be a culling out during the course of the education curriculum. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- Medical students who fail in their first year do not necessarily abandon university. Usually, the course is sufficient in the first year to take them into something else. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -That applies not only to medicine. It applies also to nearly every faculty. That is what I am saying. The figures that **Senator McManus** has cited do not necessarily mean that all of those people, as I understand it, have gone out of university life. They have failed in a certain faculty and may have transferred to another faculty. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- Or repeated the first year during the next year. **Senator DOUGLAS** McCLELLAND Or, as my colleague **Senator Willesee** says, they may have had another go at the first year of the course. Let me next deal with the matter that was raised by **Senator Wright** in dealing with clause 6 (2) of the Bill. Clause 6 relates to the appointment of authorised persons by the Minister. Clause 6 (2) states that an authorised person is in the exercise of his powers and the performance of his functions under this Act subject to the directions of the Minister. The honourable senator asked whether legal advice was immediately available to me as to the legal definition of the terms 'subject to the directions of the Minister'. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Whether or not there were some provisions in the previous scholarship legislation or in other cognate legislation. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am not immediately aware of it but I will ask the officers from the Department of Education to advise me. **Senator Wright** in referring to the words 'subject to the directions of the Minister' went on to set out what is dealt with in clauses 7, 10 and 14.I am advised that clause 6 reflects the wish of the legislation committee that the authority to approve a grant of assistance should be vested not in the Secretary of the Department or the Secretary's delegate but in the Minister. It is expected that the persons so authorised by the Minister will be senior officers of the Department in Canberra or senior officers of the Department's State offices. My attention also has been drawn to clause 3 1 under Part VI of the legislation which states that an authorised person may authorise the payment of an advance on account of any benefit that may become payable under student assistance to which this Act applies. In this regard I am told that most of the schemes of assistance need some provision for payment in advance of the completion of requirements for entitlement. The tertiary education assistance living allowance will be paid by the month in the middle of the month. If the student abandons his course towards the end of the month in question, an over-payment has been made in respect of part of the monthly allowance and has to be recovered. Secondly, under the postgraduate course awards the living allowance is paid fortnightly in advance and a similar position obtains. In the case of the second senior secondary scholarship award, the living allowance is paid by the term at the beginning of the term. To retain the full amount the student must attend school until the end of the term. The rates paid for the means tested allowances under both secondary and tertiary schemes have to be struck on the basis of information provided in the application and adjusted later in the light of tax information. Therefore an authorised person may authorise the payment of an advance on account of any benefit that may become payable under student assistance to which this Act applies. It is therefore felt that not only should authorised persons be appointed by the Minister but also that they should be in this regard subject to the direction of the Minister. In reply to the query that I temporarily deferred as to whether this type of definition existed in any other Acts of a similar nature, I am told that it exists in the Education Act 1945-1959. 1 have been referred to section 8(1) relating to the Scholarships Boards. Section 8 ( 1 ), of the Education Act states concerning the Commonwealth Scholarships Board: >For the purposes of this Act there shall be a Board to be known as the Commonwealth Scholarships Board which shall, subject to any direction of the Minister, be charged with the general administration of this Parliament. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- What is the year of that Act? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- It is the Education Act 1945-1959. 1 am referring to section 8 ( 1 ) of that Act. I am also advised that there is a similar provision of delegation in the Scholarships Act 1969, section 19(1) relating to powers of delegation, which states: >The Minister may, by instrument in writing, delegate to a person, either generally or otherwise as provided in the instrument of delegation, all or any of his powers or functions under this Act, except this power of delegation. Sub-section (2) states: >A power or function so delegated may be exercised or performed by the delegate in accordance with the instrument of delegation, and, when so exercised or performed, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been exercised or performed by the Minister. Sub-section (3) states: >A delegation under this section is revocable at will and does not present the exercise of a power or the performance of a function by the Minister. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- That Act of 1969 never came into force. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The Scholarships Act 1969 has not as yet been proclaimed but regulations will be available by the end of the year or very early in 1 974. I refer now to the query that **Senator Little** raised about my statement that roughly 80 per cent of students attending universities come from upper and middle income families. I am not sure of the specific figures and I was speaking only in the generality when I made the remark. If I recollect correctly, I think it was considered that the middle income bracket covered people who earned of the order of $6,000 or more a year and the upper income bracket covered people who earned of the order of $ 12,000 or more year. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- There would not be 20 per cent of our earning community in the lower income bracket. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am sure the honourable senator will agree with me that there are many working class people who have quite clever sons and daughters who go to their sixth year level of secondary education and who, unfortunately, because of the financial circumstances of the family, often are barred from going on to higher tertiary level examinations. {: #subdebate-50-0-s9 .speaker-K19} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Poke:
TASMANIA -- Order! The Minister's time has expired. {: #subdebate-50-0-s10 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I am obliged to the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** for the full information he gave me in response to my question. I ask him to bear with me for one moment with my concern. As the delegate under the 1969 Act was a delegate of the Minister and did everything in the name of the Minister there was a uniformity of one officer administrating regulations. This seems to imply a system whereby a number of authorised persons have the primary responsibility for administering regulations but in the exercise of their functions the Minister may give particular directions. I leave it at that because I have had my concern blunted somewhat by the fact that there is a review tribunal. May I pass over the question in clause 7 where 'a permanent resident' is the expression used and is denned to be a class of resident chosen by the regulations. I did not find very helpful the reference to migrants and those who hold temporary visas, as stated by the Minister in his reply to the second reading debate. I do not know whether I am to understand from it that the only class of person who is to be considered as a permanent resident, other than an Australian citizen, is a migrant to this country who has not become an Australian citizen. I rather gathered that that was the intention. I would be pleased to know whether that is correct. I now direct the attention of the Minister to clause 9 of the Bill. If this is simply a provision which says that all existing Commonwealth scholarships shall, in the words of the Minister when he replied, continue for the remaining year for which they are awarded, I am surprised to see the clause in this form. I suggest to the Minister that if that is the purpose there are 2 obvious defects in the clause. Sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 9 says that, if a Commonwealth secondary scholarship granted before the commencement of this Act has not expired or been terminated, then that scholarship is, by force of this Act, terminated. We have no knowledge of the existence of those scholarships. A scholarship can be terminated before its natural time only for cause. Honourable senators will notice that regulation 33, which has been copied from our 1969 legislation and which we were very careful to insert at the time, makes provision for the suspension or termination of student assistanceships so that definite criteria for cause are provided for their termination. But sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 9 says that all existing Commonwealth scholarships are, by virtue of this Act, terminated. Sub-clause (2) of clause 9 says that where an existing scholarship is terminated an authorised person may approve the grant of a scholarship, which is referred to by the name 'senior secondary scholarship', in respect of the course of secondary education to which the existing scholarship related, to the person who was the holder of the existing scholarship. The first of the 2 defects that I press upon the Minister in regard to that provision for continuance or renewal is that this approval is at the discretion of the authorised person. The Bill does not say that this person shall grant to all holders of existing Commonwealth secondary scholarships senior scholarships of the same benefit. The second defect, reinforcing my concern about that discretionthat he may do it- is that, as honourable senators will notice, there is no requirement that in his approval of senior secondary scholarships in this case he shall act in accordance with the regulations. That is a marked omission from the power of the authorised person which we insisted upon with such force in 1 969. 1 cannot understand why there is not a simple provision that all Commonwealth scholarships in existence at the time of the passing of this Act shall continue as if they were scholarships granted under this Act. Why the termination without cause? Why is there a discretionary right to renew- a discretion that is not subject to regulations? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- But it is subject to review. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -Oh, yes, it is subject to review; but it is not required to be subject to regulations. I cannot understand why we are adopting the manoeuvre of terminating a scholarship that is in existence. Ordinarily, if we were dealing with subordinate legislation a regulation containing a provision of that sort would be disallowed immediately. It is a provision for arbitrarily terminating a vested right of scholarship which, having been awarded at the beginning of 1973 for 2 years, subject to the conditions upon which it may be terminated, would go on to the end of its period. I seek from the Minister an explanation as to why this course is being adopted. {: #subdebate-50-0-s11 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The first matter in the latest contribution by **Senator Wright** concerns the definition of permanent resident of Australia'. I thought that I had given the honourable senator the answer to his point earlier. The honourable senator refer- red to clause 7 of the Bill which states: >An authorised person may, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, approve the grant of a Senior Secondary Scholarship to a person who is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia and is undertaking, or proposes to undertake, as a full-time student at a secondary school, a course of secondary education at a level approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section. I am advised that proposed regulation 7(3) of the draft regulations under the 1 969 Scholarship Act, upon which the Department is working, provides certain criteria for secondary scholarships. The conditions are: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. that the parents of the prescribed person are Australian citizens; 1. that the prescribed person is an Australian citizen; 2. that the parents of the prescribed person are the holders of permanent entry permits, are residing in Australia and intend to reside in Australia indefinitely; 3. d ) that the parents of the prescribed person- 4. are the holders of permanent entry permits; {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. are residing temporarily outside Australia by reason of the fact that the father of the prescribed person is employed overseas by an International Organisation, the Government of the Commonwealth or a State, an authority established by a law of the Commonwealth or a State, a company incorporated in Australia or a person or firm having his or its principal place of business in Australia; I have another foolscap page of conditions which, if the honourable senator would like to have them, I will readily make available to him. As I said earlier, they are the basis of the regulations upon which the Department is working now. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- Would you like to incorporate this material in Hansard, because it may be helpful to us? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I would be quite happy to do so. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard proposed regulation 7(3) of the draft scholarships regulations. I understand that parallel provisions will be made concerning other schemes. {: .speaker-K19} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Poke: -- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The conditions referred to in paragraph (b) of subregulation (1 ) are- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. that the parents of the prescribed person are Australian citizens; 1. that the prescribed person is an Australian citizen; 2. that the parents of the prescribed person are the holders of permanent entry permits, are residing in Australia and intend to reside in Australia indefinitely; 3. that the parents of the prescribed person- 4. i) are the holders of permanent entry permits; {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. are residing temporarily outside Australia by reason of the fact that the father of the prescribed person is employed overseas by an International Organisation, the Government of the Commonwealth or a State, an authority established by a law of the Commonwealth or a State, a company incorporated in Australia or a person or firm having his or its principal place of business in Australia; and 1. intend, upon returning to Australia, to reside in Australia indefinitely; 5. that the parents of the prescribed person- 6. i ) are the holders of permanent entry permits; {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. are residing in Australia but do not intend to reside in Australia indefinitely; and 1. have resided in Australia continuously during the period of two years ended on the day on which application is made to the Minister for the granting of a Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship to the prescribed person; (0 that the prescribed person is the holder of a permanent entry permit and came to Australia without his parents for the purpose of residing in Australia indefinitely; and 7. that the parents of the prescribed person- 8. are the holders of temporary entry permits; {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. intend to request that permanent entry permits be granted to them; and 1. are, in the opinion of the Minister, likely, upon making the request, to be granted permanent entry permits. 1. A prescribed person of a kind specified in any of the following paragraphs does not fulfil a condition specified in subregulation (3):- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. a prescribed person whose parents are residing temporarily in Australia as members of the staff of a diplomatic or consular mission of a country other than Australia; 1. a prescribed person, not being a prescribed person who is an Australian citizen, who is the holder of a temporary entry permit and has been granted that permit only for the purpose of enabling him to attend a school in Australia; and 2. a prescribed person, not being a prescribed person who is an Australian citizen, whose parents are the holders of temporary entry permits and- 3. do not intend to reside in Australia indefinitely; or {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. are residing in Australia only in order to engage in the employment in which they are engaged or one of them is engaged. 2. Paragraph (c) of sub-regulation ( 1 ) does not prevent the grant of a Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship to a prescribed person who has changed his ordinary place of residence from one State to another State after application was made for the grant of the scholarship if he would have complied with the provisions of that paragraph but for having so changed his ordinary place of residence. 3. 6 ) Paragraph (f) of sub-regulation ( 1 ) does not prevent the grant of a Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship to a prescribed person if it was impracticable, as a result of his having changed his ordinary place of residence from one State to another or of his having been absent from Australia, for application to be made, during the third last year of his course of secondary education, for the grant of a Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship to him. **Senator DOUGLAS** McCLELLANDSenator Wright also raised a matter which concerned clause 9 of the Bill. He referred to the question of the termination of commonwealth secondary scholarships. I am advised by Parliamentary Counsel that the arrangement which is set out in clause 9 of the Bill is a formal arrangement in order to bring persons presently receiving benefits and eligible to continue with those benefits in 1974 within the terms of the present Act. It is for that reason that the legislation has been drafted in these terms. {: #subdebate-50-0-s12 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE:
Victoria -I wish to continue the point that I made earlier as the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** did not have time to conclude his answer to it and obviously did not understand the intent of my question in view of the statement he made at the conclusion of his reply to the second reading debate. {: #subdebate-50-0-s13 .speaker-KB9} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wilkinson:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Order! It being 4.30 p.m. and pursuant to Order of the Senate, I shall report progress. Progress reported. General Business Taking Precedence of Government Business at 4.30 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2077 {:#debate-51} ### PARLIAMENT BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I move: The Parliament has experienced protracted delays in reaching finality of decision for the site of the new and permanent parliament house. I have always taken the view that that decision should be the decision of Parliament and not of the Executive Government and certainly not of an unconstitutional assembly of members of both Houses and not of a joint meeting of members of both Houses. Except in the very exceptional case to solve deadlocks after an election in section 57, the Senate and House of Representatives operate separately in their constitutional functions of the Parliament. My chief purpose in introducing this Bill was to provide the ordinary parliamentary statutory process as the means of reaching a decision on the site. Last week the Senate rejected any proposal for a joint assembly of members and at the same time confirmed its view by a substantial majority that Capital Hill should be the site of the new parliament house. This site coincided with the opinion which I held for many years. But recently I was persuaded by the Select Committee Report supported by the impressive report of the National Capital Development Commission that Camp Hill should be the site. I was the more willing to adopt that view as Camp Hill was the site originally and repeatedly chosen by Canberra's designer, Burley Griffin. Therefore, the Bill as introduced designated Camp Hill as the site for the permanent parliament house- providing that the apex of Capital Hill should be included in the parliamentary grounds- thus ensuring Capital Hill apex as part of the parliamentary site. But I accept without reservation the Senate's decision of last week and I shall seek to amend the Bill as originally submitted and then the Bill will provide that Capital Hill should be the site. The parliamentary grounds as set out in the amended Bill will embrace the whole area of Capital Hill as surrounded by the ring road and will extend to include Camp Hill and the present site of the present Parliament House. The reason for extending the parliamentary grounds to the whole of Capital Hill is that on the advice of the Chief Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission it would be requisite that the whole of that area be available to any designer for his consideration. I hope that the site of Capital Hill and the parliamentary grounds as set out in the schedule to the amended Bill will be confirmed by the Senate in the terms of the amended Bill. If those provisions are accepted by the Parliament they will bring the decision of the site to finality. The situation of the new parliament house will be decided in a proper parliamentary way and will become law and binding on all parties. Design planning will then be able to proceed secure in the knowledge that the site chosen cannot be altered except by a subsequent Act. The Bill provides some additional advantages. It delineates the area of parliamentary grounds and specifically provides that within that area the jurisdiction of the Presiding Officers prevails. It also makes clear that subject to any special powers and authorities of the Presiding Officers, the laws of the Australian Capital Territory apply. In addition to delineating the area of parliamentary grounds the Bill also marks out the parliamentary zone, broadly the triangular area extending from the parliamentary grounds to Lake Burley Griffin. The Bill provides that no building should be erected within the parliamentary grounds or the parliamentary zone except pursuant to resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. It is thought that the parliamentary grounds are obviously peculiarly such a preserve of Parliament that both Houses of Parliament ought to be consulted before any new building is erected in parliamentary grounds. In the parliamentary zone there are, as we would think, sufficient buildings already erected or authorised as to make it proper that no further buildings be erected in that triangle without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. That is not novel in our legislation. In relation to such works as we think, because of their cost, should be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works we specifically provide that no such work shall be carried out unless the House of Representatives passes a resolution that it is expedient that that work be carried out. So the only thought behind this provision prohibiting new buildings in either the parliamentary grounds or the parliamentary zone is to ensure that Parliament is consulted in regard to any such proposal. I have moved the second reading of the Bill and in Committee I propose to move the amendments which I have circulated. If the Senate agrees to the Bill and amendments the Bill as passed by the Senate will be in the form which I have caused to be circulated for the consideration of honourable senators. That has been printed in the form in which the Bill would be if all the amendments had been made. It was thought that that would clearly convey to members of the Senate the provisions that I seek to remain in the Bill after amendments which I have circulated have been made in Committee. I hope that the Senate will accept the proposals that I have put forward in the spirit of fulfilling its resolution of last week in a proper parliamentary way so that if the Bill is accepted by another place we will then have finality in regard to this matter and the basis for future design and planning. I commend the Bill to the Senate. {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania -- I appreciate the opportunity to direct a few remarks to this Bill. I particularly speak in relation to the area available for the provision of a new and permanent parliament house and those other amenities, facilities and appendages, or whatever one likes to call them, that go with a parliament house. Initially I was persuaded and, like **Senator Wright,** I came to change my mind about the most appropriate site for the new and permanent parliament house. He changed his mind as a result of the persuasion of the Senate. I changed mine as a result of observations I was able to make as a member of a delegation which went overseas and examined the important question of the siting of parliament houses, the appointments which ought to be in them, the range and extent of the activities which ought to be conducted within parliamentary buildings and matters of that kind. As a consequence of that visit I was persuaded that one of the principal considerations initially in regard to the siting of a parliament house is the adequacy of the area of the site. We are talking about a monumental building, a building that is to stand here and represent this country and the aspirations of its people for centuries into the future. A very important and principal considerationindeed the dominating considerationhas to be the adequacy of the area in which a parliament house is sited so that for hundreds of years into the future, accepting the monumentality concept, there would be an opportunity to extend the facilities of the parliament and the appointments of the parliament to embrace all the activities that would take place in the parliament as contemplated now and as not yet contemplated but which with the passage of time, may well constitute an appropriate function of the parliament. Everywhere we went, and we visited many parliaments throughout the world - {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- That must have been a good trip. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -- It was an excellent trip and it is a darned pity that we have had to wait all this time to give voice to the things which we found in the course of it. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- You should have given the money back. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -- No. We have the knowledge. It looks as if we are coming to the stage where the knowledge gained then is going to be of some advantage after all. So I do not feel so badly about it. This Bill gives us the opportunity at least of saying what we feel about this matter. The thing which stood out more clearly than any other and which became apparent to us in the course of that overseas visit was the complete and absolute inadequacy of every parliament house we visited. It is a feature of mankind, I suppose, that we have very great difficulty in assessing the needs of the future. Throughout my career in the municipal world- I guess that this would be the experience of most other honourable senators in the course of their occupationsI have had the experience of observing and feeling the detrimental effects of an inadequacy of planning to embrace what would happen in the future. The architect in the great Capitol building in Washington, **Mr Stewart,** told us of the problems they were having in providing an underground railway to service the parliament and in giving access to areas of the parliamentary complex which had to be visited by members of the parliamentary body and officials. We saw the Lok Sabha, or Rajah Sabha, in India, that great round building the concept of which was such that it had to be either destroyed or have underground passages leading off to a complex 300 feet or so away in order not to destroy its aesthetics. That work had to be undertaken. In Rome the building was inadequate. The House of Commons was completely and hopelessly inadequate. There 200 members of the Mother of Parliaments could not even get a seat in the Parliament. There was nowhere for them to hang their hats. I have told of the sort of experience that we were looking for and which we found. It became terribly apparent to me and to many members of that committee at least that one of the principal considerations was the adequacy of the area in which the parliament was to be built. Anyone could design a building to meet the needs of the country for 50, 60 or even 100 years into the future. But we are considering the design and construction of a monumental building which will be aesthetically beautiful and acceptable to the people of Australia while being functional for hundreds of years into the future. One could easily design a building for the short term but if we are contemplating the activities of the parliament hundreds of years into the future we must have sufficient land on which to site the building. It was my understanding that Capital Hill was the only area now available which would provide sufficient space for the parliamentary build- . ing. I appreciate the fact that at least we have come to this sensible stage in our approach to the new and permanent parliament house. It is appropriate that the Parliament should express its opinion on this matter in the manner in which it is before us at present. One could talk at very great length about the problems of inadequacy of planning and the difficulties that are being posed. For instance, I cite the United Nations building in New York which was commissioned in 1958. It had a floor space of 600,000 square feet. Ten years later it was calculated by **Mr Van** Narm- I think that was his name- the architect at the United Nations building, that there was a shortfall of 400,000 square feet in floor space to accommodate the needs of the United Nations. I refer to the storage of documents and records and all the other functions carried on there. New York was being canvassed for garage space and other storage areas in which to carry on the functions of the United Nations. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- Parkinson 's Law. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -Well, it may be Parkinson's Law. We are not going to avoid it here. In this modern day and age, with all the scientific aids available to man to determine things, such as computers and calculators, in this great building in New York, commissioned in 1 958, there was a 400,000 square feet deficiency in space within a matter of a few years. Parkinson's Law or not, that was the experience there. I suggest that we will have the same sort of experience here no matter how far ahead we can see by gazing into the crystal ball and contemplating developments in the future. I think that if we came back here in 50 years time we would be amazed at the range of activities being carried on in and around the Parliament and the parliamentary complex. It is a sensible proposition to site this building on Capital Hill and the proposition put forward by **Senator Wright** is a sensible one. It should be very clearly understood that no further buildings should be erected within the area delineated on the plan in the Bill. In fact, when we were deliberating matters of this kind in Committee some few days ago a very similar sentiment was expressed- that under no circumstances should there be any further intrusion into the parliamentary triangle. I think that the proposition is good, sensible and sound. I thought that the red outline on the map indicated the site of the parliamentary building but I cleared this matter with **Senator Wright.** There is more than one possible ' site within that outline. **Senator Wright** assured me that this does give expression to the voice of the Senate as indicated in the vote taken a few days ago when the Senate decided that the building should be sited on Capital Hill. I think this Bill is appropriate and I feel very much disposed to support the proposition. {: #subdebate-51-0-s2 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- I indicate firstly that no Liberal Party view will be expressed on this Bill and that there will be completely free vote. I express my personal point of view when I say that I support the Bill. I understand that suggested amendments have been drafted and when I talk about the Bill I mean the Bill as it would appear as amended by **Senator Wright.** As a result of the debate here last week it is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of senators want the new and permanent parliament house to be built on Capital Hill. I think it was also made clear last week that there is a preference for the decision to be made by legislation rather than by holding a joint meeting of the 2 Houses of Parliament. I think **Senator Wright** is to be commended for having the initiative to bring this Bill forward. I think that the fact that he has now extended the Bill, as **Senator Devitt** indicated, to cover the whole parliamentary triangle and to provide that no further buildings will be placed therein without the consent of the Parliament is an excellent idea. I again indicate briefly that I certainly support the second reading of the Bill and agree with its principles as it will be if the amendments to be put by **Senator Wright** are carried. {: #subdebate-51-0-s3 .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator POYSER:
Victoria -I also wish to express my support for giving this Bill a second reading despite the fact that I was one who strongly supported the joint meeting of the members of both Houses of Parliament to resolve the issue of the site of the new and permanent parliament house. I support this Bill because it is a positive move that can be taken and perhaps the result will be a commencement on the new and permanent parliament house. I hope that if the Senate carries this Bill in an amended form its fate will not be to lie at the bottom of the notice paper in another place. I think it is high time that, at some stage, a government took the action which is vital to ensure that within another 10 or 12 years a parliament house of which we can be proud, which is roomy enough for the activities of Parliament and which- in my opinion this is even more important- has the facilities for the big staff which is required to operate a Parliament of this nature, becomes a reality. For instance, if one goes into the Library, particularly into the research section, and one sees the lack of facilities under which these excellent officers are working, this in itself should be an impetus for any parliament and for any government to decide to rectify those problems which we have in this building. It has always been amazing to me that our staff in the Library has been able to act so competently and efficiently in the circumstances under which it operates. These remarks apply equally to other sections of Parliament, particularly the Ministers. Some of the suites which the Ministers have- I think it is exaggerating to call them suites- are not suitable for the duties and the work which the staff has to carry out. For instance, in **Senator Cavanagh** 's office at the present time 3 people are working in an area which might be sufficient for one person to comfortably carry out his duty. This is an intolerable situation in which Ministers, irrespective of which government is in office, have to continue to work for the next 10 years. But it is obvious that if we start now it will be 10 years before we see a new and permanent parliament house. I again express my misgivings at suggestions that we should have a staged program. I think that if we have a staged program we will be in the situation of stage I, stage II in SO years time and stage III may never occur. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: -- Like this place. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator POYSER: -- Like this place, as the honourable senator says. Indeed, this happened in his own city of Perth. In the city of Melbourne after 81 years stage II of Parliament House is being commenced this year. So I think that any suggestion of stages should be rejected out of hand. We should grasp the nettle and proceed as quickly as possible, perhaps even to the extent of not going through the exercise, as we did in 1914 and 1916, of having design competitions. I believe that that could be a waste of time when there are competent architects in this country who, I believe, could adequately design a parliament house which would be suitable for us. In total the previous competitions took 4 years and the entries were never judged. The undertakings which were given to the people who entered the competitions were repudiated as honourable senators can see from the evidence taken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Works in 1923 about a new and permanent parliament house. So I commend the Bill as it may be amended. I understand that other honourable senators may have some ideas about certain clauses which may need looking at. But the principle is right, the time is right and I hope that the Bill is carried through the second reading stage. {: #subdebate-51-0-s4 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia -I wish to indicate my very full support for this Parliament Bill. I commend **Senator Wright** for having introduced it. It enables us to come to a determination in a completely parliamentary statutory process in regard to a decision as to the site of a new and permanent parliament house. I admire the concept of quite a huge area of land being retained and the provision that no buildings are to be erected on this land without the permission of Parliament. This is a constructive approach. It certainly fits in with my own aspirations of where the parliament house should be. I have pleasure in supporting the proposals of **Senator Wright.** {: #subdebate-51-0-s5 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- This matter, which is the determination of the site of the new and permanent parliament house, involves, as we have all said, a free vote. The Parliament Bill goes beyond the mere site of the new and permanent parliament house. I have no objection to the course which has been taken here. I have no great enthusiasm for it but I have no objection to it. I do not oppose a second reading of the Bill. But what I am troubled about is that I do not know the full effect of what is being done in clauses 5 and 6, particularly clause 6. These clauses may even go beyond the decision by our Party to have a free vote. But I am more concerned about the fact that we do not know really just what we are doing in clause 6 which states: >Subject to any Act or to any order of either House of the Parliament, the laws of the Australian Capital Territory have full force and effect within the Parliamentary grounds. Within the parliamentary grounds, as denned, would appear to me to mean in Parliament House. It is true that this is subject to any Act which applies, especially to Parliament. It is true that it is subject to any order to which we can point. But there is a whole host of matters which are not subject to any Act or any order. We are bringing in this provision in a way which I do not fully appreciate. I think that no one can fully appreciate the laws of the Australian Capital Territory. There are a lot of very strange laws of the Australian Capital Territory. There is a mixture of laws, or ordinances, of some Acts of this Parliament, of laws carried over from New South Wales and of laws carried across from the United Kingdom. I simply just do not know what we are doing. I think it is fair that we should know what is being done because if this Bill is passed and becomes law this may be one of the most significant things that was ever done by Parliament to itself. I can see that much in the clause. It may not merely be the substantive laws which are applicable here. It may well be procedural laws. For example, it may be that laws which concern us could be dealt with by bodies outside this place. Matters could be dealt with by courts and we might be astonished that this could ever happen. Yet we may do that to ourselves by clause 6. All I suggest is that as the Bill has been introduced and as I think it is an important measure it is proper that it should receive a second reading without prejudice to the consideration of these other matters. I understand that **Senator Wright** is not dogmatic about the red lines on the plan set out in the schedule. That is understandable. That could easily be corrected elsewhere. But I am very concerned about those 2 clauses, in particular clause 6. So that there will not have to be any difficulty, with great respect I ask **Senator Wright,** in the interests of the Senate and the Parliament, to agree that if this Bill goes to the second reading it not proceed in the Committee stage until we have had some time to see what this body of law is and how far it goes before we are required in any way to vote in the Committee stage. We may be able to decide rapidly what ought to be done about the matter. I do not suggest this by way of delay. But already I can see that it is of the utmost significance and, as I am minded at the moment, if it went into Committee I would vote against clause 6 without any doubt whatever because I think it would be far too dangerous to pass the Bill with clause 6 in it. So I ask that of **Senator Wright** so that we can deal with this matter without it becoming a party matter, if that can be done, and without our having contention. We are all trying to do the same thing in this, namely, to achieve some reasonable definition of the affairs that concern us. We are all aware of the problems. So I ask **Senator Wright** to consider that, and then it might be done without the necessity of dividing. {: #subdebate-51-0-s6 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -in reply- Reference has been made to a division. I would like a division on the matter and I think it would be a most desirable procedure. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- I did not mean a division on the motion for the second reading; I meant afterwards. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- I mean on the motion for the second reading, so that other sections of the Parliament will know to what degree of acceptance or rejection the Bill has been subjected. On the other matter I must confess that I am very appreciative of the acceptance that the Senate has given to the idea or principle of the Bill which the second reading debate has indicated, in some cases expressly and in other cases impliedly. I indicated that the first thing was to provide a parliamentary procedure to decide the site, and that, I think, has commended itself to all members of the Senate. No objection to that was advanced by **Senator Murphy.** That is the principal achievement intended by the Bill. As I understand it, **Senator Murphy** does not intend to vote against the motion for the second reading. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- That is correct. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- Therefore, simply out of courtesy to the suggestion that has fallen from **Senator Murphy,** I indicate that in Committee this matter will be entirely at the will of the Committee of the Whole. But, for myself, without any personal interest in the matter different from that of any other senator here, I say that the reason why we arranged to get this on this afternoon before interest dropped out of the matter was to follow on- showing that we are men of action- the resolution that we put in another form last week. Then I hope to attract immediately the consideration of the House of government. I shall address myself to the 2 clauses which **Senator Murphy** mentioned in Committee. I indicate that of course I will be prepared to consider his and other submissions upon that matter in order to determine my attitude to reporting progress or asking that the Bill be concluded. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: **- Mr President,** there was no dissenting voice at all. {: #subdebate-51-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There was no dissenting voice. The journals will note that. Bill read a second time. Consideration interrupted. {: .page-start } page 2082 {:#debate-52} ### DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE J. J. DEDMAN {: #debate-52-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Perhaps I could intervene at this stage to inform honourable senators of a matter which I know will concern them. The Honourable J. J. Dedman died this day. A State funeral will be held. Tentative arrangements are for the funeral to be held on Monday at 1 1 a.m. {: .page-start } page 2082 {:#debate-53} ### PARLIAMENT BILL 1973 Consideration resumed. In Committee {: #debate-53-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania **-Mr Chairman,** would you permit me to suggest that you ask the Committee to take the Bill, except clauses 5 and 6, as a whole? This will enable **Senator Murphy** to give specific attention to clauses 5 and 6. {: #debate-53-s1 .speaker-K1R} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA -Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole, except clause 5 and clause 6? There being no objection, that procedure will be adopted. At the outset I point out that it is customary to take the title of the Bill at the end of the Committee consideration. {: #debate-53-s2 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I ask for leave to move the amendments circulated in my name together. Their joint effect does not affect clauses 5 and 6. {: #debate-53-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The Committee will take the Bill as a whole, with the exception of clauses 5 and 6. **Senator Wright** has asked that the amendments circulated in his name be taken together. **Senator Wright,** which are the amendments that are to be taken together? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -All those on the sheet which has been circulated. Their effect is produced in the reprinted Bill. The effect of my request that they be taken together, if accepted, would be that the Committee would then agree that the Bill before us is as printed in the new Bill. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- That would not prejudice our consideration of any of the clauses? {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: -- No. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- So long as that is understood, there is no objection. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -Is it the wish of the Committee that the amendments be considered together? {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- I want to ask **Senator Wright** a question about the amendments that he has circulated. **Senator Wright** has included a clause 8a. That will become clause 8, not clause 8a, will it not? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -That is so. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -I move the following amendments: >No. 1- Page 1, Title, leave out ", and to set aside an Area on Capital Hill to be known as the National Garden of Australia ". > >No. 2- Page 1, clause 3, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: " 3. In this Act- > > Parliamentary grounds' means the grounds comprising the land delineated by red lines on the plan set out in the Schedule. > > Parliamentary zone' means the area of land bounded by the lines commencing at a point where Commonwealth Avenue intersects State Circle marked A, and thence in a northerly direction along Commonwealth Avenue to Lake Burley Griffin at a point marked B, and thence extending in an easterly direction along the shore of Lake Burley Griffin to a point where Kings Avenue intersects with the said Lake shore marked C, and thence in a south-westerly direction along Kings Avenue to State Circle at a point marked D, and thence in a westerly direction along State Circle to a point of commencement excepting therefrom the Parliamentary grounds. ". > >No. 3- Page 2, clause 7, leave out the clause. > >No. 4- Page 2, after clause 8, insert the following new clause: "8a. Except in accordance with a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament, no building or other work shall be erected within the Parliamentary grounds or within the Parliamentary zone.". > >No. 5- Page 2, clause 9, leave out the clause. Amendments agreed to. {: #debate-53-s4 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- It is necessary now only to look to the Bill which has at the top: 'Bill as proposed to be amended by **Senator the** Honourable R. C. Wright'. As I interpreted the second reading debate, there is to be no discussion on 'parliamentary grounds' or parliamentary zone'. The next clause to which the Committee should give its attention, I suggest, is clause 7 of the 'Bill as proposed to be amended'; that is to say, that the new house should be constructed on the site marked 'site of Parliament House' on the plan set out in the Schedule. That has been decided by our resolution of last week. Then, clause 8 of the 'Bill as proposed to be amended' reads: >Except in accordance with a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament, no building or other work shall be erected within the Parliamentary grounds or within the Parliamentary zone. I have taken the trouble to go through the Bill again just briefly. Subject to any discussion that individual senators may wish to have, I think, **Mr Chairman,** that if you put to the Committee the Bill, other than clauses 5 and 6 to which **Senator Murphy** wishes to address attention, we would be making progress. {: #debate-53-s5 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I wish to advert to only a very minor point. It might be cleared up at some later stage. Clause 8 of the Bill as introduced by **Senator Wright** states: >The new and permanent Parliament House proposed to be constructed after the commencement of this Act shall be constructed upon the site marked 'Site of Parliament House' on the plan set out in the Schedule. I am a little troubled as to whether the drafting of this clause is sufficient to meet what obviously **Senator Wright** intends. As I understand it, he intends that the new parliament house be situated within the red circle shown in the Schedule to the amended Bill. If one continued the red line and made a circle it would be clear that the site was meant to be on Capital Hill. The honourable senator does not quite say that in his Bill. What he says may be construed as meaning 2 things. It could mean that the site of the new parliament house would be precisely where those words Site of Parliament House' appear in the Schedule, which would be too small an area. On the other hand- this troubles me more- some people who are looking at this perhaps not in the spirit in which we intend could say that the site of the new parliament house extends to the whole of that area surrounded by the red line in the Schedule of the 'Bill as proposed to be amended', which would include Camp Hill. We are lucky that it does not extend down to the lake. As I understand what **Senator Wright** says, he obviously intends that the new parliament house be built within that circular portion. If we extended the red line a little or did something else- in other words, if we made a slight change in the drafting- I think it would bear out what **Senator Wright** intends. I will not say anything other than that the matter can be easily attended to so that it is made quite clear that the site is intended to be on Capital Hill and so that no one can draw a mistaken interpretation - {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- Or by deviousness. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Or, as **Senator Cotton** says, by deviousness say: 'Tha', is what you said in your Bill. It includes Camp Hill, and that is where it is'. We want to avoid any wrong suggestion in relation to what is intended. {: #debate-53-s6 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I have an amendment which refers to clause 7 of the Bill as proposed to be amended ', which reads: >The new and permanent Parliament House proposed to be constructed after the commencement of this Act shall be constructed upon the site marked 'Site of Parliament House' on the plan set out in the Schedule. I move: The clause will then read: >The new and permanent Parliament House proposed to be constructed after the commencement of this Act shall be constructed upon the site Capital Hill marked 'Site of Parliament House' on the plan set out in the Schedule. **Senator Sir KENNETH** ANDERSON (New South Wales) (5.15)- I wish to speak to clause 7, of the 'Bill as proposed to be amended' but before I do so I would like to say that I missed hearing **Senator Wright** deliver his second reading speech. I hope that I will go down in history in relation to this matter because last week I succeeded in clearing the air as to whether the site was to be Capital Hill or Camp Hill. I have some concern about the wording of clause 8 of the 'Bill as proposed to be amended'. I accept its intention, which I think is clear. Clause 8 reads: >Except in accordance with a resolution of both Houses . . . By inference that means that both Houses are agreed. For 20-odd years we have been in conflict with the other place about this very issue. Therefore I am in difficulty in relation to certain situations in which there may be conflict between the 2 Houses. The meaning of this clause is left gloriously vague. For instance, some emergency may arise in relation to this matter which acts as a challenge and a threat to this very clause but because of some difficulty between the 2 Houses -some other matter may intrude- there can be no resolution of both Houses. I am not trying to be obstructive on this. Having bent the knee in relation to Camp Hill I am trying to get the best of all worlds for Capital Hill and for the concept of the Bill. I did say in our own conclave that in my view clause 8 is not strong enough for what it intends or wants to do. The lawyers are very good when we do not want them to be good. I would like to see them pull the digit and improve the clause. {: #debate-53-s7 .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER:
Queensland -- I simply put to the Committee that in the 'Bill as proposed to be amended' it is in the minds of some people that the area marked 'Site of Parliament House' will not be sufficiently large to accommodate a new and permanent parliament house and that the ring road should be taken back to accommodate it. I have no objection to the proposal but I just give warning that perhaps in the future we may have to amend the Bill if we find that the area occupied by the ring road is required for a new and permanent parliament house. {: #debate-53-s8 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I wish to raise a matter in order that **Senator Wright** may clarify it for me, if he would. It is related to clause 4 which reads: >The Parliamentary grounds are subject to the joint control of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the same extent as those parts of Parliament House that are subject to their joint control. I think it is largely a matter of custom that the Senate side of Parliament House is under the control of the President and the House of Representatives side is under the control of the Speaker and that the intermediate area of King's Hall is a no man's land in which no problem arises if lack of agreement should exist. But this clause extends to a much vaster area than that occupied by Parliament House the area which will be under their control. There is a significant area of land- I say no more about its significancewhich is subject to this joint control. I wonder what will happen if there is no agreement. I know that I am anticipating what could be a discussion, following what **Senator Murphy** said before, as to the meaning of clause 6. Is there not some risk that there would be a complete vacuum? {: #debate-53-s9 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -I shall deal firstly with **Senator Greenwood's** point. To traverse this point would require, I would think, an argument for perhaps 3 days before the High Court, I think the honourable senator would agree. The Bill was not drafted by myself alone. I had professional assistance. I am content to have it passed and to take the responsibility for it, knowing that it will immediately go before the Government and the best of its advisers. If they differ with it and offer amendments in the light of their advice, we will be able to discuss these questions. I was conscious that a joint control could produce a deadlock, but it is a sad reflection on the outlook of purpose and intellect of the 2 Presiding Officers and the 2 Houses of Parliament as to the administration of parliamentary grounds if, in cases which really require decision, decision is not possible. That clause was also inserted, knowing that King's Hall has been regarded by some- whether individual opinions or authentic opinions, I know not- as no man's land. Yet I sought a parliamentary expression that one Presiding Officer as representing the Parliament or both, if they can agree, should be the custodian of the care and responsibility of the parliamentary grounds. I address myself now to **Senator Milliner's** point. Some people would have liked a much smaller area of Capital Hill built upon. In my second reading speech I said that I took advantage of the advice which the Chairman of the National Capital Development Commission offered with great courtesy in regard to the Bill. He told me that any designer would certainly need to have available to him the whole of the area within the red lines on the map in the Schedule attached to the Bill as proposed to be amended. I suggest that the Committee, with some eye to advocacy and having a purposeful view, should not try to take too much ground if we wish to attract agreement from another place. At a later stage the Schedule can always be amended to include an extension, if necessary. I turn now to what my colleague **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson said. If I understood him fully, I think that the problem which he mentioned arises out of the possibility that we will not get a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- Not necessarily. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -No. The point is that unless we get a resolution of both Houses no building shall be built. That preserves the position which, I think, all the Parliament would want. We want a say about any building which is proposed to be built in the parliamentary grounds or about any additional building. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- Why does parliamentary' come into it? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- Parliamentary buildings, of course, are a very special interest of ours. Above everything else, they would be subject to the embargo on building unless both Houses agreed. There might be objection to the clause elsewhere, as a money House, but we will deal with that if it is put up. Surely the Senate requires to be consulted about any building in the parliamentary grounds or about any additional building which will clutter up the parliamentary zone. I submit that those matters enable us to return to the amendment to clause 8 which seeks to insert the words 'Capital Hill ' after the word 'site '. Amendment agreed to. {: .speaker-K1R} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse: -The question now is: >That the Bill as amended, with the exception of clauses S and 6, be agreed to. {: #debate-53-s10 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I have a certain sympathy for what was said by **Senator Milliner** about distances. It may be that **Senator Wright's** answer is sufficient. At some stage there may need to be some alteration to the red lines on the map in the Schedule to the 'Bill as proposed to be amended'. I conceive that the almost complete circle might have to be extended in order to allow vehicular access under the building or something like that, which would technically be part of the building. Because other changes may need to be made, I would be content to leave that. I am inclined to agree that clause 8 in the Bill as proposed to be amended ' should stand. I see the merit in what was said about clause 4, but I do not see such a great problem about joint control because both the President and the Speaker are subject to the wishes of their Houses. The Houses can direct them. This problem is met in other parts of the world. In the United States the Houses find that they must live together. Many matters require agreement. It is a good thing that they have to come to an agreement. I would think that we could sort out such matters. If it is necessary to alter clause 6, it is perhaps not necessary to include Parliament House in the parliamentary grounds. At this stage I would not be prepared to argue about clause 4. It may need some slight modification. In general, I would tend to agree with the purport of it. I think that perhaps it needs some modification to deal with the House which will be constructed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clause 5. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. The powers, privileges and authorities of the Parliament extend to, and apply within, the Parliamentary grounds. {: #debate-53-s11 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania Senator Murphy was good enough to make some comment to me about clause 5 before the commencement of the Committee stage of the consideration of the Bill. In deference to his view in relation to clause 5, 1 move: >After the word 'within' insert in parenthesis 'but are not restricted to'. The clause would then read: >The powers, privileges and authorities of the Parliament extend to, and apply within (but are not restricted to) the Parliamentary grounds. It was explained that some words should go in there to make it clear that we are not delimiting the powers, privileges and authorities insofar as they may extend in 2 places- outside Parliament House and in the present parliamentary grounds. Accordingly, I have moved that those words be inserted. {: #debate-53-s12 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I think that that amendment would probably meet the point that I was putting after I had discussed this matter with **Senator Wright.** Also, there may be an important drafting matter involved as to whether one should also say 'and of each House'. But I would not press that at this stage. For myself, I would like to give some consideration to this because of the enormous importance of these clauses. In my estimation, these clauses are of incalculable importance. I simply indicate that it may have been wiser for us to express what is intended to be arrived at. It may be necessary even to say: 'The powers, privileges and authorities of the Parliament and of each house.' One would think that such a statement would carry with it the Committees of the Parliament, although I think that the constitutional clause refers to committees. The main point that I raised earlier was that **Senator Wright's** amendment should not have a limitation to the parliamentary grounds. I suggest that some thought ought to be given to the other matter that I raised because it is within the spirit of what is sought by **Senator Wright. Mr Chairman,** are we dealing with clause 6 at the same time? {: #debate-53-s13 .speaker-K1R} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse: **-No. Senator Wright** raised the question in relation to clause 5 only at the outset. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -I ask **Senator Wright** to consider what I have said. I did not raise the matter concerning each House with him because it did not occur to me until a few moments ago. This is what troubles me. All I can say is that we are all trying to achieve a result. I am quite troubled that irrespective of the assistance that has been given there may be some matters which occur to others. I think that it is fair that the Senate ought to be given all the assistance it can be given to make sure that we do not do something that we regret. This is a sphere in which as a House of Parliament we must be very cautious in our dealings. Once such a Bill is passed and becomes an Act it will be construed in the way that it reads and it will not be a matter of what we thought we were doing here. For example, suppose that someone said: 'Here is what the Parliament has said. It has used the expression 'of the Parliament'. There is no reference there to the privileges pertaining to each House of the Parliament as distinct from those of the Parliament as a whole or of committees of the Parliament. Does not that mean that an argument could be advanced that the Parliament deliberately said that the privileges were not extended there? There is no suggestion about privileges attaching to committees extending outside those grounds'. Such an argument may be rejected, but one could imagine it being advanced and being upheld. That troubles me. I suggest again to **Senator Wright** that the opportunity should be given for some further consideration of clauses 5 and 6 in order to get them into a form which we could all accept without any reservation and without having any objection to the clauses. I would ask the honourable senator to agree that we report progress in order that some consideration may be given to the form of these clauses for a few days at least. {: #debate-53-s14 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- Speaking for myself, I would think that the words: 'The powers, privileges and authorities of the Parliament' would certainly include the authorities of either House of Parliament and would certainly include the authorities of any committees of the Parliament. Each House is a part of Parliament and the authorities of any parliamentary committees are derivative from Parliament. **Mr Chairman,** you will notice that the clause does not pretend to define them. It says: >The powers, privileges and authorities of the Parliament extend to and apply within (but are not restricted to) the Parliamentary grounds. I do not know how we could be more explicit than that. I say that I am not advocating my own language. I am advocating language that has been prepared professionally for me. I do not think that any alteration was made, but there it is. I cannot see the substance in the objection. Furthermore, what happens if the Senate does accept that clause as printed? It goes, along with the Bill, to the other House. The other House immediately asks the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** for his advice. Surely that provides the opportunity for the other House, where the Attorney-General's view is assured of prevailing on a matter of constitutional law to bring before us such modifications when the Bill is returned to the Senate. Having put those considerations before the Parliament, I state that I want the Senate to appear to be contributing something positively without delay to the solution of this deadlock in regard to the siting of the new Parliament House. If there is any expression of opinion other than the wish expressed by, **Senator Murphy** for further time, I will not resist it. But I suggest that it is much more in keeping with our purpose and our self-respect to accept clause S with all the assurance that the powers, privileges and authorities of the Parliament are not to extend simply to this edifice or the new edifice but are to extend to the boundaries of the Parliamentary grounds but are not to be restricted to them in deference to **Senator Murphy's** view. I would think that that is a reasonable proposition that honourable senators should accept. {: #debate-53-s15 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneralMinister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I am approaching this matter in the most constructive fashion that I can. I am not seeking to cause any difficulties for **Senator Wright.** I am trying to help the Senate. Some of what I have said has come to my mind only in the course of this afternoon. It troubles me. To explain what I mean I shall read section 49 of the Constitution which states: >The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. I do not know why in this Bill there has been a shift in the language from 'powers, privileges and immunities' to 'powers, privileges and authorities' and a restriction of the Parliament, when the general and extremely important provision on which the whole operation, a few trifles apart, of this Parliament depends is these words in section 49 of the Constitution: >The powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House . . . **Senator Wright** says that it does not matter; that we do not have to refer to the members and we do not have to refer to the committees. I am not at all sure that someone at some stage will not measure this Bill against that section of the Constitution and say that there was a deliberate departure and a leaving out of the privileges of the members and the committees, particularly in the area outside of those grounds. I simply say that this is a matter which should call for caution. It may well be that in a few days something can be done to put both clauses 5 and 6 into a form in which everyone will be satisfied with them. But I am not satisfied. Frankly, as I start to consider the matter, I am simply not satisfied that the Bill is in the form in which it ought to be. As to clause 6, 1 am not merely not satisfied, I am quite disturbed at the reach of that clause. I am disturbed that we may be doing something which we will very seriously regret. In view of the enormous importance, I suggest again that it should be given some little time for consideration. If this matter is treated as a nonparty measure and it goes elsewhere, there is no certainty at all that what is in this clause might get through the House of Representatives and become law. We will not know what we have done, and at some stage we may discover to our very great regret what we have done. I think it is very dangerous to proceed. I feel that this matter should be considered, say, next Thursday, and I should like to move that the Committee report progress. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: **- Senator Wright** is prepared to move that. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -Out of deference to **Senator Wright,** I invite him to move that the Committee report progress and ask for leave to sit again. {: #debate-53-s16 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I was listening to the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** with patience, and I accept the suggestion that we report progress and ask for leave to sit again. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2087 {:#debate-54} ### STUDENT ASSISTANCE BILL 1973 In Committee Consideration resumed (vide page 2078) {: #debate-54-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Prior to this debate being interrupted, **Senator Wright** had asked me about the definition of 'permanent resident of Australia' and I had provided him with the information. He then sought some further information about the proposed regulations. I am advised that since the Scholarships Act of 1969 was drafted there has been a dramatic change in the provision of student assistance, especially during the last 2 years. In the case of secondary students the Commonwealth secondary scholarships scheme, for which selection was made entirely on merit- that is, partly on examination and partly by school assessment- gave way in 1973 to the Commonwealth senior secondary scholarships scheme under which selection is initially on merit- that is, partly on examination and partly by school assessment- and some of the benefits are made available on a means test. This scheme is the scheme referred to in the Bill as the senior secondary scholarships scheme. In the case of tertiary students, the Scholarships Act of 1969 made provision for Commonwealth university scholarships, Commonwealth advanced education scholarships and Commonwealth technical scholarships. In 1974 these will be replaced by tertiary education assistance which is referred to in preliminary publicity as tertiary allowances. The old schemes were competitive and living allowance was means tested. The new scheme is not competitive and makes a means-tested living allowance more fully available to students. In the case of post-graduate students, the existing post-graduate schemes provide awards at universities only. In 1974 a new scheme will be introduced providing awards tenable at colleges of advanced education. All these changes mean that the regulations drafted under the Scholarships Act have to be amended in the light of these developments in order to make them applicable to the schemes covered by the Student Assistance Act. In addition, I am advised that there was no provision under the Scholarships Act of 1969 for student assistance review tribunals or their equivalent and that regulations will have to be drafted from the beginning to cover the tribunals. **Senator Little** sought some information about a figure I had mentioned. I said that about 80 per cent of university admissions came from middle and upper income brackets. I said, speaking from recollection, that certain financial figures had been obtained. I have not been able, in the time available, to obtain them; but I point out that in 1972, whilst some 40 per cent of all scholars under the Commonwealth universities scholarship scheme were receiving some payment of living allowance, only 5.6 per cent were receiving the full living at home allowance and only 5.4 per cent were receiving the full living away from home allowance. The full allowance was payable where the adjusted family income did not exceed $4,200 per annum. A study conducted in 1970, I think it was, set out the types of parental occupation of the students at a Melbourne university. The document is headed 'Education in Australia for Personal and National Development'. I seek leave to have table 4 of that study- setting out the categories of professional, administrative, clerical workers, sales workers, farmers, miners, etc.- incorporated in Hansard. {: #debate-54-s1 .speaker-K1R} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -So far as I can recall, I think I have answered the points that were made by honourable senators. {: #debate-54-s2 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I wish to indicate to the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** that I shall content myself with this last intervention. I trust that his patience is not being unduly tried. But I am mystified more than ever by some of the things that he has just stated to us. The Minister in discussing the change from the Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship to the Commonwealth Senior Secondary Scholarship implied- at least I thought he did- that there were fundamental changes in the system. That just shows the difficulty that the Parliament has in dealing with the bare bones of the skeleton of an Act without the regulations being before us. To previous questions the Minister said that under clause 8 the Senior Secondary Scholarship shall consist of certain things- a basic allowance and then a living allowance. He then said that the eligibility for that scholarship would be, firstly, a merit examination either by school examination or by school assessment. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- By both. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- By either? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- By both. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- Thank you. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- You are talking about the secondary scholarship? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I said partly by examination and partly by school assessment. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -Thank you. The Minister said that the second requirement for eligibility related to the needs of the scholar and that this would be governed by a means test. The third element was an age limit of 1 8 years. We are considering here tertiary education assistance- it is not a scholarship- which is conditioned not by any merit qualification nor any age limit but only by needs as measured by a means test. I now come to the question of the payment of any fees. I ask the Minister what fees have been paid in the new millenium of tertiary education since 2 December last and what fees will be paid after 1 January next? We are then told that the payment shall consist of living allowance, an allowance called an incidentals allowance and then a fares allowance. Will the Minister indicate to me the justification for absolving tertiary education assistance of any requirement as to merit or age and then tell me whether I am correct in understanding that this assistance is to be distinguished from a scholarship by there being no basic allowance, and that tertiary education assistance consists simply of a living allowance which, of course, in the case of a 40-year-old who has a family of four may be a very considerable sum. I would like an indication of what the range of that living allowance might be. Also, can the Minister tell me whether I am correct in understanding that this tertiary education assistance consists of a living allowance, an incidentals allowance and a fares allowance only? {: #debate-54-s3 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP **- Senator Wright** has asked a large number of questions and I do not know whether I am in a position to provide him with answers to all of them. I merely mention again the fact that a publication called 'Tertiary Allowances Scheme 1974' to which I have already made reference is available. I have suggested a copy be made available to the honourable senator. I think that if the honourable senator reads that publication he will find most of the answers to his questions . in it. The honourable senator raised the question of tertiary assistance and I assume that the honourable senator was referring to clause 10 which relates to the establishment of the new scheme of tertiary education assistance. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- More particularly to clause 11. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The honourable senator was talking of full-time and part-time students. Part III of the Bill deals with tertiary education assistance. Clause 10 is the first clause in this section and it states: >An authorised person may, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, approve the grant of Tertiary Education Assistance to a person who is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia and is undertaking, or proposes to undertake, at a tertiary education institution a course of study or instruction approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section. What I have said- and I say it again- is that most of this information as I see it has been set out in the publication which I will have made available to the honourable senator. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Will you allow me to beg your pardon? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -By all means. You can beg my pardon. But whether you will get it or not I cannot say. Beg my pardon. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I have interrupted the Minister to say that this is not the ordinary way in which the Parliament acts. It does not get information from pamphlets as to the content of a statute. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -Has the honourable senator finished his remarks? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Yes. I beg your pardon again. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -Thank you. I shall now continue with my remarks. I was saying that the publication entitled 'Tertiary Allowances Scheme 1 974' contains information for applicants. In addition- I was about to add before **Senator Wright** interjected- the scheme replaces the Commonwealth Universities Scholarships, the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme and the Commonwealth Technical Scholarship Scheme. The courses approved under the new scheme will include the same range and type of courses formerly approved under the previous 3 schemesthat is, university and advanced education bachelor degree courses, post graduate diplomas, advanced education diplomas, technical college certificates, pre-apprenticeship and preemployment courses and secretarial courses at , technical colleges. The list contained in the publication is not exhaustive. Assistance will continue to be provided each year to students who meet the rules of progress for their courses. Where illness or other extenuating circumstances may have affected students' performances provision will be available for the payment of repeat benefits. Students may receive assistance to complete more than one course in order to gain specialised qualifications at a particular level, for example, Arts followed by a Diploma of Education or upgrade qualifications or a course at a technical college followed by an Engineering degree at a university. Except in the case of approved combined courses a student may not receive assistance for the same year of courses of similar standing, but would be eligible for assistance in the later years of a longer second course, for example, a Medicine degree following a 3-year Arts degree eligible in the fourth year of a medical course. The honourable senator also made reference to clause 1 1. 1 wish to inform him that benefits to a part-time student are limited to the payment of fees, if any. It is understood that few students will be involved since the great majority of approved part-time courses will come under the general arrangements for financing tertiary education and no fees will be payable. Full time students may, subject to a means test, qualify for a living allowance at a maximum rate of $850 per annum if they are living at home or $1,400 if they are living away from home or where they have been granted independent status. In addition the student who qualifies for a living allowance will be entitled to an incidentals allowance to assist in meeting costs of fees, such as students representative council fees and union and sporting fees. The allowance may also help with the purchase of books and equipment. The amount of the incidentals allowance varies according to the institution attended; for example, it is $100 at universities, $70 at colleges of advanced education or teachers colleges and the like and $30 at technical colleges. Students who qualify for a living allowance may also receive a dependant's allowance and the cost of 3 return trips per annum between their homes and the institution if they live away from home. **Senator Wright** has said that it is unusual that a parliament should be dealing with matters of this nature without the regulations. Perhaps what he says in that regard has some merit. All I can say is that the Scholarships Act 1 969 which was brought into existence by the previous Government has not been proclaimed as at this date and that the date of the draft regulations to which I alluded earlier and which were incorporated in Hansard was 30 January 1973, which is shortly after this Government came into office. Realising that there would be changes, and there have been changes, in the types of assistance and benefits made available to students, the draft regulations that were being worked on for the best part of 3.5 years have now been used as the foundation for the new regulations which are embodied in this legislation. Parliamentary counsel are working on them and with their cooperation and that of the Department of Education it is believed that the regulations will be ready before the end of January. {: #debate-54-s4 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -The only observation I make is that the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** is able to state that the tertiary education living allowance is, in the case of students living at home, limited to $850 and, for students living away from home, to $1,400. That is departmental edict. It shows the stupidity of Parliament for passing legislation still to be proclaimed and waiting on the people in the offices to provide regulations. It is completely idle to discuss parliamentary control either in the form of fixed appropriations or in the form of provisions of this sort unless we are going to insist that what we enact is on the basis of fact and that at the time we enact we know what we are doing. Yet here we are giving carte blanche for the Ministry to proclaim an Act at any time and for the Department to introduce regulations which we are cheerfully told are expected to be ready by 30 January when the people who are to get the advantages have to make their arrangements and go into their institutions with or without their scholarships and make their decisions before 3 1 January. I do not know when we will alert ourselves to the requirements of a decent sense of equity in respect of the taxpayer whose money we are giving away in this way according to departmental edict or when we will make provision for scholarships properly secured by law. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-54-0} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Douglas** McClelland) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2091 {:#debate-55} ### PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-55-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 30 August (vide page 350), on motion by **Senator Willesee:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Poke)-** Is it the wish of the Senate that that course be followed? There being no objection it is so ordered. {: #subdebate-55-0-s0 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- By agreement between the Opposition and the Government the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 1973 for the purpose of debate is joined with the Export Incentive Grants Bill 1973. 1 say first of all that the order of these Bills on the notice paper would have been better had the Export Incentive Grants Bill come first. It is the principal Bill and the other Bill tends to be dependent on it and associated with it in a degree of minority and not majority. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill, the one that appears first on the notice paper, makes adjustments to the payroll tax system applicable to gold producers.' The Export Incentive Grants Bill, which has just been introduced, will be dealt with later. Specifically the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill relates to payroll tax on gold producers and enables producers of gold to receive export certificates to cover their production for the financial years 1968-69 to 1970-71. The complication in all this is that we are not really told what are the consequential changes that came out of the Caucus determination on the gold situation in general, but that is of less significance at the moment until it is made clearer to us than the Export Incentive Grants Bill to which the Pay-roll Assessment Bill is joined for the purpose of the debate. The Opposition's view was that the export Incentive Grants Bill had a certain amount of merit and was one which could be looked at seriously and, we hoped, could be disposed of today. But unfortunately, not so long ago we had handed to us a series of amendments to this Bill which are I believe of quite some significance to Australian primary industry. Adverting to the amendment circulated and to be moved by the Government, not by the Opposition, paragraph 2 of the introductory note to the amendments to be moved by the Government states: >The purpose of these notes is to explain the amendments that are now proposed. These will include in the Bill provisions designed to exclude fresh, chilled or frozen meat from the scope of the export incentive grants scheme as from 1 October 1973. This is a matter of quite serious consequence to the entire meat production industry of Australia. When I think of the implications of this, the short amount of time allowed to consider it and to dispose of it, and added to that the very detailed introductory notes to these 2 Bills when they were introduced, it seems to me that the Opposition and the Senate are entitled to have some time to think about the amendments brought forward at this very late stage. Accordingly I think it is fair for me to ask for leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2091 {:#debate-56} ### SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL (No. 2) {:#subdebate-56-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 November (vide page 1674), on motion by **Senator Cavanagh:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-56-0-s0 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia -- The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill (No. 2) gives effect to the proposal announced in the Budget to abolish the exemption from sales tax which is applicable to nonalcoholic carbonated beverages which contain not less than 5 per cent by volume of Australian fruit juice or its equivalent in concentrated form. It is a Bill of very great moment and concern to the horticultural industries throughout Australia. This measure is detrimental to the interests of rural industry. It is a direct outcome of the recommendations of the task force set up to review the continuing expenditure policies of the previous Government. I note that in the report of the task force the nature of the expenditure is referred to as follows: >A 'disguised' expenditure directed towards assistance of Australian fruit-growers through an exemption from the general rate of sales tax. In its comment the task force stated: >There is little doubt that withdrawal of the exemption would have a marked effect on the incomes of apple growers, especially in the face of current adverse market conditions for Australian apples in the Common Market countries. The effect on citrus growers is difficult to measure but it is likely that there would be some falling off in the demand for citrus juice. It is the reference to the adverse effect which gives concern to members of my Party. At this time of the evening I shall not speak for any longer than is necessary to indicate our attitudes in respect of this matter but I give notice now that I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The motion I intend to move is as follows: >Leave out all words after ' That ', insert- the Bill be deferred until the Government reports to the Senate on the action it proposes to take on: > >currency revaluation compensation for the sectors of the fruit growing industry affected by the withdrawal of the exemption; > >compensation for unsaleable fruit juice derivatives on hand and the losses due to assets becoming redundant as a result of the Government's decision; and > >assistance for promotion and research into alternative markets for juices. Fruit growing certainly is the Cinderella of the rural industries. In other sectors we have buoyancy. There is buoyancy in the beef and mutton industries, in the wheat industry and in the wool industry. Fruit growers are the ones who have suffered enormously, particularly from the effects of revaluation. Whilst certain things have been done to assist, they have been palliatives of a degree not at all in accord with the harm and detriment which has been done to fruit growers through the effects of revaluation. There has been only token assistance or compensation given to this industry which is working on extremely fine margins. There is an urgent need for a thorough look at the matter of adequate revaluation compensation for the sections of the fruit growing industry affected by this Bill. As I see it, there was no consultation with the apple, the pear and the citrus industries, or any other fruit industry or associated industries, before this decision was announced to remove the sales tax exemption. None of those bodies were asked to express an opinion on the effect of the withdrawal. I have no doubt that the industry was not researched in the way it should have been researched before an imposition of this type was placed upon an already struggling industry. Protection not direct but indirect, has been given to the citrus industry- this applies to the other fruit growing industries as well- through the sales tax exemption on soft drinks which contain not less than 5 per cent by volume of fruit juices. This has been a means of creating markets for otherwise unsaleable fruit in many instances and it has taken the pressure off the local fresh fruit markets so as to retain a reasonable stability in price for fruit placed on that market. We have duty on imported juice, sugar rebates and sales tax exemption as part of the pattern of assistance. These are some of the indirect forms of assistance which have been built into the industry as a whole and without which it would suffer very greatly indeed. They are part of an orderly marketing system and any alteration to this support pattern in my opinion should not be taken before the whole subject has been thoroughly examined. For the Government to damage overnight the props with which the fruit marketing system has been involved over a long period of time, at no cost to the Government or to the consuming public by way of direct subsidies, indicates a failure to understand fully the widespread effects of such action. As far as families are concerned, this action undoubtedly means a rise in the price of soft drinks. In Australia 50 per cent of citrus production goes into juice in some form or other. It is revealing to note how the amount of fruit from the citrus industry which has gone into juice has increased through the years. In 1966, 4,172 tons of navel oranges, 41,900 tons of valencia oranges, 10,000 tons of lemons and 2,063 tons of grapefruit- a total of more than 58,000 tonswere processed by our juicing factories. Last year- that is 6 years later- the total tonnage was 1 86, 1 09 tons. That is an enormous increase in the outlet for citrus fruit via juices. The valencia orange crop particularly has increased- from 41,900 tons in 1966 to 125,000 tons. The lemon crop has increased from 10,000 tons 6 years ago to 19,374 tons. The grapefruit crop has increased from 2,063 tons to 6,735 tons. They are very big increases. The lemon industry has been assisted by the Government in order to meet an immediate situation. But assistance has not been given to the industry overall. **Senator Wright** proposes to speak on this Bill and he will make reference to its impact on the apple industry which is so vital to the economy of Tasmania. The need for compensation for unsalable fruit juice derivatives on hand and the losses due to assets becoming redundant as a result of the Government's decision- to which I have made reference in my proposed amendment- is an important aspect of this matter. A not very large organisation with a factory in the apple growing area in the Adelaide Hills had on hand $400,000-worth of apple juice- this is Plaimar Ltd at Lobethal- which, because of the proposals contained in this legislation, does not have any use to which it can be put. The encouragement given to aerated water manufacturers to include fruit juice in their products is not present. Because of that, this very direct hurt is being occasioned to the industry. I give just one instance of the stocks on hand. I know that the Berri Fruit Juices Co-op Ltd in South Australia has big stocks of citrus juice for aerated waters in great danger of not being able to be used. Again the effect flows back to the citrus grower and the inability to sell his product which arises from this legislation. I have quoted part of the Coombs Task Force report on this matter. There is another part to which I wish to refer in order to be consistent and to give both sides of the question. It states: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . looked at purely as a form of assistance to apple and citrus growers, the exemption is rather an uneconomic form of subsidy. It points out that the benefit of the $25m reduction in the revenue received by the Government does not go to the grower. It suggests that a small portion of it only would go to the grower. Maybe this is not one of the ideal methods of assisting the industry, but no alternative is offered at the moment. The lethargy which has marked the activities of the Government in relation to giving adequate, fair and reasonable compensation to the industry calls for the retention of this exemption until such time as acceptable alternatives are offered. Thus far they have not been offered. The troubles of the fruit growing industry, be they in the canning section or the fruit juice section, are due largely, as I have said, to revaluation. They are due also to the fine margins on which growers and canning organisations operate when they export their fruit. Their is no tolerance, as it were, to take anything further by way of adversity. Therefore, nothing should be done to the further detriment of the industry; rather should urgent consideration be given to assistance for promotion and research into alternative markets Ibr juices. Assistance should be given by way of currency revaluation compensation in a proper way; compensation should be given to those who have unsalable fruit juices on hand; and assistance should be given in finding alternative avenues for disposal of production. These things could be looked at quickly by the Government. At the point when they are looked at and satisfactorily determined a little justice will have been done to the fruit growers. I move the following amendment: >Leave out all words after 'That', insert- the Bill be deferred until the Government reports to the Senate on the action it proposes to take on: > >currency revaluation compensation for the sectors of the fruit growing industry affected by the withdrawal of the exemption; > >compensation for unsaleable fruit juice derivatives on hand and the losses due to assets becoming redundant as a result of the Government's decision; and > >assistance for promotion and research into alternative markets for juices.' {: #subdebate-56-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is the amendment seconded? {: .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- I formally second the amendment. {: #subdebate-56-0-s2 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE:
Victoria -The Australian Democratic Labor Party proposes to support the amendment. We have read the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill. We all knew it was coming. It was a budgetary measure and, as was explained in the second reading speech of the Special Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs **(Senator Willesee)** who in this chamber represents the Treasurer **(Mr Crean),** it came into effect on 22 August. It was an overnight surprise for an industry which already was suffering quite considerable hardship because of natural circumstances such as an over-wet season and because of an accumulation of other problems which were left over from the revaluation of the Australian dollar and the cheapening of competitive goods from countries such as South Africa on the European market. This was an enormous blow. The Minister in his second reading speech, suggests that there will be alleviation. All the time he mentions only the fruit growing industry. One can only take that to mean that it is only the fruit grower who will be given any consideration at all because of the damage that has been done. Most of these fruit growers have co-operatives for the purpose of marketing and processing their fruits. Most of the extraction of the juice and so on is carried out by fruit growers cooperatives. So it is actually the grower, but not as a participant in the fruit growing section of the industry, who has been particularly affected by this legislation. Ardmona Fruit Products Cooperative Co. Ltd in Victoria has just installed plant worth $lm. Overnight that plant has become redundant because of the removal of this sales tax exemption. On the Minister's second reading speech, the co-operative will be entitled to nothing at all. The amendment makes provision for losses due to assets becoming redundant to be taken into consideration by the Government. I take objection to the manner in which the Minister presented the case. He stated: >The ostensible purpose of the exemption was to enlarge the market for Austraiian fruit but although it has provided further outlets for some varieties of fruit, the additional returns to growers represent only a fraction of the cost of the exemption which has been running at about $2Sm a year. Here we see the peculiar philosophy of the Government: Because sales tax exemption has been granted for a specific purpose the Government assesses the loss of that exemption as though sales tax had been imposed and generously gives it back to the growers. Is there in those figures any allowance for the taxation paid by growers on the extra income that they derived from the fruit that was produced or the profits made by the processing plants which extracted the juices and supplied them to the soft drink makers? A completely false picture is presented to this Parliament to justify a hasty and, in my view, a stupid action to recover $25m in a Budget of such a magnitude, from which so much was handed out and from which we can spend $ 1.5m, by the time all the brokerage is paid, on a silly fool of a painting with which one would not sell any fruit juices if one put it on a railway hoarding as an advertisement for the sale of fruit juices. We can alford to do that. But $2 5 m is an enormous amount to the wives and children of the growers of this country, faced already as they are with the hardships imposed upon them by revaluation of the dollar and with the extra competition from the countries whose fruit can now be admitted more cheaply to the Euopean market. The Commonwealth Government has reduced so much the price of their fruit by comparison with the Australian product as a result of revaluation of the Australian dollar- another accomplishment of the Government which has imposed this upon them. There is little we can talk about on the Bill. It is a Budget Bill and we recognise that. It became operative immediately and has been operative for some time. But we support the amendment which suggests that this Bill should be adjourned to give the Government the opportunity to discuss the common sense of the compensation which it owes to those people. The Government has been prepared to take their taxes. It has encouraged them to expand production to meet this market and then swept it away overnight. No responsible government can take action of that character along with the irresponsibility of some of the other things which this Government has been doing to spend millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. {: #subdebate-56-0-s3 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia -- I rise to support **Senator Laucke** and **Senator Little.** When these Budget proposals were announced the withdrawal of the sales tax exemptions on certain soft drinks brought an immediate and a strong reaction from the growers and from the industry generally. When one considers the length of time for which assistance has been given to the fruit industry under this section of sales tax exemption one can readily understand why that outcry came. We find in looking at the task force report, item 120 at page 309, that the exemption for essences consisting substantially of juices of Australian fruits had been in force since 1932. It was abolished during the war years but reintroduced in 1946, 1 take it by a Labor government. In 1957 the exemption was expanded to cover non-alcoholic carbonated beverages containing 5 per cent or more of Australian fruit juice. The purpose of the concession at that time was to assist the fruit growers and particularly citrus growers. We found immediately that when that expanded exemption was applied the result of the concession was that soft drink manufacturers used apple juice as an ingredient to secure exemption for their products. As **Senator Little** pointed out, a number of these manufacturers were in the co-operative area. But apple juice, I understand, is said to be practically colourless and tasteless so that it cannot readily be detected in soft drinks. We know that from Coca Cola, ginger ale and such drinks. **Senator Laucke** said that this made a tremendous difference to the industry; it assisted the industry because it could use inferior grades of fruit for this purpose, and this made a vast difference to the growers' returns. In my State the Budget came at a time when the extractors of the juices had all their vats filled to the limit. They had purchased their fruit from the growers, had extracted the juice from that fruit and were ready to meet the summer market of the drink manufacturers. Overnight a situation developed which meant that these manufacturers who had paid the growers good money for their fruit were left with this vast quantity of juice on their hands. The Country Party has studied closely the representations made by the industry, particularly by the fruit growers and the cooperatives. We believe that the amendment put forward by **Senator Laucke** deserves our support because we believe that this is the only way we can see the industry getting out of the situation in which it has been placed. One has to look for a reason behind this withdrawal of the concession. I have quoted the task force which was set up by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** of which **Dr Coombs** was Chairman. I find in this the anti-rural hand of the Prime Minister and of the Labor Party in general- in this take-away task force as I call it. **Dr Coombs** was asked- as country people have cause to remember well- to find economic room for the Government's higher priority programs. Frankly, I am amazed to learn that in this instance removal of the exemption was recommended and adopted without any consultation with the citrus industry, the apple industry, the pear industry or any other fruit or associated industry. It was done without any consultation at all. I have warned on many occasions of the dangers of setting up centralised advisory commissions and committees, and here is a classic example of what can happen under such a system: An important industry is to be deprived of assistance without even being asked to express an opinion on the likely effect of this action. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Did you consult the grape growing industry when you put on the wine excise? {: .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -That was one of the most important parts of the LiberalCountry Party platform. The effects are great. **Senator Laucke** has spoken of them, **Senator Little** has spoken of them, and I am deeply concerned about the future of the industry not only in my own State of Western Australia, where it is very serious, but in Tasmania, South Australia and even New South Wales. 1 know well that the fruit industry has had a long and a hard struggle to stabilise returns to growers through its orderly marketing system. There is no doubt in my mind that the action proposed to be taken by the Government indicates its failure to understand the widespread effects of this move. I strongly support the amendment because I believe that it will give the Bill a measure of justice which is certainly sorely lacking at present. For the reasons that I have stated, for the reasons stated by **Senator Laucke** and **Senator Little,** and for the reasons that I know **Senator Wright** will state, the Country Party will support this amendment. {: #subdebate-56-0-s4 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -I wish to speak briefly on this matter. I support most strongly the amendment moved by **Senator Laucke.** I recall that this blow was delivered to the apple industry in the time when it was facing its greatest economic crisis. This was as a result of a decision which came from **Dr Coombs** and his myrmidons on economic considerations. It was made without a whit or a whim of policy and with complete imprudence- almost perversityon the part of a large section of the Labor Party in an effort to destroy the rural industries. This exemption from sales tax provision was introduced so that carbonated cordials could be the vehicle by which assistance could be given to that part of the fresh fruit industry incorporating juices in its production. If 5 per cent of production were incorporated, some exemption from sales tax was given. Over 15 or 20 years all sections of the industry have built up their particular sections based upon a degree of stability in our taxation law. It was during the time of **Mr Falkinder,** when he was the member for Franklin, that this provision was adjusted to the advantage of the apple grower. In a crop of apples there are secondary grades. There are unwanted varieties and unmarketable sizes. These apples are particularly appropriate for juicing. Last year approximately 1,069,000 bushels of the total factory intake were used as juice apples. In addition to that, of course, there were some factory apples which would account for 3,000 or 4,000 bushels. But in the case of the 1 million bushels that went into juicing, the producer received the small pike of only 50c a bushel. It has to be remembered that transport costs are minimal and packaging does not exist. None of the hazards of a 12,000 mile journey to an English market are involved. So for the final I million bushels of apples which are readily and inexpensively available the Tasmanian grower receives as a return $500,000, which constitutes the cream or the final result of his income. It is proposed that this sales tax be removed. This will mean that the cordial industry will buy only a negligible quantity of the fruit for fruit juice. Consequently, all of the second grade and inappropriate varieties and unmarketable sizes will create pressure on the overseas market. Obviously these unwanted varieties will be introduced into the export trade to such a degree as to produce a blemish on the general pattern of the export trade. Those involved in the export trade see that that situation would be responsible for a depression of price on the overseas market, probably of the order of $ 1 a case. The same results would be seen on the domestic market. I believe that the total Australian apple production for juicing varies from 3 million to 4 million bushels. Even if only one quarter of this amount were to come on to the domestic market, the average price of apples would be lowered by 5c to $ 1 a bushel or the equivalent of a loss of $4m to $ 10m for the apple producers. This is in addition to the direct loss of income which is suffered because of the inability to sell fruit for juicing. It is to be seen that this will be a severe blow on an already depressed industry. Added to that is the fact that the Government has carried on vigorously with its grubbing policy- its so-called tree-pull policy. Out of the total amount of $4.6m made available for the tree-pull scheme well over a year ago only $202,327 had been paid to the growers as at 3 1 July this year. One then contemplates what else the Government can do to damage this industry. I have already emphasised that point in a previous speech I made today. The Government has effected 2 devaluations in our currency and created a loss for our apple industry in Tasmania of at least $3m, but it has provided compensation to growers to the extent of an upper limit of $1,500 an orchard. This method of compensation is highly discriminatory and worked out on an ill-considered basis. Of course, it is most unjust to the apple exporter who employs his labour to get his crop abroad. Up to July the Government had paid out only $202,000 in relation to its tree pull scheme. Ninety per cent of the amount provided for compensation to growers following revaluation has been paid out but it has been limited to $1,500 a grower, which represents half compensation. The growers have been receiving only 30c instead of a just 60c a case, and this compensation has been limited to about one-quarter of the crop. Would anybody ever really dream that we could have such obstinate stupidity on the part of a Government determined to bring the industry into an economic phase? Not long ago I was at a meeting at which **Senator Wriedt** almost exuded jealousy when he referred to the stabilisation scheme that the Government of which I was a member brought in 3 years ago. I am proud to claim that I played quite an influential pan in getting it accepted. **Senator Wriedt,** almost with jealousy and resentment, referred to that scheme as probably the most generous primary producing stabilisation scheme operating in Australia, in spite of the fact that I had to submit to all the criticism that it was scarcely worth while. This year it will probably be worth 67c a case for growers who export to unfavourable markets. This Government is so purblind and obstinate that it seeks to withdraw the sales tax exemption which enables these growers to get their nonexportable or second grade varieties into the juice factories to get some return from them. The Government commissioned **Dr Coombs** to scavage the economic corners of the Treasury so it could deny to the fruit industry that assistance in the year of the industry's greatest depression. Today **Senator Cavanagh** took to himself great exaltation of the soul by reading from notes by **Senator Ken** Wriedt of a fortnight ago. **Senator Cavanagh** said: 'For the first time we have made an approach to Japan to get a new market for the apples'. Does he not remember that I had to prod **Senator Ken** Wriedt 3 times before he grudgingly said that he would undertake the negotiations? We have an opportunity to help this industry, which is one of the most wonderful industries in Australia, in this age of regard for the environment, in which **Senator Mulvihill** should rejoice. The apple industry is the loveliest industry which one could find. The opportunity presents itself to establish in Japan a market which would be a tremendous market for this industry. But this Government delivers to the industry blow upon blow- the delay in the grubbing grants, the denial of devaluation compensation and now the withdrawal of the sales tax exemption. The Bill should not be deferred; it should be destroyed. {: #subdebate-56-0-s5 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP -- Today the Opposition seeks to defer consideration of this Bill, but its provisions have been in operation since 22 August. Manufacturers and wholesalers have been collecting and paying tax, and they know the position. They have not presented to honourable senators or to members of the other place the industry's case. The case has not yet been put to the Minister for Primary Industry **(Senator Wriedt).** {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Of course he has received a submission. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -He has not. The information which I have is that he has requested the industry to present a case for assistance, and that case has not yet been put. As far as we are aware, that is the situation today. Neither **Senator Wright** nor members of the Opposition in the other place have been able to say that the industry has put a case. **Senator Wright** made a general submission about the difficulties which have been caused by abolishing the exemption from sales tax. The Opposition wants the Bill deferred in a situation in which the tax is being paid and collected. It would cause confusion. The Opposition, instead of doing something logical by asking the industry to present its case whether its case has been put to the Government and the sort of propositions which it has, is saying that the Minister has to prove to the Opposition that he has taken proper steps to provide assistance for the promotion of and research into alternative markets for juices. Surely that is an obligation, in the first place, on the industry. The producers, the handlers and the manufacturers have the expertise. Surely they ought to be able to put a case to the Government, but apparently we have to suggest to the industry means by which promotion might be more effective. The Government has to provide to the Senate a report on compensation for unsalable fruit juices. I suggest that what the Opposition is putting is unreasonable. If it had presented to the Government the case which had been submitted by the industry and if the Government had rejected the overtures of the industry, there would be some force in the amendment. Consequently, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. These taxes have been paid and collected since 22 August. Some time has lapsed since the introduction of the Bill. If its operation is to be deferred indefinitely, considerable uncertainty could be caused. If the Bill should not become law, those who have collected and paid the sales tax would not be entitled to any refund of the tax unless they made a refund to their customers. If consideration of the Bill is deferred, it is possible that some manufacturers might collect sales tax from their customers and retain it pending clarification. They could not be compelled to pay the tax to the Taxation Office until the Bill becomes law. If any drink manufacturer refrains from collecting tax in the hope that the Bill might not become law, he would have to pay the tax out of his own funds if and when the Bill became law. Although the soft drink manufacturers would no doubt prefer not to have the tax imposed on thenproducts, it is unlikely that they would welcome the uncertainty which this deferment might produce. In the face of the undertakings which have been given by the Government and the Minister and in the face of the information which I have given, which I understand is correct- that **Senator Wriedt** has invited the industry to present a case for assistance and it has not yet been received- it is quite improper to ask the Government to present to the Senate a report which justifies the Government's thoughts about the industry. The industry should put the case. We ought to assist the industry, certainly. In the 3 categories which the Opposition is nominating, obviously the initiative ought to come from the industry. If the industry had put a case and if we had failed to give assistance, the Opposition would have some reason to challenge the Government. The Government does not accept the amendment and will vote against it. Question put: >That the words proposed to be left out **(Senator Laucke's amendment)** be left out. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) AYES: 27 NOES: 19 Majority....... 8 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. >That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question as amended, resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2097 {:#debate-57} ### ADJOURNMENT Death of the Honourable J. J. Dedman {: #debate-57-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #debate-57-s1 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP -- I want to inform the Senate that I have received a message from the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** to announce that the honourable J. J. Dedman died today and to give the details to honourable senators. The tentative arrangements are for a State funeral to be held at 11 a.m. on Monday. This will be confirmed by 10 o'clock in the morning. **Mr Dedman** is survived by his wife who is at present in hospital, one son and a daughter, **Mrs Rogers.** I thought that the Senate might like to know how far the Prime Minister's Department has gone with the arrangements. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.4 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2098 {:#debate-58} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-58-0} #### Child Welfare: Case of Nola Garanamba (Question No. 468) {: #subdebate-58-0-s0 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether Miss Nola Garanamba 's natural father did, in fact, see his daughter in Darwin; if so, did a Government Department pay his expenses from Maningrida to Darwin for the purpose of collecting his daughter. 1. Was a Government Department, or officer, responsible for the air ticket necessary to return Miss Garanamba to Maningrida. {: #subdebate-58-0-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Nola Garanamba saw her father in Darwin on September 8, the day she left Darwin. It is not known whether she had had other meetings with him prior to that date. She had met her brother on previous occasions. My Department paid **Mr Garanamba** 's fare to Darwin so that he could seek legal advice in relation to Nola's custody, as he had for some time been expressing a strong desire that Nola be returned to the custody of her natural parents. 1. A Government Department was not responsible for the air ticket for Nola's return to Maningrida. By the statement of the President of the Northern Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, **Mr Bill** Ryan, he was responsible for arranging the charter from Legal Service funds. My predecessor, **Mr Bryant,** expressed the view that this was an improper use of funds and I understand that the Council of the Aboriginal Legal Service is investigating the matter. {:#subdebate-58-1} #### Royal Australian Air Force Officers: Resignations (Question No. 414) {: #subdebate-58-1-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many resignations were received from Royal Australian Air Force officers, by rank, in each week of this year up to 3 1 August. 1. How many resignations have been accepted. {: #subdebate-58-1-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) Figures for Air Force officers resignations are not available on a weekly basis as they are compiled monthly. Air Force officer resignations, by rank for each month of this year up to 3 1 August 1 973 were: {:#subdebate-58-2} #### Naval Officers: Resignations (Question No. 413) {: #subdebate-58-2-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many resignations were received from Royal Australian Navy officers, by rank, in each week of this year up to 3 1 August. 1. 2 ) How many resignations have been accepted. 2. 1 ) and ( 2 ) Figures for Navy officer resignations are not available on a weekly basis as they are compiled on a monthly basis. Navy officer resignations, by rank, for each month of this year up to 3 1 August 1 973 were: {:#subdebate-58-3} #### Army Officers: Resignations (Question No. 412) {: #subdebate-58-3-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many resignations were received from Army officers, by rank, in each week of this year up to 3 1 August. 1. How many resignations have been accepted. 2. Of the resignations accepted, what proportion were from (a) Royal Military College graduates (b) Officer Cadet School graduates, and (c) others. {: #subdebate-58-3-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) and (2) Figures for Army officer resignations are not available on a weekly basis being compiled on a monthly basis. Army officer resignations submitted and accepted by rank, for each month of this year up to 3 1 August 1973 were: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 3 ) Of the resignations accepted approximately: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. ) 1 3 per cent were from Royal Military College graduates; 1. b) 1 6 per cent were from Officer Cadet School graduates; 2. 1 7 per cent were from others.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 November 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19731122_senate_28_s58/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant